Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 16, 2010, 03:05:06 PM

So IaH/CoA officially does NOT work anymore.

I not sure if it works because I don't know what combo you are referring to.  But, I will make a guess at your question.  I am Holy tells me to discard a Hero from hand force my opponent ....  If I have Chamber active and place the Hero there instead of discarding it then I never paid the cost to force my opponent to discard a card.  I am not aware that I ruled any other way.  Does that answer your question?

Based on this and other comments, Rob is of the opinion that you cannot use I am Holy to put an Angel in Chamber of Angels to force a discard. I wanted to let everyone know, as I have played several people in the past few days (and years) who have used this combo. It was part of the "instead" discussion that has been going on for a few months, a few points of which are still being ironed out. But it seems reasonable to assume that costs that are insteaded will no longer be valid to receive benefits. How this applies to various situations will hopefully be ruled on in the next few days.

Hopefully this message comes to you in advance of too many tournaments with people running Job/Silver hand control decks. I am relaying this information now so that people will have time to think of alternative strategies.

One more thing: Please don't shoot the messenger. 

wow, there goes job/angel hand control. amazing how one hugely popular strat is shut down in the blink of an eye.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my dex rox nowz

Because everyone elses deck stinks.

Unbelievable. This is the worst ruling to ever come out of the PTB for no good reason. If Golgotha is also neutered I will stop playing Redemption forever. So if you use Tenants Kill the Son and the Hero's owner uses HT, you have to un-draw? If more than 50% of your hand is Angels and you have Chamber out, you can't stop Sinning Hand? If *any* Angels are in your hand and you have Chamber out, you can't stop Primary Objective?

This is a very, very, very bad ruling from a logical, gameplay, and precedent standpoint.

Hello, good sir.


I, Rawrlolsauce!, am the candidate that was chosen to represent an influential group: The Cartel Of Managing the Boss' Opinion, you may know us as COMBO, about this situation. As you may or may not know, COMBO is a growing, yet still powerful, group that takes great care in the rulings or judgement made by the powers that be. Our group feels that this was, despite the Elder's agreement, a poor choice that should be immediately rectified.

We look forward to discussing possible alternatives with you.


Regards,

Rawrlolsauce!
Secretary of Business Affairs

This is a very, very, very bad ruling from a logical...

how is it logical?

i understand, so you're saying the alternative must be logical. im asking why so?

why would you get to ride the merry go round if you gave the dollar away?

i would like to submit an application for office.

i am holy requires a good card to be discarded as a cost (giving the dollar towards riding the merry go round) to make your opponent discard as a benefit (ride the merry go round). instead of giving the dollar (which equates to discarding) the dollar slips into a trans-dimensional wormhole and is lost in limbo (chamber). do you still get to ride your merry go round because you lost your dollar? no.

as much as a merry go round is, yes.

i think the operative word here is 'instead', which is to do something rather than another. in this case, it seems 'instead' would indeed go back in time to reverse any action from a source and replace it with its own insteaded effect.

ditto, it just seems very wierd after playing with it for years. this is a case where even though the ruling logically makes sense to me, it should favor precedent at this point.