Unless there is a general rule adopted that ability/trait/resource that places on a card any item (token, objects, gold coins, etc.) will only impact other items placed on the card by that rule ability/trait/resource. In essence, each instance of "on the card" is unique to that ability/trait/resource.

There may be other issues this solves but I can't think of any

I understand that, and I feel that anything which can be done on a general level rather than specific is better. It does not change the fact that at this time there is not language, be it general or specific, to support the ruling.

I fully agree that there's a big flashing intention light saying that it was not supposed to remove relics, and I would agree that if that were the intention for this or some other effect, then it should specifically say that.
Unfortunately, the game is played by what the rules say and not what we suspect they were meant to say.

Is there anything that would be thrown off by adopting that rule on a general level? I can only think of a couple of possible interactions (the Book of the Skull and extra hammers)

I assume intention was checked, because I would have assumed the intention was the other way. Sort of a built in limiter for the piece, sure you can be Nigh Unkillable but you won't get to benefit from a few of the resources.

Can I ask where this ruling is listed so I can point it out to anyone who asks me when it comes up? And more importantly, is this going to be in the next Player's Guide so we don't have to go by what a post from an orange says (as "it said on the Realms" doesn't carry as much weight for some as the PG)?

I know you left the game and came back. The original crew of rules deputies, like Quebbster and me, are no longer part of that process and cannot answer things about what will or will not be in the PG.

Had you really been gone since before Web of Spidey?!!??

Yep. The last set I played before my Venue shut down was Arkham Asylum. I thought about buying some HoT for posterity sake (and to sell extras on eBay) but I figured there was no point.

Also, I wasn't asking for you specifically to put it in the Player's Guide, it was more of a rhetorical question to anyone reading and a request to the Deputies that had the authority to pass it on.
But the question I'm hoping is easier to answer is where the ruling was given... all I can find are vague references of "the ruling has already been made" and whatnot.

it is on page 5, someone linked it.

also orange judge posted x2, the ruling, relics aren't destroyed by his trait, because his trait wasn't used to put the relic on his card in the first place.

thats like saying if someone hit absorbing man with the colossus fragment, he would absorb it and put the colossus fragment on his card, or if he is hit with a hammer, he would absorb the hammer and put it on his card. do u really wanting to imply he can absorb relics from opposing characters? because thats the same thing u are saying

It is never a good idea to reference the "page" of a thread as it various for everyone. For me this thread is still on page 3.
Use the post number as that will always be constant (except in a case where a moderator would delete a post from the thread or merge posts into it).

It is actually nothing like that at all. His effect states that it triggers when he is hit with an object. In those cases you describe, there is no way of looking at those situations as him being hit with an object.

The original problem is that relics which have been assigned to him are on his card, and his effect specifically says to remove the objects on his card. There is a direct way to read the effect and come to the conclusion that his relics would be removed.

I'm sorry, post #65.


from what i read in the post, it is being said a relic is an immovable object, therefore it is a special object on the card, since a heavy/light object are on the card, as the same thing goes for a relic. so according to your ruling, if absorbing man is hit with a light object, he loses all items ( objects and relics ) on his card, and now has a light object only that he absorbed, pretty much absorbing what he is hit with. well if u are hit with a character that has mjolnir, I would assume by you ruling u are getting hit by a special object, thus absorbing man gets to absorb mjolnir as an object.

also by your ruling, does that mean absorbing man can't have 2 hammers from the book of skulls? because it says u can, maybe because its a relic and not a "special object"??
why does phantom girl have her white speed power split up, one ability saying objects are effected one way and relics/resources are a different way, or do you just rule that the relics get destroyed because they're technically "special objects"

No, and that is my point. You are only hit with an object if you are using that object to make the attack...as in holding it with Super Strength and making a close combat attack or using TK to make a ranged combat attack.
A character with a relic assigned to it is not hitting anyone with that object when it makes an attack.

I'm not even sure where you would get that idea.

Anyway, to be clear...the ruling is saying that you do not remove assigned relics when using Absorbing Man's effect. The only objects removed are those which were put there through this effect in the first place.
Again, I'm not following you. I haven't ruled anything, and I don't know Phantom Girl's effect without looking it up.
Simply put, the way the effect was published made no differentiation about the objects which get removed. As published, if it was an object and on the card, then it would be removed.
It has been confirmed (as suspected) that this what not the intention, so the ruling is as I've just stated.