To be sure I'm following, you are speaking to the two possibilities: "allows a _X_ to be played" and "a _X_ may be played"; the first must still satisfy normal rules for playing the X, but the second doesn't?Konrad Klar wrote: ↑Tue May 22, 2018 10:56 amMaking a resource playable at a site is less permissive than "resource may be played at site".
In first case all other conditions to play the resource must be fulfilled (site phase, untapped site, untapped character etc.).
"may be played" created by a card only checks for conditions of the card. Otherwise Bounty of the Hoard, Hoard Well Searched would allow to play minor or major item only if they are playable at the site (untapped site is altered by "already tapped site" and site that contains hoard is additional restriction, "Playable during the site phase" would be nothing more than redundant text).
Regardless of arguments against the second, wouldn't this mean that Old Road---which uses the "allow" language---doesn't need errata since it would need to satisfy the other conditions of attempting to bring a faction into play?
I was instead asking (if continuing the drifting topic is ok) more about the multiple instances of "a _X_ may be played" that you would handle differently:
Thrall of the Voice has the phase restriction written in, so let's ignore that for now. A Chance Meeting and Open to the Summons have the wording "a _X_ may be played". But the difference you propose is that OttS is a permanent event instead of a short event, so that makes it less powerful? But permanent events can also be played in any phase, just like short events. And the effect allowing play is just as "immediate". Why should a momentary "may be played" (short event) be more powerful than a persistent "may be played" (permanent event)?
My question is: what rules source encourages the idea that short-events are special? A Chance Meeting has the same written effect as Open to the Summons, and it no more "causes" the character to be played than the other---in both cases it is a "may".