in response to when you choose the CE, you SHOULD be able to choose a CE brought in by reinforcements because it is worded exactly the same as the yammosk and the yammosk allows you to take one brought in by reinforcements.

As fas as disruptive, if my con artist is in my opp's disruptive bubble, I don't see how it wouldn't be disrupted by definition of disruptive. Disruptive clearly says if the commander or the person receiving the CE is in the disruptive bubble they don't get the CE.

this distinction isn't listed anywhere as far as i can tell and thus the Yammosk shouldn't be able to do it. A glossary revision should make it clear if that's what is desired, because at the moment there is no reason why the Yammosk or Con artists get the drop on reinforcements. They are all simultaneous with the current wording used.




"disruptive (card text) - Suppresses enemy commander effects within 6 squares"

"Disruptive (glossary text) Enemy commander effects have no effect (on enemies and allies alike) within 6 squares of this character.

Characters within 6 squares cannot receive the benefits (or the penalties) of enemy commander effects until they move out of range. An enemy commander within 6 squares has its commander effect suppressed until it moves out of range. (It still counts as a commander.)

A character who starts its turn outside this range and whose speed is modified by a commander effect continues to move at that speed for the rest of its turn, even if it comes within 6 squares of this character. Conversely, a character that begins its turn within range cannot have its speed modified by an enemy commander effect for the rest of its turn, even if it moves farther than 6 squares from this character."

All the references above state "enemy CE", Con Artists are not using enemy CE's. They are using yours.

Scott seems to have a reason why it should be as you say and in that case Disruptive also needs a glossary re-write.

This was ruled on a long time ago and it was determined that it all happens "during setup" and since there isn't (or wasn't) a specific breakdown nor a wanting to break it down any further than setup, that the yammosk basically chose the CE right before the battle started (basically at the end of setup which is still during setup).

My concern is clarifying the rules so that they can be read and understood. It shouldn't need Jason, Scott or I or anyone else to explain the details, you should be able to read them and understand them.

Disruptive, as its written, applies to enemy commander effects and characters that cannot receive them. It does not mention enemies because it is well aware that some commander effects can effect enemies and some can effect allies, so the wording is specific.

Con artist uses an enemy commander effect. Your disruptive inhibits it.
Enemy disruptive does not because its an allied commander effect. It doesn't matter that its stolen.

Without an errata that is how it plays and really, it doesn't need one.


Flying arrow, your effort with the timing of procedures is well met. I have thoughts on it.

Bump. This came up again on SHNN tonight so I thought I would give it a bump. Still confusion on what the ruling is.

Interpretation A: Disruptive affects enemies. (i.e. Con Artist is only disrupted by enemy Disruptive)

Interpretation B: Disruptive affects enemy commander effects (meaning commander effects of enemy commanders). (i.e. Con Artist is only disrupted by allied Disruptive)

Interpretation C: Disruptive affects both enemies and enemy commander effects. (i.e. Con Artist is disrupted by both enemy and allied Disruptive)


Darth Jim announced the ruling for this weekend's PA tournament. We will be playing according to Interpretation B for this weekend. Also, urbanjedi was also on the call and indicated his support of Interpretation B as well.

That is also how we played it in Kokomo.

(B) is correct.

Confirmed by swinefeld. And this is how we've been playing it the past few years, but on returning to this thread I noticed no official word was ever given.