Cactus Game Design Message Boards

It does activate. But placed cards are read from their owner's perspective, so it activates as your card and you carry out the SA.

It is more effective to find a solution before figuring out why it is the solution.

Polarius

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 04, 2010, 08:51:35 PM

Quote from: STAMP on November 04, 2010, 01:38:47 PM

That is an explanation that describes the arbitrary decision.  I'm still awaiting the logic behind that arbitrary decision.

If I place Peter's Curse on your Hero, do you get to deactivate it on your turn?

What do you mean by this?

Rhetorical question. He answered it later in his own post.

I see the other perspective, it's just wrong. The only card that could potentially cede control of a placed Enhancement to be read from your opponent's perspective is Sent to Serve because it has different wording.

Now, when I say it's "wrong," I'm not saying that it shouldn't be that way, just that it isn't that way. Do you have a compelling reason to change the status quo? If so, I'd love to hear it, because an ANB RBD Nazareth deck sounds like a boatload of fun.

I'll even start off with an example mentioned above: Peter's Curse on my hero.  Let's say it was placed while activated as an artifact by my opponent.  It was placed on my hero, i.e. I own and control that hero.  Do I own the artifact?  No.  Am I even in control of the artifact?  No.  So based on the rules of the game, regardless of a new "place" definition, why would I be able to deactivate Peter's Curse??

You just answered your own question.

Is your opponents Agur in your control? No. Therefore, do you control the ability that SAYS to activate the placed enhancement? No.

The key here is that the ability that allows the enhancement to activate is NOT on the enhancement, its the other cards such as Agur, Elishama, etc.

The side I'm supporting says "placed cards are read from the perspective of the placer unless otherwise specified." You're saying, "some cards with a place ability work that way, but some give Enhancements a gained conditional trigger which becomes CBN the following phase." And yours is more simple?

I have not posted previously on any of the related threads, but I will have to agree with STAMP. I think the placed cards that say "will activate next time character enters battle" should activate no matter who controls them. Most place cards specify who is affected, so there is no need for a blanket statement. The idea of deactivating an artifact is a completely separate idea, that I see as unrelated to the scenario. Here are some examples of place cards that are specific:

Boasting of Riches (Pi)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Gold • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place on a Hero. Negate that Hero’s special ability while this card remains. If that Hero is captured, discard this card and the top card of that player’s draw pile. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Jeremiah 9:23 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Common)

Boasting of Wisdom (Pi)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Pale Green • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place on a Hero. Negate that Hero’s special ability while this card remains. Blocker may discard this card to discard all Enhancements used by that Hero. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Jeremiah 9:23 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Common)

Destructive Sin (TP)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Orange • Ability: None • Class: Territory • Special Ability: Place on a Hero. While this card remains, negate special abilities on that Hero and its owner's good Fortresses and Covenants. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ecclesiastes 9:18 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()

Reckless Endangerment (Pi)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place on a Hero. Negate that Hero’s special ability while this card remains on that Hero. If that Hero is discarded, its holder must discard another of his Characters in play. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Leviticus 19:16 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Common)



With that said, I am curious about a card like Satan's Seat:

Satan's Seat (FF)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes. If a Hero rescues a Lost Soul from that Site, discard that Hero. • Play As: Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes. Discard all Heroes that rescue a Lost Soul from that Site. • Identifiers: Play to territory. • Verse: Revelation 2:13 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)


If my opponent steals my site that I placed SS on, does that mean that his Heroes' protect abilities are still being negated? And, after the steal, if I rescue a LS from the site, are my heroes discarded?

Perhaps the answers to these questions will help decide how the original scenario should be ruled.

With that said, I am curious about a card like Satan's Seat:

Satan's Seat (FF)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes. If a Hero rescues a Lost Soul from that Site, discard that Hero. • Play As: Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes. Discard all Heroes that rescue a Lost Soul from that Site. • Identifiers: Play to territory. • Verse: Revelation 2:13 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)


If my opponent steals my site that I placed SS on, does that mean that his Heroes' protect abilities are still being negated? And, after the steal, if I rescue a LS from the site, are my heroes discarded?

Perhaps the answers to these questions will help decide how the original scenario should be ruled.

I don't play with Satan's Seat and haven't had to rule on it but it seems pretty clear.  Based on the wording it's a cost-benefit special ability.  The cost is placing it on your site.  The benefit is that protect abilities on opponent's heroes are negated while it stays in play, and I think this is a key, also while you control it because the cost involved it being your site.  As such, if your opponent steals the site they don't get the benefit because they never paid the cost in the first place.

Quote

Here are some examples

Redemption is supposed to be about top-down rules, not bottom-up rules. Just because many place cards specify doesn't mean there's no need for a default. In fact, there'd be a need for a default if even one did not specify, and there are more than one.

I agree that top-down is the way to go in most cases.  This top-down rule for placed cards is definitely not needed and only creates more confusion and complexity.

Quote

Ridiculous example?

Yes. It's a ridiculous example both because there are no cards that allow cards to go into other peoples' decks (and if there will be in the future they'll need to be accompanied by heavy changes in the rules and their own special game rules), and also because it's not a real card. Do you have any real cards that are problematic because of this rule of thumb?

Did you even read the sentence immediately following?  It's not like the Polarius I know to miss details.


In fact, Rob and his volunteers have done such a good job with streamlining and clarifying the rules the past several years that there is no need for the new arbitrary rule for cards with place abilities.  Every place card is easy to decipher without it.

Sorry, my fault.  I should have been very clear with all my statements.  Allow me to fix the statement that is tripping you up.

"Every place card is easy to decipher rule without the arbitrary placed card ruling BUT with the current ruleset."

Again, I don't care if it ruins my current deck.  I only brought up this thread to point out how unnecessary the new ruling is.  It was only evident to me BECAUSE of my current deck and comments made on other threads.

Everything has a rule and the current ruleset covers placed cards without adding anything.

I don't really understand what's the problem with Herod's Treachery on a Herod.  Seems very clear to me how it would work without the arbitrary placed card ruling.

Well it's new to me since I've only been on the fringes the past couple of years.  Because it is so incongruent with the current ruleset my guess was that a top-down rule was devised to try to prevent any "brokenness".  A valiant intent in my opinion because I do prefer top-down rules.  However, in this case it would have been better to issue errata to cards that had problems (as mush as I dislike errata).  Although how to interpret Herod's Treachery (this being the card that seems you are using to back up the ruling) is very easy using the current ruleset without the special placed rule, I'm guessing it's not how the card was intended to be played.  That, my friend, occurs every set.  As I said, the ideal situation IS to come up with a top-down rule if at all possible.  In this case, it just made the game harder to understand and teach to newer and younger players.  You are a top-notch player.  But if you haven't hosted or taught the game on a regular basis then you are out of touch with what I'm trying to explain.  I'm not blaming you at all.  It just happens with most elite players of any game.