Hey Siggie,
although it is hardly possible that you are ever wrong on a rules question, and you are probably right that it was ruled this way so far, i do not agree that it should be ruled that way in the future for two reasons:

1. Your quote on 700.2b is not useful because that section just explains that some cards work in ways that can not be understood by only reading the card. You need to know what a form does, what a pet is, what a totem is, or what a buff is to really understand those ABCs. Call Fury is just used as an example here to show that nowhere on the card you can read: "Put a pet token into play with the following stats"
So if this section would use a totem example, which it totally could, we would not use that section at all for the GWE discussion here. On top of that in the pet section, where such a rule would belong (305) it can not be found! If the rule was: ALL text on pet cards are abilities of the pet once summoned/called, then it should be in section 305 and it should definitely have that "all" in there.
Therefor i don´t see why there couldn´t be text on a pet card that isn´t meant to be part of the pets abilities, but part of the characters abilities. There is no reason why there shouldn´t be a pet with recharge in a future set. In that case we would all agree that recharge is not the pet`s ability but the card`s ability.

2. The wording of GWE would need to be really different, if was meant to be the pets ability! It would have to read: "When this (pet) is destroyed, ready the ABC that put this (pet) into play."
The way it reads now: "When GWE is destroyed, ready this card." it is clearly meant to be an ability of the ABC card, not of the pet token in play. Because its the card that is referencing itself as "this" in the abilities text. It could not be worded that way if it was meant as rules text on the GWE pet token itself.

I hope this ruling is reconsidered in spite of my imperfect english.
Ah, and great pre realms thread btw, Coray!

@ Junkel:  The argument is that not ALL text on a pet card has to be pets abilities. Some parts could be and some parts could be rules applying to the ABC, as the rules don´t say that ALL text on pet ABCs must be pet abilities. And the wording as it is on GWE only works if "Wave of Elementals" is an ability of the ABC not the pet token.

Ok folks, here we go...

If you polymorph the Water Elemental and then kill it, the card will still ready.
If you polymorph Jaina and then kill the Water Elemental, the card will not ready.

Wave of Elementals was not intended to be an ability of the Water Elemental, but a core ability of the Summon Greater Water Elemental ability card itself.

This was clarified at DMF Boston, Continentals and Worlds (if memory serves correct).

---

Simon Key

Player Management Level 4
WoW TCG Rules Knowledge Level 2
WoW Minis Rules Knowledge Level 2
Huntik TCG Rules Knowledge Level 1
Tournament Organizer Level 1

Thank you, Simon.

The rules are explicitly clear, but I was unaware of the rulings that reversed them.

Sorry, folks.

Cheers!

-teh Sig

---

Level 2 WoW Minis Judge
"Ouch! That was a water elemental!"-CorayThan

2465615:

Thank you, Simon.

The rules are explicitly clear, but I was unaware of the rulings that reversed them.

Sorry, folks.

Cheers!

-teh Sig

I guess I'll have to be changing my sig back. Seems Siggie doesn't trust me when it doesn't tell him I'm right.

-Ben

---

Isgee is, by definition, a snob.

No disrespect intended.

This does highlight and stress the need for updates to official documents after major events in which significant changes to gameplay occur. Or, you know, Siggie could go to every major event and take notes.

Cheers!

-teh Sig

---

Level 2 WoW Minis Judge
"Ouch! That was a water elemental!"-CorayThan

I am curious, if Dralor's damage is now sequential instead of simultaneous, how does that work with Amalar? If Amalar is hit for 4 points of damage with 2 Dralors next to him does he take 1 extra point of damage from berserking or 3? because if the damage is sequential doesn't that make each a seperate source?  as I see it he should take 7 (4 for the hit + 1 for Dralor A +1 for Dralor B and +1Berserek) or does he take 9 (4 for the hit +1 for berserk, +1 for Dralor A +1 for berserk, +1 for dralor B +1 for berserk)?

Honestly I'm hoping 7, but it certainly reads the other way.

One instance of damage can be modified multiple times. There's no reason Amalar would take more than 1 extra for berserking.

---

lamepoon ...
lamepoon! lamepoon! lamepoon!

Hey, I added two more to this list. Irana and Slitherblade.

---

lamepoon ...
lamepoon! lamepoon! lamepoon!

The biggest change with Slitherblade's errata was that you have to perform the teleport in order to play Python Grab.

---

Simon Key

Player Management Level 4
WoW TCG Rules Knowledge Level 2
WoW Minis Rules Knowledge Level 2
Huntik TCG Rules Knowledge Level 1
Tournament Organizer Level 1