Author Topic: Battle Prayer (Read 10971 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:50:18 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 12, 2009, 11:45:20 PM

The REG isn't the end all it once may have been. At this point, it is a somewhat safe bet to rule with your gut and various rulings gotten from these boards when they contradict the REG.

This is another whole issue that will someday have to be resolved. It may be time for more people to get involved in updating the REG, especially since it should be the official guide for hosts.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:53:10 PM »

Well, then in that case, the judge of the category, and in my opinion, you should probably have made sure people were aware of the ruling. I know your an upstanding guy, but if anyone who was hosting a tournament pulled a ruling like that out on my without me being previously made known of it, I would severely question the integrity of the tournament. Not because I think you (or whoever) is wrong or lying or whatever, but because hosts are now seemingly having secret email exchanges about rulings that only they know about.

You see how this is a slippery slope?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:56:49 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 12, 2009, 11:37:38 PM

Can I ask how this ruling would affect the card play?

Well my brother (The Guardian) had a pretty devious combo awhile ago utilizing Battle Prayer, side battles, and Besieging the City. It was one of those decks built so that your opponent couldn't play. Ever. I don't remember all the details, but he probably would.

The fact that the REG is erroneous is definitely a problem. Unfortunately, Cactus can't afford to pay people to update it, so those who do volunteer to, but can only do it every once in awhile. From my perusing of the ruling questions that have come up in the past several months since I was not on the boards, it does seem like it could use a major overhaul. I'm sure many players would love to help, but in the interest of keeping it more or less official, only certain people should have access to it. I think the best thing we can do is find things we notice that need changing to make it easier on those who will do the changing. So threads like these are good.

crustpope · « **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:59:56 PM »

Hey, I was there and as an unbiased observer, the only mistake I can see that Kirk made was in not letting the Judge of the category know of the precedent ahead of time. We all have combos that we think might be questionable in type 2 and we would be fools to advertize exactly what we are going to do ahead of time. This buisness of someone sneaking around the REG to ask Rob (or insert a judge here) directly is something many have done when feeling out how our combo will be ruled on. It isn't bad, it is being proactive and making sure that what we are doing is legal and within the scope of the game.

That Kirk did not make the judge of the category aware of the ruling change is his only mis-step. he did bring a print out of the ruling which was a very WISE decision because If he had not, the Judge clearly stated that He would have to rule according to the REG, Just as any judge would have to do.

Kirk did not do anything with malicious intent...that is unless you consider that they very object of a type two deck is often to destroy your opponents ability to do absolutely anything malicious...

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #29 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:02:23 AM »

Quote

after i explained that cards like great faith, battle prayer, ect. did not work to retrieve opposite allignments anymore and i was still confused as to why Gabriel (wa) discarded a good enhancement?

You also said that Rob told y'all at NC state that Great Faith can pull evil enhancements....

And yes Alex, in retrospect, I do realize it probably would have been best to tell the judge up front.

Kirk

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #30 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:02:53 AM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 12, 2009, 11:53:10 PM

Not because I think you (or whoever) is wrong or lying or whatever, but because hosts are now seemingly having secret email exchanges about rulings that only they know about.

As a host, I can assure you that the only secret emails I get are the ones that say I won a million dollar lottery in Dubai. All they need is my SSN and birthdate.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #31 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:08:49 AM »

it is not my intent to put you on trial kirk.

i just feel it is unfair for the community as a whole to believe that the cards we play with work a certain way (and even be printed to show such in an official guide ) only to be told otherwise in mid tournament/ midgame.

no thanx

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #32 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:11:36 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on July 13, 2009, 12:08:49 AM

it is not my intent to put you on trial kirk.

Well that is exactly what you did by mentioning my name in your post. Why else would you mention my name if you didn't intend to do so? You could have achieved your end result of finding out about incorrect REG entries without mentioning names.

Kirk

The Guardian · « **Reply #33 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:13:39 AM »

Tim and Mike are working on getting the REG in shape, which I believe we are all thankful for. It is rather disconcerting though that there's so many inconsistencies during the major tournament season... $:-\$

Does this mean the Women's Great Faith can also now pull evil enhancements again?

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #34 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:16:55 AM »

The point is simple: Unless an OFFICIAL ruling (not an email or opinion of X hosts) is made, the REG is the ONLY official ruling source besides the rulebook. Cactus states this as law.

We can argue over and over whether we think it is a error or should be changed, but popular opinion, even if it the REG is in error, NEVER overrides the REG.

crustpope · « **Reply #35 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:17:36 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 13, 2009, 12:13:39 AM

Does this mean the Women's Great Faith can also now pull evil enhancements again?

From what I can gather...Yes.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #36 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:17:46 AM »

Quote from: Cameron the Conqueror on July 13, 2009, 12:16:55 AM

The point is simple: Unless an OFFICIAL ruling (not an email or opinion of X hosts) is made, the REG is the ONLY official ruling source besides the rulebook. Cactus states this as law.

We can argue over and over whether we think it is a error or should be changed, but popular opinion, even if it the REG is in error, NEVER overrides the REG.

Angel's Sword proves you are wrong.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #37 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:19:04 AM »

Correct rulings > REG.

JDS · « **Reply #38 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:19:25 AM »

I did not misunderstand the E-mail, Rob just changed his mind after talking to Stephen. The REG also lists some Fortresses as multi and some as colorless, so Rob was clarifying.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #39 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:21:01 AM »

Ahh, my fault. I didn't get the entirety of the argument. I came in half way and was actually on your side, lol.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #40 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:23:33 AM »

Quote

Well that is exactly what you did by mentioning my name in your post. Why else would you mention my name if you didn't intend to do so? You could have achieved your end result of finding out about incorrect REG entries without mentioning names.
Kirk

because i wanted to get a concensus of what the board thought before the truth was revealed concerning the ruling on these cards.

i believe as a whole we try to follow these rulings and to a degree place a bit of trust in them.

i knew as soon as you posted the email the debate would enflare and i wanted to see everyone tell me i was wrong first

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #41 on:** July 13, 2009, 12:25:29 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 13, 2009, 12:13:39 AM

Tim and Mike are working on getting the REG in shape, which I believe we are all thankful for. It is rather disconcerting though that there's so many inconsistencies during the major tournament season... $:-\$

I know that this is true. I also know that they have been doing this for over a year now. I saw a preliminary draft of the new REG at Nats '08. I find it frustrating that now a year later, it still hasn't arrived. It (and the forum purge of '08) have caused some significant problems this year. I think that everyone will be glad to forgive these mistakes as long as they are learned from.

According to Schaef there won't be any more forum purges, so that problem is resolved. I think that in the future, the REG should be updated regularly with small updates. I think that we should avoid complete overhauls in the future, unless they are done by someone besides the person doing the regular updates, so that the regular updates will keep happening.

And as for this specific issue, I agree with what has already been said. Kirk was trying to be good by checking his strategy with Rob ahead of time, but should have also shown the email to the judge before the event started. I was the judge and felt like I had to rule according to Rob's wishes, but also felt badly about ruling contrary to the REG in the middle of a game.

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #42 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:32:45 AM »

Quote

I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.

When has something "official" on the boards ever go above the REG...? You read the REG I am sure before the tournament and did not agree on what it said due to your deck so you emailed Rob. Rob agreed with you without checking the REG. You both were in the wrong and me and Clift and Brad all said otherwise, yet you had an email which should never be used as a ruling over the REG even if the creator says so. That email possibly skewed the results in type 2 2 player. Lets learn from this.
1- An email is never used as a ruling.
2- The REG is there for a reason.
3- Anything on this forum is not official.
I am not picking on you Kirk, but what happened was wrong and you know it. I do love your deck and I agree that it should work the way it does but since it has been ruled otherwise and you knew that, you should not have gone above the REG to email Rob to get a different answer, because obviously you were expecting everyone to say the ruling, which is why you had your email. You are my friend but to me that seems like a dirty, low move. Had it been my tournament I would not have allowed it no matter if Rob himself was standing right there and said it works. The REG is made by very smart people, who know a lot about this game and those are the rules. The rules were not made so you can go over to the creator and get a different answer then what everyone else plays by. Had I been the judge things would have gone very differently.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #43 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:35:33 AM »

And the REG is also admittedly out of date with current rules and rulings.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #44 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:39:01 AM »

Quote from: Mr.Hiatus on July 13, 2009, 01:32:45 AM

Quote
I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.
When has something "official" on the boards ever go above the REG...? You read the REG I am sure before the tournament and did not agree on what it said due to your deck so you emailed Rob. Rob agreed with you without checking the REG. You both were in the wrong and me and Clift and Brad all said otherwise, yet you had an email which should never be used as a ruling over the REG even if the creator says so. That email possibly skewed the results in type 2 2 player. Lets learn from this.
1- An email is never used as a ruling.
2- The REG is there for a reason.
3- Anything on this forum is not official.
I am not picking on you Kirk, but what happened was wrong and you know it. I do love your deck and I agree that it should work the way it does but since it has been ruled otherwise and you knew that, you should not have gone above the REG to email Rob to get a different answer, because obviously you were expecting everyone to say the ruling, which is why you had your email. You are my friend but to me that seems like a dirty, low move. Had it been my tournament I would not have allowed it no matter if Rob himself was standing right there and said it works. The REG is made by very smart people, who know a lot about this game and those are the rules. The rules were not made so you can go over to the creator and get a different answer then what everyone else plays by. Had I been the judge things would have gone very differently.

This thread seems to be moving into the realm of personal attack. It would probably be best to resolve this matter privately.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #45 on:** July 13, 2009, 01:47:10 AM »

Quote from: Mr.Hiatus on July 13, 2009, 01:32:45 AM

Had it been my tournament I would not have allowed it no matter if Rob himself was standing right there and said it works. The REG is made by very smart people, who know a lot about this game and those are the rules. The rules were not made so you can go over to the creator and get a different answer then what everyone else plays by. Had I been the judge things would have gone very differently.

What do you do if your judging and player A plays Michael + Angel's Sword and Player B blocks with a WC dude wearing a Horse? Do you let A play the first enhancement because that's what's in the REG or does player B get to play the first enhancement because there was a huge thread and Rob ruled that any of the horsies trump Michael + AS?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #46 on:** July 13, 2009, 02:01:33 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 13, 2009, 01:47:10 AM

because there was a huge thread and Rob ruled that any of the horsies trump Michael + AS?

Which I just read through again.

So, I assume Mr. Hiatus would just write off this post as non-official, since it's not in the REG?

Quote from: Bryon on March 24, 2009, 10:25:23 PM

I just heard back from Rob about whether to make "First enhancement" any different from "next enhancement" or "an enhancement."

Rob said, "It's fine with me that they mean the same thing. I pretty much saw it that way from the beginning. I've learned the hard way that saying the same thing two different ways leads to a search for different meanings."

This means I was wrong, and in a way I'm glad. This makes things much simpler. Any time you see "play first enhancement" or "play next enhancement", it ONLY means "play an enhancement."

That means you wait until ALL special abilities complete, including other "play an enhancement" special abilities, before AS triggers to allow you to play the enhancement. It also means that horses on any WC EC mean the EC gets to play before any angel with AS, including Michael.

Yay! Simpler rulings!

The Guardian · « **Reply #47 on:** July 13, 2009, 03:32:29 AM »

Can someone refer me to where the REG talks about Angel's Sword on Michael vs a WC "play next" enhancement?

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #48 on:** July 13, 2009, 07:53:11 AM »

Quote

"I know you're an upstanding guy, because I've met you."
The Math Teacher

I dont care what ProfessorUnderwood says about ya Kirk i agree with TMT

Quote

Kirk did not do anything with malicious intent...
Crustpope

I know you was trying to do what was right

Quote

You also said that Rob told y'all at NC state that Great Faith can pull evil enhancements....

And even though the creator of the game told me this, I still didn’t do it
I believe it needs to be in the REG/rulebook
This is not a personal attack, I just feel like we should all play by the same rules.

Maybe when Rob gets emailed a question,
goes to check it on the REG,
and notices a discrepency,
he could rule accordingly and change the REG

or someone else? (shrugs)

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #49 on:** July 13, 2009, 10:37:05 AM »

Quote from: Mr.Hiatus on July 13, 2009, 01:32:45 AM

When has something "official" on the boards ever go above the REG...?

Angel's Sword is the first that comes to mind, and there are numerous other cases.

Quote

You read the REG I am sure before the tournament and did not agree on what it said due to your deck so you emailed Rob.

Of course, I read the REG all the time. I also read it before last nationals and asked Mike at nationals about this. I posted on the forums several times about it.

Quote

Rob agreed with you without checking the REG.

Actually, I cited the specific REG quote in my e-mail to him, so that would be a false assumption.

This is the exact e-mail I sent him. If you don't believe me, ask Mike, Rob, Schaef, or Bryon since they all have a copy of it.

"Good morning,

I write this e-mail simply to get a response I can print for tournament use to save time if a player asks about Battle Prayer (wa). If a player uses Gold offense with Gold defense and uses Battle Prayer (wa) to grab an evil gold enhancement, the opponent sometimes cites the a mistaken REG quote (Play As: Search your deck or discard pile for any good gold brigade enhancement and add to hand.) to try and prevent it.

I know I already asked you in person last year at Nationals, Mike, and I know the answer, unless things have changed very recently. I do believe it should still search for either a good gold or an evil gold enhancement, much like Gabriel (wa) still searches for a good enhancement or an evil enhancement.

I know a couple players in this area were hesistant to accept that it can search for evil gold enhancements still. As I am hosting regionals this weekend, I wanted to make things simpler.

Thanks!
--
God bless!
Kirk Dennison"

Quote

You both were in the wrong and me and Clift and Brad all said otherwise.... I am not picking on you Kirk, but what happened was wrong and you know it.... You are my friend but to me that seems like a dirty low move.

If you mean by "wrong" that I sought the truth and didn't think about showing the e-mail to the judge beforehand, that is an incorrect definition of "wrong." The only thing "wrong" about the situation is that the REG was outdated. Its pretty clear that you meant your post to be a personal attack.

Quote

you should not have gone above the REG to email Rob to get a different answer, because obviously you were expecting everyone to say the ruling, which is why you had your email.

The e-mail to Rob was not to get a different answer, but rather simply written proof of the correct answer I got last year at nationals from the creator of the REG. I would not have even bothered to e-mail Rob about it had Battle Prayer not come up in conversation at KY States. A couple players, such as Jonathan Pequinot, Jacob Stroh, and Mark Underwood were not sold on the REG entry being wrong. Outside of those three players, I did not think anyone else would try to cite an incorrect REG. It was simply proof for those guys.

Kirk

News:

Author Topic: Battle Prayer (Read 10971 times)

FresnoRedemption

Lamborghini_diablo