Author Topic: a question that came up at ne regionals.... (Read 9129 times)

Gabe · « **Reply #25 on:** May 31, 2011, 08:19:37 PM »

No disrespect to The Marti but she's not an elder. We have not even discussed limiting Gates of Hell, much less issued an errata. Whatever the original source of this "ruling" it is inaccurate.

And yes you can add multiple Sites to battle.

The M · « **Reply #26 on:** May 31, 2011, 08:25:06 PM »

Tim Maly allowed me to do it in T1 at NC Regionals.
(And the only Demon I had was KOT which was 2nd to top grrrrrrr...)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #27 on:** May 31, 2011, 10:13:10 PM »

I thought the ruling wasn't real myself, but I'm not really in a position to contest, especially since I wasn't playing a Gates deck.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #28 on:** June 01, 2011, 12:12:02 AM »

I actually don't know that John M or Roy were ever actually asked about this, now that I think about it. Neither of them contested it when it was announced, but I was a part of the conversation that took place when that decision was made. I may be remembering it wrong though. I do distinctly remember hearing something about a Gates errata either during or right after Nationals, but that might have hypothetical.

TheMarti · « **Reply #29 on:** June 01, 2011, 12:40:24 AM »

I announced it because it was told to me - I was only the MC. Yeah, I judged, but I swore that I saw it somewhere too, and someone confirmed it. Was it something else on the list of things that were discussed but never resolved?

Also, why is the ORIGINAL question legal? If I can add two, can I add three or four? What stops me from ending up with endless site access? Do I need multi-colored sites anymore?

You realize this is about Nazereth abuse, right?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #30 on:** June 01, 2011, 12:45:04 AM »

Quote from: The Marti on June 01, 2011, 12:40:24 AM

Also, why is the ORIGINAL question legal? If I can add two, can I add three or four? What stops me from ending up with endless site access? Do I need multi-colored sites anymore?

Nothing is stopping you.

TheMarti · « **Reply #31 on:** June 01, 2011, 12:49:18 AM »

My point is that it should be. imho.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #32 on:** June 01, 2011, 12:50:41 AM »

Quote from: The Marti on June 01, 2011, 12:49:18 AM

My point is that it should be. imho.

There's not really any reason to though. If you want to not use your sites for souls, go for it. Nazareth x2 is about the only practical application of multiple sites in battle.

TheMarti · « **Reply #33 on:** June 01, 2011, 12:54:19 AM »

I was being sarcastic with a lot of that. I'm more interested in why it's allowed because of cards like Nazereth where the S.A. would be deactivated when brought into battle and reactivated when put back in your LoB. I'd think that would have the potential to be abused.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #34 on:** June 01, 2011, 01:01:07 AM »

Quote from: The Marti on June 01, 2011, 12:54:19 AM

I was being sarcastic with a lot of that. I'm more interested in why it's allowed because of cards like Nazereth where the S.A. would be deactivated when brought into battle and reactivated when put back in your LoB. I'd think that would have the potential to be abused.

I realize that, I am just pointing out that something isn't really a big deal if you can only do one not so ground breaking play. I don't really see how it could be abused, because first of all, you have to take your opponent's Nazzy, which, if you do, is worthy of being allowed to search IMO.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #35 on:** June 01, 2011, 02:50:07 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on June 01, 2011, 12:12:02 AM

I actually don't know that John M or Roy were ever actually asked about this, now that I think about it.

This is actually a big difference from what was being said earlier. I would appreciate it if people would be careful to make sure of the facts before causing people to question whether elders are dis-unified on a ruling.

Quote from: The Marti on June 01, 2011, 12:40:24 AM

I announced it because it was told to me - I was only the MC. Yeah, I judged, but I swore that I saw it somewhere too, and someone confirmed it. Was it something else on the list of things that were discussed but never resolved?

Perhaps you are confusing this with the ruling that was talked about right after Nats, that you couldn't heal all the heroes that get discarded from your deck as you are wiping the whole thing out with Gates of Hell.

And as for adding multiple sites, imagine I attack with a red site (to get your LS in CP), but then you bury that LS. Doesn't it make sense that I can then add my white site to battle so that I have a chance at your LS in Golgotha as well? I understand that it allows for people to use Naz to search on offense, while stopping everyone else from searching (other than the defender during the battle). But I don't think it is game-breaking.

TheMarti · « **Reply #36 on:** June 01, 2011, 07:56:42 AM »

I know that John and Roy were asked, because a group of us stood around and discussed it.

Gabe · « **Reply #37 on:** June 01, 2011, 09:44:19 AM »

I'd love to hear from John and/or Roy on this.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #38 on:** June 01, 2011, 10:21:27 AM »

Quote from: The Marti on June 01, 2011, 07:56:42 AM

I know that John and Roy were asked, because a group of us stood around and discussed it.

Was Roy definitely asked? I don't remember what day this was announced (I believe it was Saturday morning), but a previous post in this thread said it was before the first category, in which case, Roy could not have been consulted since he didn't arrive until Saturday morning. I distinctly recall myself, you, and Korunks being there in that conversation, but I don't remember who else was there. I'm shooting John an email anyways, so I'll send him a link to this thread (since he doesn't get on the boards as often lately).

Korunks · « **Reply #39 on:** June 01, 2011, 10:27:43 AM »

I was the Host and having heard it ( The gates "ruling") from several sources I ruled it this way. I consulted John and Roy and they were unaware of a ruling, but my other hosts were sure that they had heard something along this line so I had Marti go ahead with the announcement. It was a difficult decision but I was afraid that a ruling really was in the works, and did not want some one abusing a combo that was going to be incorrect. I was wrong, and I am sorry. This in my opinion highlights flaw in the elder system, we never know what is being discussed. I was so worried about ruling something wrong that I was a little to proactive in my ruling. If it affected any Multiplayer game I am sorry. This is why we need an actual real effective REG. I can only comb through so many threads to make my ruling decisions, and I am getting tired of having to run every ruling to the ground to find the source. I hear from various players, REP, and Elders so much conflicting information that it is quite frankly very easy to get overwhelmed by it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #40 on:** June 01, 2011, 10:43:09 AM »

Quote from: Korunks on June 01, 2011, 10:27:43 AM

I was the Host and having heard it ( The gates "ruling") from several sources I ruled it this way. I consulted John and Roy and they were unaware of a ruling, but my other hosts were sure that they had heard something along this line so I had Marti go ahead with the announcement.

OK, so you ruled something that 2 Elders had never heard of because other people told it to you. That is not a problem with the Elders system. That is the problem of a host listening to the wrong people. I'm not trying to come down on you, it was an honest mistake, and you're being a man about it and owning up to it. I appreciate that. And I agree with you that it would be GREAT if we could finally get the new REG out.

I'm just saying that the current system can work if the hosts do it right. There should be at least 1 Elder at every Regional tournament, and the hosts should listen to what they say. As for checking stuff, there are only 2 threads that you need to check for updates/corrections to the REG. They are here, and here.

Korunks · « **Reply #41 on:** June 01, 2011, 10:51:05 AM »

I am aware that I may have listened to the wrong source and if I am going to be shelled for this I really don't care. I read those two threads regularly and practically live here in the ruling section and there are rulings and questions not resolved, and to be frank I have little faith that any answer I get save the few that are verified in those two threads. I operated under the presumption (which I admit was probably false ) that not every elder is up on the current discussions because I rarely see any activity from them save the few that post in this forum section. I erred, I made a mistake.

soul seeker · « **Reply #42 on:** June 01, 2011, 10:59:17 AM »

To be fair to Shawn (Korunks), it didn't affect the tournament AT ALL. I played Type 2 (where any abuse was likely to happen), and I played every T2 deck. In this case, it was a non-factor. Nobody complained and to my knowledge, nobody cared. It is a valuable lesson to learn for the future, but the present wasn't affected.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #43 on:** June 01, 2011, 11:42:19 AM »

Quote from: Korunks on June 01, 2011, 10:51:05 AM

I operated under the presumption (which I admit was probably false ) that not every elder is up on the current discussions because I rarely see any activity from them save the few that post in this forum section. I erred, I made a mistake.

This actually isn't necessarily a bad presumption. Some Elders are more involved with rulings than others. However, if you go with what the Elder says, and it turns out to be wrong, then the fault falls on us

As for making a mistake, don't sweat it. We all make them, and it sounds like yours didn't actually mess anything up. That's the best kind of mistake to make

Professoralstad · « **Reply #44 on:** June 01, 2011, 12:06:49 PM »

Korunks, please don't feel ganged up upon/shelled. The Elders who have posted in this thread did not do so to bash the hosts/elders who were there, but it is an issue that would have affected at least three decks that I played against at NC Regionals, and could have affected mine if I needed to use GoH that way. Since it was a matter of importance for other tournaments (even though it didn't seem to be a big problem at yours) it was important that we all chime in so that people don't get that idea for other tournaments this season.

FWIW, Erratas like that are almost exclusively handled by Rob himself, and in order to rule something as an errata that you yourself have not seen official documentation for, you should probably only depend on Rob's word as authoritative, especially if the other elders are unsure. You did a good thing by consulting the Elders present, and you made a judgment call that turned out to be wrong. I'm glad nobody was affected there, but I know at least two guys at our Regionals who would have been sorely disappointed had a similar ruling been made there...

Dario Dante · « **Reply #45 on:** June 01, 2011, 12:20:36 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on May 31, 2011, 05:40:58 PM

No. Seriously. This was announced before T2 Multi began on the first day of NE regionals and we had a few elders there that said it was official. I don't know if it was just for that tournament or what but it was made

I was there, i thought u could use it without limit??

SomeKittens · « **Reply #46 on:** June 01, 2011, 04:03:48 PM »

Still, there is the issue of Hosts not being informed.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #47 on:** June 02, 2011, 02:11:43 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on June 01, 2011, 04:03:48 PM

Still, there is the issue of Hosts not being informed.

The hosts not being informed of what, exactly?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #48 on:** June 02, 2011, 03:53:49 PM »

New rulings. There's no way for a host to be sure they're caught up on new rulings. For instance, we thought one could put Disciples back in Boat during the Discard phase.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #49 on:** June 02, 2011, 05:17:16 PM »

Fishing Boat (Di)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set this aside. Each upkeep, you may place a Hero from here beneath your deck to draw X or to give your disciples access to all Sites this turn. • Identifiers: Holds up to 12 disciples. X = # of Heroes here • Verse: Luke 5:4 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()

It doesnt say how they get in the boat but it clearly states how they get out...

The rule is if it doesnt state then there is a default- during prep - however if it does state then the card must be followed unless given play as/errata. Ive asked before and Ill ask again...

Since the card clearly states how the disciples get out of the boat, then why are they allowed to get out freely as they please? Does this line of thinking not include how cards are taken out of fortresses, only how they enter?

News:

Author Topic: a question that came up at ne regionals.... (Read 9129 times)

Chronic Apathy

TheMarti

TheMarti

TheMarti

TheMarti

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy