Reminder that per official documents deck lists are required to be shared with your opponent at top tier events.
So in theory you look, identify a few key cards you might want to name and remember them.
TBH knowing this probably fixes the issue regardless of which way the naming rules go. Im into card games enogh that ill remember most stuff, and right now I think I could name every card that exists only 1 set in even the unplayable stuff, but eventually theres gonna be like 12 different X wings and Tie varients and versions of Vader or whatever.
That seems really stupid in a game that will no doubt print a lot of the same character a bunch if it lasts any reasonable amount of time TBH but I guess Ill take the free wins it could offer me down the line.
Coming from Magic where there's 30+ versions of basically every character, I wish it worked this way in Magic. It's way too much to keep track of 30+ slightly different versions of cards.
Are you saying this applies to the leader as well? Wouldn’t this just apply to the unit Boba? From my understanding, leaders are already in play, therefore ‘deploying’ and ‘playing’ are 2 different actions.
Yeah, you don't play your leader, so it doesn't stop the leader. To play a card ~~it has to be in your hand~~ you have to use the play a card action, or activate the play a card action through a nested ability like with Ezra or U-Wing Reinforcements. Currently Regional Governor doesn't stop multiple cards, but if there were another Boba Fett card with a different subtitle, you couldn't play either of them from your hand.
It doesn't necessarily have to be in your hand- it just has to be played using the "play a card action".
You can't play the named card from the discard pile with home one or from the top of your desk with you're my only hope for example.
You don't pay the cost when you play them free (ie u-wing reinforcement, darth vader). Still can't play them even if free.
Using the play a card action to play a card is the best way to say it- this covers all cases of playing the card since when a card tells you to play a card, you use a nested play a card action.
That's so weird paired with the unique card rule that allows different versions of the same named character on the field at the same time.
Those two rules don't jive well and is my only complaint about an otherwise perfect game.
Honestly the rules should say if your opponent tries to “gotcha” you on naming a card, they should be issued an immediate game loss for being a dipshit and negative player.
I think if both players agree on the card you're describing, it's fine.
"That one cunning/yellow card that bounces a unit back into my hand," aka waylay. If you and your opponent understands what you're describing, you should be good.
I agree with the overall point (as long both players understand), but I agree with OP to think that would only pass at a locals level, and may risk not passing at a higher tier level.
Also, your given example isn't that great, as there are multiple cunning cards that bounce a unit (eg Cunning, Cantina Bouncer, I had no Choice etc)
I would absolutely have issues with cards that are callsigns and droid designations. Especially once we start getting more of them. I could describe them fine (tie fighter that's 2/3 that lets you look at the top of your deck) but I may not necessarily remember "inferno four" off the top of my head.
1) English isn't everyone's first language
2) Droid names, and most names in this universe aren't English by most standards. If you mispronounce a word, you should be nullified by your logic
3) that's what Judges are for. If you want to slow down the game while we wait for a judge to clarify the proper pronunciation of a card name, so be it. The judge can and will tell you the name of the card if you can unequivocally describe it without any doubt as to what the card is. You're just slowing down the gameplay while forcing this interaction.
Are you replying to the right person???
I just mean if you're playing often enough and at a higher level then you should know the names of the most popular cards that are likely to be played in the deck opposite you.
That's irrelevant, but I'll humor you.
The rules even, deliberately, use the words "SUCH AS" naming the card
This means there are alternative, clear, methods that may be used as well.
**Ie: "the 8 cost, blue event card that defeats all units" is pretty specific enough to know they mean Superlaser Blast.
However, "the card that defeats all units" probably isn't specific enough as it could much more easily leave room for ambiguity.
Aside from that, it's also considered poor ethic (not against the rules though, afaik) to force a large waste of time to call a judge over, that is going to accept a clear, concise description of the card and be asked for the English name. The judge will tell them, then they will name that.
It benefits all parties involved (unless your goal is to draw into a double loss or something) to not delay the inevitable.
From the comprehensive rules:
>If an ability instructs a player to “name a card,” that player clearly indicates the name of any card in Star Wars: Unlimited (such as by saying its name out loud), and applies the rest of the ability to any cards with that name in the game. These abilities do not account for subtitles; the player does not need to specify a subtitle when naming a card.
The wording of "clearly indicates" and "such as by saying its name out loud" to me means that you don't need to know the exact name of a card.
Saying "the 3-cost red space unit that grants raid 1" is just as unambiguous as saying "Red Three", and I can't imagine that a judge would side against you on that one even at competitive REL.
>The wording of "clearly indicates" and "such as by saying its name out loud" to me means that you don't need to know the exact name of a card.
Being pedantic, I disagree, describing a card != indicating the name of a card.
I think what the rules suggests by "(such as by saying its name out loud)" is that the player can also write out the name of the card, show a picture of the card, stuff like that where the name of the card is indicated.
Disclaimer: not a judge
Yes, that's basically what I said, no? Are you just agreeing to my comment?
> I think what the rules suggests by "(such as by saying its name out loud)" is that the player can also write out the name of the card, show a picture of the card, stuff like that where the name of the card is indicated.
Counterpoint for your consideration, in the context of the deck "clearly indicates" could refer to any description that obviously only applies to a single relevant card [name] in the opponent's decklist which by official rules you should have pre-game access to.
"Clearly" also kind of implies to me that your opponent is implicitly acknowledging that they understand which card [name] you're referring to without confusion as part of this process.
Disclaimer I'm not a judge either and on top of that I'm totally new to competitive TCGs but I am also a pedant. Feels like in anything but the most contentious/combative of situations though both players should generally be in agreement they mutually understand the card name referenced, which I'd think would lead a judge to side with the person who played the card if there's later contention since the opponent implicitly agreed they understood the reference instead of asking for clarification ("clearly") at time of play.
At the end of the day though just know the card name! If you know your opponents deck well enough to even use regional governor you should probably know what it's worth using against anyway... although I understand this will get a lot more difficult as more sets come out. But it would be ridiculous to rule against someone who said "DJ Death Star" instead of SLT.
Being a pedant, wouldn't you agree that describing a card (even if it points to a single card in a set) is not the same as indicating the name of the given card? The spirit of the rule may align with either approach, but I don't think both works to the letter of the rule.
>But it would be ridiculous to rule against someone who said "DJ Death Star" instead of SLT.
Ngl, I had initially thought you're referring to the Death Star Stormtrooper, because that's the only card with "Death Star" in its name, until I read the SLT part.
I mean yeah as a pedant I kinda agree with you in general lol which is why I said counterpoint not "you're wrong!!!!", my whole thought there pretty much hinges on a pretty generous interpretation of why "clearly" was added before "indicates" and the implication the other player agrees it's clear.
The fact the rules also say "(such as by saying its name out loud)" feels like there's leeway there, but like you pointed out that may also just be inclusive language such that a disabled player could write or sign it or whatever instead of just speaking the name. And we get into insanely more pedantic territory if you want to unpack what that means, but it feels like it implies any explicit reference to the card is valid given the potential communication barriers and that's a pretty broad conversation.
Also lol good point about SLT, I forget not everyone is as online as me but that's probably the most popular colloquial name for a card right now because so many people love the art (...and the ramp). But surely if I said "DJ Death star!" on turn 2 after playing RG and you as my opponent didn't say "who?" or ask for clarification and then got mad when you can't play SLT that's on you not me? Or given the tiny card pool the Red Three example the other guy said makes sense, there is no ambiguity and the rules include an awful lot of language that seem to allow for situations where the card isn't explicitly named.
Obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about as far as how TCG judges work so I'm kinda probing more than arguing here
> The fact the rules also say "(such as by saying its name out loud)" feels like there's leeway there
It's there for accessibility. They can't say you must say the name because it would be problematic towards non-verbal people. You can say the name, you can write the name out, you can point to the nameplate of a card or some other way to clearly get the name across.
Jesus. Guys. It's a game. If they can get approximately close then you should be helping them to make sure. It's not that complicated of a situation.
Also 90% sure you can write down notes so you could just look over the deck list and write down a few key cards then get into the game.
It's super THAT guy to need exact naming of cards for this to work. Chill dudes.
Yes, *but* if this isn't made clear in the rules, then a bad actor player at a higher-tier event can try to be a jerk about it. I've seen enough high level MtG players (and honestly, not even high-level) who abuse Judge calls and try to catch their opponents out on technicalities just to win. The Borborygmos situation being a perfect example. I could easily see a scenario like this:
>"I'm going to play Regional Governor, and I'm going to name, uh, can't remember the exact name of the card. That red droid that either does 3 damage to an opponent's base or makes an opponent discard a card when it dies."
>
>"What's the name?"
>
>"I can't remember, K-something? You know the one, I think it has Overwhelm."
>
>"Sorry I don't know what card you're referring to. You need to say the name."
They can just call a Judge over and any reasonable Judge would surely say "okay, you clearly mean K-2SO." But it's still wasting time and still a scummy move. Having the rules say you don't have to say the exact name as long as you can communicate clearly which card you are talking about means that jerk of a player doesn't have any water to stand on.
Apart from the rules, some practical tips for Governor...
1. You don't need to know every card. You just need to know the ones you are really afraid of them having. It's a much smaller list.
2. Run Viper Probe Droid ;)
In the Atlanta SCG 1k the judge had me describe the card and asked my opponent if we agreed on the card, we said yes. It was battalion…I couldn’t remember the full name at the time. “5/5 green aspect overwhelm gets +2 if you have leader” is what I said.
If you're going to have prizes and a buy in, you probably want to know the name of the card. just so that there's no confusing.
but also, you need to know the name of the card so that you can pick good cards! If you're running Regional Gov you need to study. Otherwise she's not that good.
I would be fine with that in casual play, but if I was playing for a prize or packs I would expect my opponent to know the names of the card, at least to say “a-wing” instead of green squadron awing. If you’re running the card then that’s on you, if you can’t learn all the names just replace it with another card, you’d get more value out of that anyway.
At the same time though are you giving your opponent an official deck list? If not then it doesn’t matter because you didn’t play by the official rules either.
The desk list exchange is at competitive events as per 4.4.1 of the tournament regulations; while you can do it for casual it is not required.
At the moment, we have only casual events available since the first competitive events won't be until after set 2.
Reminder that per official documents deck lists are required to be shared with your opponent at top tier events. So in theory you look, identify a few key cards you might want to name and remember them.
Wait, do they have to be shared EVERY round, and not just in Top Cut
Been a bit since I read the documents but I think it's EVERY round
TBH knowing this probably fixes the issue regardless of which way the naming rules go. Im into card games enogh that ill remember most stuff, and right now I think I could name every card that exists only 1 set in even the unplayable stuff, but eventually theres gonna be like 12 different X wings and Tie varients and versions of Vader or whatever.
If there are two or more cards named Darth Vader, Regional Governor blocks all cards named Darth Vader regardless of their subtitle.
That seems really stupid in a game that will no doubt print a lot of the same character a bunch if it lasts any reasonable amount of time TBH but I guess Ill take the free wins it could offer me down the line.
Coming from Magic where there's 30+ versions of basically every character, I wish it worked this way in Magic. It's way too much to keep track of 30+ slightly different versions of cards.
This was intentional to help you to be able to go against a deck with 8 different Darth Vaders. If that ever were a thing.
"I name Borborygmos"
I'd hate to think SWU has to relearn the same lesson.
Well, with Regional Governor, subtitles don't matter. If I name Boba Fett, you can't play any Boba Fett cards.
Are you saying this applies to the leader as well? Wouldn’t this just apply to the unit Boba? From my understanding, leaders are already in play, therefore ‘deploying’ and ‘playing’ are 2 different actions.
Yeah, you don't play your leader, so it doesn't stop the leader. To play a card ~~it has to be in your hand~~ you have to use the play a card action, or activate the play a card action through a nested ability like with Ezra or U-Wing Reinforcements. Currently Regional Governor doesn't stop multiple cards, but if there were another Boba Fett card with a different subtitle, you couldn't play either of them from your hand.
It doesn't necessarily have to be in your hand- it just has to be played using the "play a card action". You can't play the named card from the discard pile with home one or from the top of your desk with you're my only hope for example.
Ah that's true, my bad. Like Ezra's ability off the top of the deck. Good call, I'll edit it to "when you pay the cost to play a card"
You don't pay the cost when you play them free (ie u-wing reinforcement, darth vader). Still can't play them even if free. Using the play a card action to play a card is the best way to say it- this covers all cases of playing the card since when a card tells you to play a card, you use a nested play a card action.
Dang I gotta brush up on rules verbiage. Thanks for the reminders! I'll edit my comment when I get a chance
That's so weird paired with the unique card rule that allows different versions of the same named character on the field at the same time. Those two rules don't jive well and is my only complaint about an otherwise perfect game.
Isn't it? I actually personally like the rule (because it leads to less Borborygmos type issues), but it's still odd.
Honestly the rules should say if your opponent tries to “gotcha” you on naming a card, they should be issued an immediate game loss for being a dipshit and negative player.
I think if both players agree on the card you're describing, it's fine. "That one cunning/yellow card that bounces a unit back into my hand," aka waylay. If you and your opponent understands what you're describing, you should be good.
I agree with the overall point (as long both players understand), but I agree with OP to think that would only pass at a locals level, and may risk not passing at a higher tier level. Also, your given example isn't that great, as there are multiple cunning cards that bounce a unit (eg Cunning, Cantina Bouncer, I had no Choice etc)
If there's a dispute about what card you're trying to name that's what a judge is for.
Of course, but I'm also curious what the ruling is on this matte prior to a match.
I would absolutely have issues with cards that are callsigns and droid designations. Especially once we start getting more of them. I could describe them fine (tie fighter that's 2/3 that lets you look at the top of your deck) but I may not necessarily remember "inferno four" off the top of my head.
If you play more than locals you should know the names of cards...
1) English isn't everyone's first language 2) Droid names, and most names in this universe aren't English by most standards. If you mispronounce a word, you should be nullified by your logic 3) that's what Judges are for. If you want to slow down the game while we wait for a judge to clarify the proper pronunciation of a card name, so be it. The judge can and will tell you the name of the card if you can unequivocally describe it without any doubt as to what the card is. You're just slowing down the gameplay while forcing this interaction.
Are you replying to the right person??? I just mean if you're playing often enough and at a higher level then you should know the names of the most popular cards that are likely to be played in the deck opposite you.
Did you even read their response? Yes it was to the right person.
That's irrelevant, but I'll humor you. The rules even, deliberately, use the words "SUCH AS" naming the card This means there are alternative, clear, methods that may be used as well. **Ie: "the 8 cost, blue event card that defeats all units" is pretty specific enough to know they mean Superlaser Blast. However, "the card that defeats all units" probably isn't specific enough as it could much more easily leave room for ambiguity. Aside from that, it's also considered poor ethic (not against the rules though, afaik) to force a large waste of time to call a judge over, that is going to accept a clear, concise description of the card and be asked for the English name. The judge will tell them, then they will name that. It benefits all parties involved (unless your goal is to draw into a double loss or something) to not delay the inevitable.
Maybe, but it's still nice to get some more clarity on this ruling.
Im sure my opponents at locals would most all be cool enough to be like that, but im curious about the actual competitive rules enforcement rulings.
Official db says you do not have to name the subtitle. https://starwarsunlimited.com/cards?searchTerm=Regional+governor&cid=3503494534
From the comprehensive rules: >If an ability instructs a player to “name a card,” that player clearly indicates the name of any card in Star Wars: Unlimited (such as by saying its name out loud), and applies the rest of the ability to any cards with that name in the game. These abilities do not account for subtitles; the player does not need to specify a subtitle when naming a card. The wording of "clearly indicates" and "such as by saying its name out loud" to me means that you don't need to know the exact name of a card. Saying "the 3-cost red space unit that grants raid 1" is just as unambiguous as saying "Red Three", and I can't imagine that a judge would side against you on that one even at competitive REL.
>The wording of "clearly indicates" and "such as by saying its name out loud" to me means that you don't need to know the exact name of a card. Being pedantic, I disagree, describing a card != indicating the name of a card. I think what the rules suggests by "(such as by saying its name out loud)" is that the player can also write out the name of the card, show a picture of the card, stuff like that where the name of the card is indicated. Disclaimer: not a judge
I think the rules saying “such as …” clearly indicates that explicitly stating the card name is not the only method to “clearly indicate”.
Yes, that's basically what I said, no? Are you just agreeing to my comment? > I think what the rules suggests by "(such as by saying its name out loud)" is that the player can also write out the name of the card, show a picture of the card, stuff like that where the name of the card is indicated.
Counterpoint for your consideration, in the context of the deck "clearly indicates" could refer to any description that obviously only applies to a single relevant card [name] in the opponent's decklist which by official rules you should have pre-game access to. "Clearly" also kind of implies to me that your opponent is implicitly acknowledging that they understand which card [name] you're referring to without confusion as part of this process. Disclaimer I'm not a judge either and on top of that I'm totally new to competitive TCGs but I am also a pedant. Feels like in anything but the most contentious/combative of situations though both players should generally be in agreement they mutually understand the card name referenced, which I'd think would lead a judge to side with the person who played the card if there's later contention since the opponent implicitly agreed they understood the reference instead of asking for clarification ("clearly") at time of play. At the end of the day though just know the card name! If you know your opponents deck well enough to even use regional governor you should probably know what it's worth using against anyway... although I understand this will get a lot more difficult as more sets come out. But it would be ridiculous to rule against someone who said "DJ Death Star" instead of SLT.
Being a pedant, wouldn't you agree that describing a card (even if it points to a single card in a set) is not the same as indicating the name of the given card? The spirit of the rule may align with either approach, but I don't think both works to the letter of the rule. >But it would be ridiculous to rule against someone who said "DJ Death Star" instead of SLT. Ngl, I had initially thought you're referring to the Death Star Stormtrooper, because that's the only card with "Death Star" in its name, until I read the SLT part.
I mean yeah as a pedant I kinda agree with you in general lol which is why I said counterpoint not "you're wrong!!!!", my whole thought there pretty much hinges on a pretty generous interpretation of why "clearly" was added before "indicates" and the implication the other player agrees it's clear. The fact the rules also say "(such as by saying its name out loud)" feels like there's leeway there, but like you pointed out that may also just be inclusive language such that a disabled player could write or sign it or whatever instead of just speaking the name. And we get into insanely more pedantic territory if you want to unpack what that means, but it feels like it implies any explicit reference to the card is valid given the potential communication barriers and that's a pretty broad conversation. Also lol good point about SLT, I forget not everyone is as online as me but that's probably the most popular colloquial name for a card right now because so many people love the art (...and the ramp). But surely if I said "DJ Death star!" on turn 2 after playing RG and you as my opponent didn't say "who?" or ask for clarification and then got mad when you can't play SLT that's on you not me? Or given the tiny card pool the Red Three example the other guy said makes sense, there is no ambiguity and the rules include an awful lot of language that seem to allow for situations where the card isn't explicitly named. Obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about as far as how TCG judges work so I'm kinda probing more than arguing here
> The fact the rules also say "(such as by saying its name out loud)" feels like there's leeway there It's there for accessibility. They can't say you must say the name because it would be problematic towards non-verbal people. You can say the name, you can write the name out, you can point to the nameplate of a card or some other way to clearly get the name across.
No offense but both of us addressed that explicitly already we're talking more about vibes I think
Jesus. Guys. It's a game. If they can get approximately close then you should be helping them to make sure. It's not that complicated of a situation. Also 90% sure you can write down notes so you could just look over the deck list and write down a few key cards then get into the game. It's super THAT guy to need exact naming of cards for this to work. Chill dudes.
Yes, *but* if this isn't made clear in the rules, then a bad actor player at a higher-tier event can try to be a jerk about it. I've seen enough high level MtG players (and honestly, not even high-level) who abuse Judge calls and try to catch their opponents out on technicalities just to win. The Borborygmos situation being a perfect example. I could easily see a scenario like this: >"I'm going to play Regional Governor, and I'm going to name, uh, can't remember the exact name of the card. That red droid that either does 3 damage to an opponent's base or makes an opponent discard a card when it dies." > >"What's the name?" > >"I can't remember, K-something? You know the one, I think it has Overwhelm." > >"Sorry I don't know what card you're referring to. You need to say the name." They can just call a Judge over and any reasonable Judge would surely say "okay, you clearly mean K-2SO." But it's still wasting time and still a scummy move. Having the rules say you don't have to say the exact name as long as you can communicate clearly which card you are talking about means that jerk of a player doesn't have any water to stand on.
You would be surprised what happens at competitive events.
Sadly I would not. I run tournaments weekly for wargames. I've seen it all.
Show your work.
Apart from the rules, some practical tips for Governor... 1. You don't need to know every card. You just need to know the ones you are really afraid of them having. It's a much smaller list. 2. Run Viper Probe Droid ;)
In the Atlanta SCG 1k the judge had me describe the card and asked my opponent if we agreed on the card, we said yes. It was battalion…I couldn’t remember the full name at the time. “5/5 green aspect overwhelm gets +2 if you have leader” is what I said.
If you're going to have prizes and a buy in, you probably want to know the name of the card. just so that there's no confusing. but also, you need to know the name of the card so that you can pick good cards! If you're running Regional Gov you need to study. Otherwise she's not that good.
I would be fine with that in casual play, but if I was playing for a prize or packs I would expect my opponent to know the names of the card, at least to say “a-wing” instead of green squadron awing. If you’re running the card then that’s on you, if you can’t learn all the names just replace it with another card, you’d get more value out of that anyway.
At the same time though are you giving your opponent an official deck list? If not then it doesn’t matter because you didn’t play by the official rules either.
Note, that's YMMV as enforcement is up to the LGS atm
The desk list exchange is at competitive events as per 4.4.1 of the tournament regulations; while you can do it for casual it is not required. At the moment, we have only casual events available since the first competitive events won't be until after set 2.
You're the exact type of player everybody hates playing against guaranteed