Some questions regarding the Mate Card

[BoringInfoGuy]

Originally Posted by Clipper

I think the idea is that it is a monster, but it is not a monster card. That's how I treat it. Cards that target monsters can target the Mate, but you can't use cards that attach to a monster card on Mate, which includes all the Monster Enhancers.

This covers all the rulings we've been given and satisfies my own rules lawyering tendencies.

It doesn't settle the issue of which cards actually go to the discard pile when, but it's so rare for you to be able to resurrect such a card during combat that the minor lack of control is worth the much easier method of handling the card.

The Rules Lawyer in me is not satisfied, sadly. If it did not have any mechanical differences in game play, then I would not care. You are a warrior, and want to swap it with the warrior card you just received because you like the artwork better? Go ahead! No, you don't have to discard the one before playing the new one just to swap artwork. It will have zero effect on game play at all if you switch which one is in your hand and which one is in play.

Tell me honestly, do you see my point when I say that being unable to play enhancers on the Mate card contradicts the statement that there is no difference between eliminating the original card or the Mate card beyond book keeping?

Yes, making it so that you MUST eliminate the Mate card first makes it a moot point. But avoiding the contradiction instead of resolving it is like fingernails on the chalkboard of my soul.

Oh, and for bonus XP and a possible level in rules lawyering, can you see how always choosing to get rid of the Mate card in the believe that there is no difference in game play is effectively playing as if you CAN play enhancers on the Mate card?

Again, it is a moot point, I'm just curious if anyone see's where the point I have been making.

[Brf]

As long as the mate is still the mate, it continues to actively copy the original monster, so modifiers to the mate itself would have to be ignored... If you remove or replace the mate, it is no longer the mate, and can then be modified itself.
If you remove the original monster, then the mate would be copying whatever the original was at that point, so it has the same effect as removing the mate and leaving the original.

[BoringInfoGuy]

Originally Posted by Brf

As long as the mate is still the mate, it continues to actively copy the original monster, so modifiers to the mate itself would have to be ignored... If you remove or replace the mate, it is no longer the mate, and can then be modified itself.
If you remove the original monster, then the mate would be copying whatever the original was at that point, so it has the same effect as removing the mate and leaving the original.

Sorry, no XP for you.

If you remove the Mate card, then nothing can be played on it - it has been eliminated from combat.

If you replace it using a card like Switcharoo, then the Mate card goes into the players hand. It is has been eliminated from combat, and a new monster card with new rules goes into play.

Neither effect demonstrates how always keeping the original card is playing as if you CAN play enhancers on the Mate card.

But I will add a qualifier. This effect only shows up in the combat that takes place after one of the cards is removed.

[Mister Ed]

Originally Posted by BoringInfoGuy

Oh, and for bonus XP and a possible level in rules lawyering, can you see how always choosing to get rid of the Mate card in the believe that there is no difference in game play is effectively playing as if you CAN play enhancers on the Mate card?

Again, it is a moot point, I'm just curious if anyone see's where the point I have been making.

Oh, I definitely see the point you were making. In fact I thought I specifically mentioned that aspect in one of my posts (or at least implied it, while presenting the opposite case).

It is why I wholeheartedly approve of official rulings that a.) modifiers can only be played on the original monster, and b.) when one of the two is removed from the combat, it must ALWAYS be the Mate. (Plus that's the way I've always done it. ;-) )

If the Mate CAN'T have modifiers played on it, then there IS a very good reason to eliminate the original monster instead of the Mate if that were allowed, and I don't want that to be happening, because it really complicates matters if things are done that way.

To my mind, the point of the Mate card is just to be a constantly updated copy of the original, and treating it in a way that muddies that connection (by playing modifiers directly on the Mate, or eliminating the monster it is supposed to be copying) presents an unnecessary complication of the card, and distorts what I thought the intent of it was. I am glad to see that it seems my feelings on the matter are shared by official sources. :-D

[BoringInfoGuy]

Originally Posted by Mister Ed

Oh, I definitely see the point you were making. In fact I thought I specifically mentioned that aspect in one of my posts (or at least implied it, while presenting the opposite case).

It is why I wholeheartedly approve of official rulings that a.) modifiers can only be played on the original monster, and b.) when one of the two is removed from the combat, it must ALWAYS be the Mate. (Plus that's the way I've always done it. ;-) )

If the Mate CAN'T have modifiers played on it, then there IS a very good reason to eliminate the original monster instead of the Mate if that were allowed, and I don't want that to be happening, because it really complicates matters if things are done that way.

To my mind, the point of the Mate card is just to be a constantly updated copy of the original, and treating it in a way that muddies that connection (by playing modifiers directly on the Mate, or eliminating the monster it is supposed to be copying) presents an unnecessary complication of the card, and distorts what I thought the intent of it was. I am glad to see that it seems my feelings on the matter are shared by official sources. :-D

Thank you for the validation.

I will be playing and teaching as suggested, removing the Mate card first. (Except in cases like Illusion or Swicheroo, where MunchkinMan has already ruled that in these cases the Mate card becomes a copy of the replaced original card).

In general, I always try to look for a bottoms up solution to rules situations - removing any reasons for leaving the Mate card over the original monster.

But I have to respect that MunchkinMan knows the cards and rules from all the sets. That makes him aware of any potential issues that a bottom up solution could cause across all the sets I have not even seen yet. Using a top down solution - ruling you can not leave the Mate card in play instead of the original monster - is much less likely to have any unintended consequences.