« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Down

Author Topic: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers  (Read 6837 times)

Offline lightningninja

  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5397
  • I'm Watchful Servant, and I'm broken.
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2009, 09:13:58 PM »
0
Oh, Elishana lives because discard pile isn't hand, so DD doesn't even remotely suggest that he'd be stopped.
Logged
As a national champion, I support ReyZen deck pouches.

Offline RTSmaniac

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4289
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
    • ROOT Online
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2009, 12:46:15 PM »
0
i think you can still play cards from the discard pile like false priest i think...
Logged
This is the way Lackey gave it to me. All hail the power of Lackey!

Offline TimMierz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4047
  • I can't stop crying. Buckets of tears.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Tim's Photos
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2009, 12:48:16 PM »
0
Quote from: lightningninja on August 12, 2009, 09:13:58 PM
Oh, Elishana lives because discard pile isn't hand, so DD doesn't even remotely suggest that he'd be stopped.

Elishama? Lives?!
Logged
Get Simply Adorable Slugfest at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/simply-adorable-slugfest

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #28 on: August 14, 2009, 01:13:49 AM »
0
Quote from: TimMierz on August 13, 2009, 12:48:16 PM
Quote from: lightningninja on August 12, 2009, 09:13:58 PM
Oh, Elishana lives because discard pile isn't hand, so DD doesn't even remotely suggest that he'd be stopped.

Elishama? Lives?!
The thread has been won.
Logged
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2009, 04:07:22 AM »
0
Hey,

Let me introduce everyone to the two definitions of "play"

(1) To put a card into the field of play. [I'll call this play (place)]
(2) To activate the ability of a card.  [I'll call this play (activate)]

When the rulebook talks about playing weapons on characters in your territory it is using the play (place) definition.
When the rulebook talks about giving initiative in a stalemate situation to the player that did not play the last card in battle it is using the play (activate) definition.

The question then becomes, when the word "play" appears in the ability of Darius' Decree which definition is it using?

I lean towards saying it uses the play (activate) definition.  So enhancements can still go in storehouse, weapons can still go on characters, Agur still works, and yes John, Set asides and Territory class enhancements can still be played (at least they can be put into play, but they would then not activate, do nothing and be immediately discarded).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Logged

Offline frisian9

  • Official Playtester
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • So let it be written, so let it be done.
    • Pittsbugh Playgroup
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2009, 06:07:56 PM »
0
Quote from: SirNobody on August 16, 2009, 04:07:22 AM
Hey,

Let me introduce everyone to the two definitions of "play"

(1) To put a card into the field of play. [I'll call this play (place)]
(2) To activate the ability of a card.  [I'll call this play (activate)]

When the rulebook talks about playing weapons on characters in your territory it is using the play (place) definition.
When the rulebook talks about giving initiative in a stalemate situation to the player that did not play the last card in battle it is using the play (activate) definition.

The question then becomes, when the word "play" appears in the ability of Darius' Decree which definition is it using?

I lean towards saying it uses the play (activate) definition.  So enhancements can still go in storehouse, weapons can still go on characters, Agur still works, and yes John, Set asides and Territory class enhancements can still be played (at least they can be put into play, but they would then not activate, do nothing and be immediately discarded).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

+1

Brilliant! Brilliant!
Logged
----------------------------------------------------------
Keeper of the REG (www.redemptionreg.com

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2009, 06:13:00 PM »
0
I largely agree with Maly on this but I have one question.

Would you say this is more along the lines of a prevent? If so, ET + AOCP could still work, since you cant prevent AoCP's ability from activating, but according to your theory, you would be allowed to place AoCP into battle.
Logged

Offline ejberkenpas22

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Google+
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #32 on: August 16, 2009, 06:24:46 PM »
0
I think if you cannot play an enhancement from your hand unless an EC is in battle...then you simply can't do it. Can you set aside a hero? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. Can you place a good enhancement on a hero in your territory? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. You are reading way too into this card and making it way more complex than it needs  to be. Just ask yourself, "Would playing this card be playing a good enhancement from my hand without an EC being in battle?" If the answer is yes, then you can't do it. Simple as that. So with the AoCP example...the answer would be yes, because you are playing AoCP without an EC being in batter so no you can't do it. Territory class enhancements...ask the question and your answer should be yes, so you can't play those either. That is how I see it.
Logged
--
Eric J. Berkenpas

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #33 on: August 16, 2009, 06:26:08 PM »
0
Quote from: ejberkenpas22 on August 16, 2009, 06:24:46 PM
I think if you cannot play an enhancement from your hand unless an EC is in battle...then you simply can't do it. Can you set aside a hero? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. Can you place a good enhancement on a hero in your territory? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. You are reading way too into this card and making it way more complex than it needs  to be. Just ask yourself, "Would playing this card be playing a good enhancement from my hand without an EC being in battle?" If the answer is yes, then you can't do it. Simple as that. So with the AoCP example...the answer would be yes, because you are playing AoCP without an EC being in batter so no you can't do it. Territory class enhancements...ask the question and your answer should be yes, so you can't play those either. That is how I see it.

This is definately the side I am leaning most towards. I much prefer simple, clear, and easy to explain rules.
Logged

Offline ejberkenpas22

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 512
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Google+
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2009, 06:28:25 PM »
0
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 16, 2009, 06:26:08 PM
Quote from: ejberkenpas22 on August 16, 2009, 06:24:46 PM
I think if you cannot play an enhancement from your hand unless an EC is in battle...then you simply can't do it. Can you set aside a hero? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. Can you place a good enhancement on a hero in your territory? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. You are reading way too into this card and making it way more complex than it needs  to be. Just ask yourself, "Would playing this card be playing a good enhancement from my hand without an EC being in battle?" If the answer is yes, then you can't do it. Simple as that. So with the AoCP example...the answer would be yes, because you are playing AoCP without an EC being in batter so no you can't do it. Territory class enhancements...ask the question and your answer should be yes, so you can't play those either. That is how I see it.

This is definately the side I am leaning most towards. I much prefer simple, clear, and easy to explain rules.

Right, the game ins complicated enough that we shouldn't be making easy cards complex.
Logged
--
Eric J. Berkenpas

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2009, 01:55:04 AM »
0
Hey,

Darius' Decree is actually a restrict ability and a prevent ability.  In the case of ET, Darius' Decree prevents ET's ability so you can't even play AoC promo.

I need to make one correction to my explanation in my last post.  Darius' Decree stops players from playing (activating) enhancements, so anything that tries to play (activate) does not work.  Things that try to play (place) do work, but only if they do not try to play (activate) when they play (place).

The result of this is that Set aside and Territory class enhancements cannot be played at all if Darius' Decree is active because while they do play (place) they also play (activate) so Darius' Decree stops both by stopping the latter.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 04:07:08 PM by SirNobody »
Logged

Offline Kevin Shride

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 284
  • I'm a good man, Charlie Brown!
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2009, 12:38:23 PM »
0
Tim, in my mind, it is a very confusing line to say that Agur can place an enhancement, but territory enhancements can't be played, even if they use the word "place".  I think it is a much cleaner and easier-to-understand ruling to say that you can't play them at all, and that, unfortunately, includes place enhancements, weapons, and Storehouse.

Kevin Shride
Logged

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2009, 04:12:11 PM »
0
Hey,

Kevin, I think it's going to be confusing either way.  It's confusing because there are two different definitions of play, but it's too late at this point to change that.  If we use one definition of play it's going to be confusing that it's not the other definition (regardless of which definition of play is the one we use).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Logged

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2009, 05:28:34 PM »
0
I agree with Tim--activating a card and just putting a card on the table should not be considered the same thing. Set-asides and territory class should be stopped by Darius' Decree. Weapons and enhancements being put in Storehouse should not.
Logged
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2009, 05:29:35 PM »
0
Official answer on this one?

I personally recommend SirNobody's different definitions of "play."
Logged
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?
Pages: 1 [2]  All   Go Up
« previous next »
 
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal