Some questions regarding the Mate Card

[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.