Unofficial Rulebook Discussion #1 (July 31 - Aug 3) -- White Hand Sieger

[Tbiesty]

This discussion and ruling is part of the series of discussions and rulings for an "Unofficial Rulebook" as described here.

This discussion will be open from July 31, 2010 - Aug 3, 2010.
The outcome of this discussion and ruling will be added to the "Unofficial Rulebook".
(I think this one is very obvious; that is why this one is being done before Aug 20, 2010.  However, let's still give a chance for everyone to give their opinions.)

Discussion #1:

The wording of the game text of White Hand Sieger is not very clear.
Which of the following do you think makes the actual ability of the card more clear?  

Option 1:
"To play, spot an minion and a site you control."

Option 2:
"To play, spot an minion and you must take control of a site."

[Elrohir]

option 1 is the correct meaning due to obvious reasons.

[ket_the_jet]

Option one is correct. But I am in a small group of people who thinks that cards with this sort of wording should just be X-ed, not errata'ed. Half the problem with Galadriel, Lady of Light is "what is play an elf for free?"
-wtk

[Elessar's Socks]

Option 1... although I'm the only one I know of that's gotten taken in by this.

I'd classify this as a clarification.

[stimpy]

Option 1

[TheHobbit13]

Option one is correct. But I am in a small group of people who thinks that cards with this sort of wording should just be X-ed, not errata'ed. Half the problem with Galadriel, Lady of Light is "what is play an elf for free?"
-wtk

I always thought, 'play an elf for free' allowed you to go and steal another players elf from their collection, and when they try to charge you for it you show them Galadriel and claim that the elf was free.

Also in certain parts of the US, where they really hate elves, I have heard that for each elf you play you have to pay a tarriff to the playgroup manager. Galadriel, Lady of Light is one way to get around the elf-tax.

[chompers]

I like option one the best.

Tbiesty .... How will you enter this in the rulebook because its not a rule change .. it seems to be an errata. Will it be added in individual rulings for cards at the end of the rulebook? If so why the need for a rule change for WitD if we go that way.

No need to answer these questions and take this thread off topic ...

[MR. Lurtzy]

Tbiesty .... How will you enter this in the rulebook because its not a rule change .. it seems to be an errata. Will it be added in individual rulings for cards at the end of the rulebook?

It's not an errata, but rather a clarification.

Errata means you are changing the text of the card, clarifications are simply trying to help you understand the current text.

[Tbiesty]

Option 1 it is.

The "Unofficial Rulebook" has now been updated with this clarification.  Thanks.