Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: LordZardeck on February 22, 2012, 05:19:42 PM
-
as the title reads, can you have King Saul (good) and King Saul (evil) both in your deck?
-
as the title reads, can you have King Saul (good) and King Saul (evil) both in your deck?
Yes. Just like you can have David (Red), David (Green), and King David (Purple) in the same deck.
-
Can I pull them both out with samuel?
-
Can I pull them both out with samuel?
yes but you cannot have both in your territory at the same time.
-
can I play one, then choose which one to discard?
-
can I play one, then choose which one to discard?
No you cannot put one in your territory with the other one already down.
-
can I play one, then choose which one to discard?
No you cannot put one in your territory with the other one already down.
Can we have someone confirm this please? I've always played where you can.
-
can I play one, then choose which one to discard?
No you cannot put one in your territory with the other one already down.
What if I use samuel? then it has to be put down.
-
can I play one, then choose which one to discard?
No you cannot put one in your territory with the other one already down.
What if I use samuel? then it has to be put down.
You cannot use samuel ability with one down. Though I might be wrong.
-
You can use Samuel's ability with one already in territory. You just choose which one to discard after using Samuel's ability. It work the same way with David. You can search for David while already having one in territory. Again you choose which copy to discard.
-
You can use Samuel's ability with one already in territory. You just choose which one to discard after using Samuel's ability. It work the same way with David. You can search for David while already having one in territory. Again you choose which copy to discard.
Agreed. The only time you can't use an ability due to multiple copies of a unique character is banding. It may be all "add to battle," but I'm not sure.
-
can I play one, then choose which one to discard?
No you cannot put one in your territory with the other one already down.
This is currently under discussion, but at my tournaments you cannot use an optional ability to break the "no duplicates in play" rule. Therefore if you have a choice (ie. Samuel), and David or Saul is already in play, then you cannot pull out another copy.
-
can I play one, then choose which one to discard?
No you cannot put one in your territory with the other one already down.
This is currently under discussion, but at my tournaments you cannot use an optional ability to break the "no duplicates in play" rule. Therefore if you have a choice (ie. Samuel), and David or Saul is already in play, then you cannot pull out another copy.
Is this under discussion on the Elder side of the boards? As of right now I know for a fact that Sam's ability pulls a David even if another David is in play (at least seemed to be the overall conclusion from that thread a couple months ago).
-
Yes. Apparently this was another thing that was played one way by some playtesters, and differently by others. Hopefully we will have it resolved sooner than the Thad issue of last year though, since we recognize its importance earlier on.
-
I don't think it's a huge issue, since most people agree that Sam himself isn't as big of a deal, however, it should probably be taken care of for obvious reasons. Glad to see the Elders are on top of things though. :)
-
can I play one, then choose which one to discard?
No you cannot put one in your territory with the other one already down.
This is currently under discussion, but at my tournaments you cannot use an optional ability to break the "no duplicates in play" rule. Therefore if you have a choice (ie. Samuel), and David or Saul is already in play, then you cannot pull out another copy.
Where did you get this ruling? Everything I have found says that it works. It is just frustrating to see everybody saying one thing and then to see a judge/elder say he would rule it differently. The following threads have me convinced that it should work until a clear cut ruling is made:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/samuel-29064/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/samuel-29064/)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/tas-and-duplicate-characters/msg248306/#msg248306 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/tas-and-duplicate-characters/msg248306/#msg248306)
-
One of those threads comes from 2 years ago, and the other one includes me saying:
I still think that the ruling should be that any card that has a "may" ability that would cause you to break the duplicate game rule should NOT be carried out (at least not the part that would break the gamerule).
Therefore, in the very thread you pointed to, I made the same ruling that I just made today.
-
And you've been going against the grain every time. It's one thing to say "I think the rule should be this way," but you seem to be implying you would actually rule it differently at a tournament.
-
One of those threads comes from 2 years ago, and the other one includes me saying:
I still think that the ruling should be that any card that has a "may" ability that would cause you to break the duplicate game rule should NOT be carried out (at least not the part that would break the gamerule).
Therefore, in the very thread you pointed to, I made the same ruling that I just made today.
Yes, I know one is outdated and that you were against it in the other one. I'm not directing this at you, but more at trying to stress the importance of getting a ruling on this so that everyone is on the same page. It's just that it has always been played one way and now the ruling comes into question, even though these situations have been around for awhile. I know over the last couple years Gabe has used The Woman at the Well in t2 to force me to have duplicate evil characters and had to discard one of them.
-
Currently, precedent dictates that Sam can search for duplicates. The debate must be over whether to change it.
-
And you've been going against the grain every time.
Actually, considering that I was the last elder to post on the most recent thread, and no other elders disagreed with my ruling, I am the grain :)
However, since then the elders have discovered that there are different precedents in different parts of the country. That is why we are now discussing this to determine how to rule this consistently everywhere. We'll return with an official decision later. But for now, I do plan on ruling this at tournaments the way that I have stated.
-
The biggest "you're wrong" I can think of is in the case of deck discard. According you you, a player can't use an optional ability that would put duplicates in play, but that's not always possible to determine before the fact. If someone uses the Assyrian card that can be insteaded by Discarding top cards from your deck, and you have Chamber in play, you could choose to Discard the top cards of your deck, but then if it contained any unique Angel you already had in play, it'd be illegal.
This falls under a more general ruling I've been pushing for for ages; don't have rules with de facto grey areas. For example, "add to battle" abilities; some people want any ability that adds a character to battle to be a banding ability. However, Evil Spawn can add either a character or an Enhancement to battle, and there's no way of knowing which (if any) it will be until after the fact. So if banding abilities are prevented, is Evil Spawn prevented?
I favor top-down rules with no exceptions. The way almost everyone plays duplicates, and has been for years, and the way the REG implies duplicates should be played, is such. Saying that an optional ability cannot create duplicate characters even in territory, while a non-optional can is both overly-complicated and in some instances broken (not in the sense of being to powerful, but doesn't work).
-
The biggest "you're wrong" I can think of is in the case of deck discard. According you you, a player can't use an optional ability that would put duplicates in play, but that's not always possible to determine before the fact.
I see a difference between purposefully breaking the "no duplicate characters" rule by going through your deck and choosing to put a duplicate character in play (which I would rule as illegal) and discarding the top card and being surprised to find that it is a duplicate character (which I would rule as legal).
One is trying to break the rules, and the other is doing it accidentally. In cases of accidentally breaking the rules, we have a rule to cover what to do (discard 1 of the duplicates), but there is no reason to allow people to break rules on purpose.
-
Hold the presses! Intent factors into legality now? So if I accidentally leave a LS in my opponent's deck, then I don't have to forfeit?
-
You can always search for duplicate characters with Samuel, the question is whether or not you can put the duplicate in play or whether it must go to hand. Just wanted to point out the error of many of the posts so far.
-
Hold the presses! Intent factors into legality now? So if I accidentally leave a LS in my opponent's deck, then I don't have to forfeit?
This. Also, why have a rule that a player can be forced to break unbeknownst to him instead of a rule that can only be broken intentionally? The REG does not tell you what to do if the rules are broken, it tells you what to do if a legal move causes a player to control two unique characters.
-
Also, why have a rule that a player can be forced to break unbeknownst to him instead of a rule that can only be broken intentionally?
The answer is in the question. I don't want to have a system that allows people to break rules intentionally. But I do want a system that has a backup plan for when rules are broken by accident.
-
You're proposing a system that would make it possible to have a rule broken, then have a contingency. I am supporting the system in which the rule can't be broken short of outright (accidental or intentional) cheating. Furthermore, your system is more complicated since it has one set of procedures for optional abilities and another for non-optional, while the existing system is universal.
-
You're proposing a system that would make it possible to have a rule broken, then have a contingency. I am supporting the system in which the rule can't be broken short of outright (accidental or intentional) cheating. Furthermore, your system is more complicated since it has one set of procedures for optional abilities and another for non-optional, while the existing system is universal.
I just want to reemphasize that it is the existing system. You might have your opinion right now Mark, but the current precedent is that you can pull a David if another David is in play. That's how the vast majority of people have been playing it, and I've played it that way with both Prof A and RDT (and, I believe, yourself) with no objections from any of you.
-
With all due respect Chris, I humbly disagree. I don't care if every elder in the game has played it that way, I would like a logical explanation as to why it should work. Never before was I able to remove a hero that had a enhancement on him, (say palsy for example) with another copy in my hand. IF Sam's ability said must, I could agree that you can swap duplicate characters out, but it says may meaning that a target must be valid. It's not, thus you can search for David or Saul but they stay in your hand until they are discarded. And that will remain my judgment until it is established as a true rule (which this one is controversial enough that not even two elder's in agreement in sufficient in my opinion).
-
With all due respect Chris, I humbly disagree. I don't care if every elder in the game has played it that way, I would like a logical explanation as to why it should work. Never before was I able to remove a hero that had a enhancement on him, (say palsy for example) with another copy in my hand. IF Sam's ability said must, I could agree that you can swap duplicate characters out, but it says may meaning that a target must be valid. It's not, thus you can search for David or Saul but they stay in your hand until they are discarded. And that will remain my judgment until it is established as a true rule (which this one is controversial enough that not even two elder's in agreement in sufficient in my opinion).
I'm not saying that that's how it should be (I actually agree with you, if nothing else than it cuts down Sam just a hair), I'm simply noting that that is definitely what the precedent is right now, and it is my belief that it should be played the way I mentioned until otherwise officially stated because of that precedent.
-
@Techno, You've only ever been able to control duplicates through non-Banding SA's, so your example is moot.
-
I just want to reemphasize that it is the existing system. You might have your opinion right now Mark, but the current precedent is that you can pull a David if another David is in play. That's how the vast majority of people have been playing it
Your perspective on this is biased by your location in the country. If you were playing in California or Minnesota or Kentucky there would be different precedents. This is why the elders are currently discussing this, and we'll have to return with an official decision.
But for now, my ruling is equally valid of a precedent as what you are saying.
-
I wholeheartedly think it Sam should be able to search for David, with David in play and plop it down. Pol and Chris are right (IMO) because the precedent that I have always know is that only banding abilities are restricted from allowing you to control duplicates.
-
I just want to reemphasize that it is the existing system. You might have your opinion right now Mark, but the current precedent is that you can pull a David if another David is in play. That's how the vast majority of people have been playing it
Your perspective on this is biased by your location in the country. If you were playing in California or Minnesota or Kentucky there would be different precedents. This is why the elders are currently discussing this, and we'll have to return with an official decision.
But for now, my ruling is equally valid of a precedent as what you are saying.
That's actually not true - this has only come up once in my section of the country, and as Brad mentioned, he disagrees with the way I think it is being ruled right now. My perspective on this is biased by the fact that that is how the online community has been playing it since the beginning of the season, and it's my belief that, with the exception of MN, the online meta has the biggest impact on this sort of thing.
-
It seems that your area is pretty consistently doing things differently than the rest of the country. This happened with Thad's protection, too. Why is that?
-
It seems that your area is pretty consistently doing things differently than the rest of the country. This happened with Thad's protection, too. Why is that?
Whose "your" are you referencing?
-
It seems that your area is pretty consistently doing things differently than the rest of the country. This happened with Thad's protection, too. Why is that?
Whose "your" are you referencing?
I presume Prof Underwood, since he was also the one who assumed/ruled that Thad's protection would not extend to EEs.
-
It seems that your area is pretty consistently doing things differently than the rest of the country. This happened with Thad's protection, too. Why is that?
I also assume that he's talking about my area. I'm not sure that 2 cases of doing things differently than MN counts as "pretty consistently", but I guess our area is pretty isolated from the rest of the country in some ways. Very few people from my area are active on the boards (pretty much just myself, and to a limited extent Schaef, Uthminister, and Crustpope).
The same is true for playgroups in other parts of the country (like California or the NW or TX or Florida). It is widely understood that the meta in FL is quite different than most other places, and YMT has talked for years about how many things his playgroup did things differently (of course I find him to be right on rulings pretty consistently these days). So I don't think the problem is limited to my region, but is rather a simple side effect of a game that is played across a large country among a small enough group of people that the overlap isn't 100%.
This is why we have the system set up so that ruling questions like this can be posted here on the boards and discussed. And when there is disagreement that the elders can come to a conclusion and come up with a standard ruling. This thread is an example of the system at work, and it is a good thing. Let's let the system work and stop arguing about it until we can return with something definitive.
P.S. My region is NOT the only one that has been playing Sam the way I have ruled in this thread.
-
Bump! I have several tournaments coming up soon and wanted to see if there is an update. Currently in my region We will have conflicting rulings, due to different host ruling differently on this and we need a ruling to settle this. We are getting close to late season where all the big important tourneys are and we still have no answer.
-
Bump! I have several tournaments coming up soon and wanted to see if there is an update. Currently in my region We will have conflicting rulings, due to different host ruling differently on this and we need a ruling to settle this. We are getting close to late season where all the big important tourneys are and we still have no answer.
Even though this is still being hashed out, at this time you can search for David with Samuel while you have a copy of David in play. The majority of people agree it is this way and as a result I believe it should be played this way until an official announcement is made. I understand some people disagree, but it is not fair to the players to have a debate that is so widely known ruled differently by seperate judges just because it should be a different way in their opinion. I know we ruled that it works here in Knoxville and I have seen it ruled that way in ROOT games also.
-
Unfortunately, just because a majority of players do it one way doesn't make it right. Neither does intention or anything else that makes the rules more fluid in this game.
You say:
Even though this is still being hashed out, at this time you can search for David with Samuel while you have a copy of David in play.
An Elder says:
We'll return with an official decision later. But for now, I do plan on ruling this at tournaments the way that I have stated.
That way is to NOT allow such activity as you described. He continues:
But for now, my ruling is equally valid of a precedent as what you are saying.
So how can you say that you can? This is the problem, and as pointed out, there are many tournaments coming up, including States and Regionals (not to mention Nationals). It is really important to have some sort of unified rule that almost everyone will argue isn't right for some reason but will have to follow it.
I know I have different opinions on this than other tournament hosts in my area. If I host a Local or District in 2 months, why should the players in our area have to deal with my interpretation when the month before at a different Local or District it was the exact opposite?
I want to let the process play out, but we really need a ruling here :( Please?
-
Unfortunately, just because a majority of players do it one way doesn't make it right. Neither does intention or anything else that makes the rules more fluid in this game.
You say:
Even though this is still being hashed out, at this time you can search for David with Samuel while you have a copy of David in play.
An Elder says:
We'll return with an official decision later. But for now, I do plan on ruling this at tournaments the way that I have stated.
That way is to NOT allow such activity as you described. He continues:
But for now, my ruling is equally valid of a precedent as what you are saying.
So how can you say that you can? This is the problem, and as pointed out, there are many tournaments coming up, including States and Regionals (not to mention Nationals). It is really important to have some sort of unified rule that almost everyone will argue isn't right for some reason but will have to follow it.
I know I have different opinions on this than other tournament hosts in my area. If I host a Local or District in 2 months, why should the players in our area have to deal with my interpretation when the month before at a different Local or District it was the exact opposite?
I want to let the process play out, but we really need a ruling here :( Please?
And again I refer to my earlier post:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/can-you-have-king-saul-(good)-and-king-saul-(evil)-both-in-your-deck/msg464709/#msg464709 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/can-you-have-king-saul-(good)-and-king-saul-(evil)-both-in-your-deck/msg464709/#msg464709)
Three elders in these threads seem to agree that this is how it has been ruled for awhile now and as far as I know I have not seen any overwhelming evidence to overturn this rule.
-
Three elders seem to agree that this is how it has been ruled for awhile now and as far as I know I have not seen any overwhelming evidence to overturn this rule.
You seem to miss the point of my post, sorry I was unclear. I'm not saying that you are wrong, just that no one is (as yet) completely right.
What I'm saying is that there is disagreement among the elders, and we have been told that at least one will rule differently at tournaments. There is a debate on their side of the forum. Until it is resolved, however, we have elders on different sides, saying they will rule differently, which is uncomfortable given the need for a steadfast rule (especially in tournaments).
They wouldn't be debating if there was one.
-
What I'm saying is that there is disagreement among the elders, and we have been told that at least one will rule differently at tournaments. There is a debate on their side of the forum. Until it is resolved, however, we have elders on different sides, saying they will rule differently, which is uncomfortable given the need for a steadfast rule (especially in tournaments).
They wouldn't be debating if there was one.
I completely agree. It is very frustrating to know that it is knowingly being ruled differently. Even if it is being debated on the other side, we should have a clear cut ruling in place until a final ruling is announced.
-
The biggest "you're wrong" I can think of is in the case of deck discard. According you you, a player can't use an optional ability that would put duplicates in play, but that's not always possible to determine before the fact.
I see a difference between purposefully breaking the "no duplicate characters" rule by going through your deck and choosing to put a duplicate character in play (which I would rule as illegal) and discarding the top card and being surprised to find that it is a duplicate character (which I would rule as legal).
One is trying to break the rules, and the other is doing it accidentally. In cases of accidentally breaking the rules, we have a rule to cover what to do (discard 1 of the duplicates), but there is no reason to allow people to break rules on purpose.
Prof, just a question for my own edification. If I had a copy of Jacob in my territory are you saying that I could not use Unholy Writ to capture your Jacob in battle?
I completely agree. It is very frustrating to know that it is knowingly being ruled differently. Even if it is being debated on the other side, we should have a clear cut ruling in place until a final ruling is announced.
I don't understand this claim. People seem to have a pretty good sense of how things would be ruled in their area ,and if they don't they could ask the host ahead of time. So you do have a clear cut ruling for any tournaments you might attend. This question is one of consistency across sections of the country and that doesn't need to be decided until the big tournaments roll around.
-
The problem is MJB is when you have a host who might think one way, but has players who judge other events (that the host plays) who think the other way, there is not consensus and it becomes the luck of who's judging for the players...It's been 7 months since this combo has been around, it needs to have a decision...For now I would suggest that our playgroup simply roll a d20 before the tournament begins. Evens, different versions of a card cannot be discarded and switched and you have to find another way to make your Sam deck work. Odds, we play as apparently the consensus believes it should be played (but has yet to present true logic, game rulings, REG, whatever for)...Then there are no surprises. fair enough? (if you wish, we can discuss this more in PM) :P
-
I just want to add on to this sentiment. A majority of the players/judges in our area (across two states) did not even know about this discard-same practice. Players who had been playing ROOT (like my brother and myself) were exposed to it. We took it as a given that it worked, especially with multiple elders using/approving of it.
I'll never forget Brad's face when I asked him a related question about discard-same in a different situation and told him what Sam 'does'. Priceless :D
But as he said, we all have different hosts who think differently about this rule. I probably disagree with my brother on this. And when we have brother-judge fighting brother-judge, obviously the end is near :'(
...there just needs to be one ruling is what I was trying to say ;)
-
Different rulings in different parts of the country? One of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard in a CCG.
Only in Redemption.
Only in Redemption.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.actuarialoutpost.com%2Factuarial_discussion_forum%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fshake2.gif&hash=cffa359fccadc93ee2790518231146c0c49420c0)
-
Players who had been playing ROOT (like my brother and myself) were exposed to it. We took it as a given that it worked, especially with multiple elders using/approving of it.
Great--then play it that way at your tournament. Moreover, if you have questions about it, send the host an e-mail ahead of time and ask him how he/she will rule it. That lets the host know there is a controversy and lets him prepare his judges to handle it. If you build a deck to take advantage of a rulings trick you learned solely through playing ROOT then a player has to know he is at risk of having the rulings trick getting ruled against. Seriously, there are any number of things I taken as given at various points in time that turned out not to be so. You have to recognize that that is how this game is (although I am not asking you to enjoy the fact).
The problem is MJB is when you have a host who might think one way, but has players who judge other events (that the host plays) who think the other way, there is not consensus and it becomes the luck of who's judging for the players...
I guess I am the strange one here. When I play if I have a deck that would be effected by a controversial ruling, I ask the host (before I get there if it is important, at the tournament if it doesn't matter so much) how he is going to rule it. (If I don't ask ahead of time then I have basically said I am happy with the luck of the draw on this ruling.) When I host, if I have an opinion on a controversial ruling I tell people up front how we will rule them in the tournament. I may disagree with the host's decision and people may choose to disagree with my decision, but at least everyone knows ahead of time. The host is the final arbiter on how his tournament is judged. If a host requires hearing from the elders to ensure ruling uniformity at his/her own tournament then both the players and the host have larger problems than whether a player can search for a second Samuel or not.
Look, I am *not* saying that having a single consistent ruling is not something devoutly to be desired. I am also *not* voting against the request for speedier rulings from the elders once a controversy is made known. What I *am* saying is that not having a definitive ruling is not a disaster.
Different rulings in different parts of the country?
Due to the relatively small and scattered following of the game and the lack of a simple guiding principle like "Cards are played as written," this is what this is.
-
What I think is interesting is erratas come along to fix abuses (example: A New Beginning, Holy Grail, etc). I think, for prevention of Samuel draw abuse with multiple Davids and Sauls in someone's deck, this rule should be solidified as Prof. Underwood is expressing.
Regarding existing rules, It seems to me that the intent of the rule is to prevent multiples of unique characters in a territory. So, question on the rule, If I had Siegeworks placed on a fortress in my opponent's territory, my opponent wouldn't be able to place a new copy of that fort in play to discard the old fortress to effectively get rid of my Siegeworks, would they? It is my understanding they would not, but I had an opponent play it that way due to the fact that Sam was allowed to bring in David/Saul and discard existing David/Saul in play. How is it any different to have an optional search and put in play vs just putting a duplicate in play to discard the old one? I think for appropriateness of the game rule, Sam. should be able to search but not put into play a David/Saul if it causes a duplicate situation in that player's territory because it is an optional ability. Or put another way, "Players are restricted from placing a nonlegal duplicate unique card in a territory"
-
Every elder at the T2 only agreed that you could search for and play a copy of David or King Saul regardless of already having one in play, and then choosing which to d/c. There were three elders there and it is
one of the most important tournament of the year. Hasn't ROOT/ a majority of online players been played this way as well all year? Add in the presidence of being able to force control of duplicate characters via special abilities except banding and then choosing which copy remains in play (see capturing an opponents hero despite already controlling one, woman at the well, Samaritan water jar etc.). The examples of not being able to play a fortress or character from handing to discard the same card in play doesn't apply. You aren't doing that via special ability.
-
Due to the relatively small and scattered following of the game and the lack of a simple guiding principle like "Cards are played as written," this is what this is.
Exactly. Isn't that the purpose of a card special ability? Is that not one of their reasons for existence? To sometimes allow you to do what the regular rules do not ordinarily allow you to do? Do card abilities not trump game rules? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
-
Due to the relatively small and scattered following of the game and the lack of a simple guiding principle like "Cards are played as written," this is what this is.
Exactly. Isn't that the purpose of a card special ability? Is that not one of their reasons for existence? To sometimes allow you to do what the regular rules do not ordinarily allow you to do? Do card abilities not trump game rules? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Shouldn't game rules guide card play? Every game I've ever played outside of this one is guided by its rules... furthermore rulings by elders should be based on these rules... still no one has answered my concern, Sam's ability is not required but rather optional, therefore a player's option should not be outside the game rules.
-
Jar definitely does not work, that's why it's terrible (effective) for Type 2. If a unique character is set aside via jar I cannot discard the one that is set aside to the one that I have in my hand in play. If Samuel said must, I would agree with the statement that the card abilities override the game rule, but it does not. It says may, and may means that you must have a target. If the target is already occupied, game rule says I can't replace it. TSE's example does apply in this situation. Are we also saying that If I use Rachel instead with Joseph having Palsy on him, I could exchange Rachel for the white Joseph in my deck (for sake of argument) and then I could get rid of the blue one in play for the white one? If so, why?
-
Due to the relatively small and scattered following of the game and the lack of a simple guiding principle like "Cards are played as written," this is what this is.
Exactly. Isn't that the purpose of a card special ability? Is that not one of their reasons for existence? To sometimes allow you to do what the regular rules do not ordinarily allow you to do? Do card abilities not trump game rules? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Shouldn't game rules guide card play? Every game I've ever played outside of this one is guided by its rules... furthermore rulings by elders should be based on these rules... still no one has answered my concern, Sam's ability is not required but rather optional, therefore a player's option should not be outside the game rules.
Guided by the rules yes, but every mainstream CCG out there follows the pretty simple rule of card special abilities overriding basic game rules. 'When a special ability and a general rule contradict each other, the special ability wins.' Sams ability being optional by the player is irrelevant. It is still a card special ability.
-
Due to the relatively small and scattered following of the game and the lack of a simple guiding principle like "Cards are played as written," this is what this is.
Exactly. Isn't that the purpose of a card special ability? Is that not one of their reasons for existence? To sometimes allow you to do what the regular rules do not ordinarily allow you to do? Do card abilities not trump game rules? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?
Shouldn't game rules guide card play? Every game I've ever played outside of this one is guided by its rules... furthermore rulings by elders should be based on these rules... still no one has answered my concern, Sam's ability is not required but rather optional, therefore a player's option should not be outside the game rules.
Guided by the rules yes, but every mainstream CCG out there follows the pretty simple rule of card special abilities overriding basic game rules. 'When a special ability and a general rule contradict each other, the special ability wins.' Sams ability being optional by the player is irrelevant. It is still a card special ability.
Calling a point irrelevant does not make that point invalid or irrelevant... the point remains, if I don't have the option to put a card into play because of a game rule then it should apply across the board relating to optional plays.
-
This discussion is the very reason why I keep requesting a ruling from the elders. Considering the importance of this ruling, getting it out as soon as possible would seem to be the priority. If the delay is due to elders not being able to come to an agreement, let Rob decide. I want to avoid these conflicts at my tournaments. I could force all the judges ta my tournaments to rule the way I rule, but there really should be no need for this. Is making a speedier more efficient ruling system not why the elder system was devised in the first place?
-
Jar definitely does not work, that's why it's terrible (effective) for Type 2. If a unique character is set aside via jar I cannot discard the one that is set aside to the one that I have in my hand in play. If Samuel said must, I would agree with the statement that the card abilities override the game rule, but it does not. It says may, and may means that you must have a target. If the target is already occupied, game rule says I can't replace it. TSE's example does apply in this situation. Are we also saying that If I use Rachel instead with Joseph having Palsy on him, I could exchange Rachel for the white Joseph in my deck (for sake of argument) and then I could get rid of the blue one in play for the white one? If so, why?
Samaritan Water Jar is a great example in favor of Samuel being ruled the way most do currently. Lets say you have a Samuel in play. I reveal Samuel with Samaritan Water Jars. The Samuel that goes to set-aside area from SWJ is discarded due to not being able to control duplicates but is still targeted. Same thing when I reveal a duplicate artifact or fortress with SWJ. The one revealed is discarded when a copy is currently in play. SWJ is able to target duplicates so Samuel should be able to as well.
-
Game rules are put into place to set forth the standard flow of the game. Special abilities exist to break that standard. Granting the player the option of breaking the standard game rule or not is still completely controlled by a special ability. The special ability still dictates the option given to the player.
If this game completely adhered to simple top-down approach we would not have nearly as many ruling headaches. There are so many grey areas in this game its not even amusing anymore.
-
Jar definitely does not work, that's why it's terrible (effective) for Type 2. If a unique character is set aside via jar I cannot discard the one that is set aside to the one that I have in my hand in play. If Samuel said must, I would agree with the statement that the card abilities override the game rule, but it does not. It says may, and may means that you must have a target. If the target is already occupied, game rule says I can't replace it. TSE's example does apply in this situation. Are we also saying that If I use Rachel instead with Joseph having Palsy on him, I could exchange Rachel for the white Joseph in my deck (for sake of argument) and then I could get rid of the blue one in play for the white one? If so, why?
Samaritan Water Jar is a great example in favor of Samuel being ruled the way most do currently. Lets say you have a Samuel in play. I reveal Samuel with Samaritan Water Jars. The Samuel that goes to set-aside area from SWJ is discarded due to not being able to control duplicates but is still targeted. Same thing when I reveal a duplicate artifact or fortress with SWJ. The one revealed is discarded when a copy is currently in play. SWJ is able to target duplicates so Samuel should be able to as well.
You're missing the point. Samaritan Water Jar is a MUST. It MUST happen, and so you have to resolve the multiple characters.
Samuel is a MAY. It MAY happen, so you cannot use it to control multiple characters.
The difference here is between MUST and MAY, and the examples are in no way relevant to each other.
-
Yes, Samuel is a may, but I think the question of "should intent be a factor" is a very important one, because if it's decided that intent should indeed be a factor (which would mean that Samuel can't pull a second David out), then that potentially causes some giant inconsistencies, which we're trying to avoid.
-
I missing what intent has to do with anything. Of course you can put him in your hand. So if you want to get your other David, push the first one into battle, let it get defeated, and then you can put in play the other one. Who knows, you might get a lost soul out of the deal instead. Now, it could happen that your opponent places an enhancement (like Palsy or other disease) or you run into a stonewall defense, but that's a chance you might have to take...
a MUST ability does not care if there is a valid target, a MAY does. Show me an example where you MAY do something that you the game rules prevent you from doing...
-
Pretty much every 'may' special ability in the game.
-
Specifically capture abilities. You have always been able to capture a duplicate character and discard one.
-
Jar definitely does not work, that's why it's terrible (effective) for Type 2. If a unique character is set aside via jar I cannot discard the one that is set aside to the one that I have in my hand in play. If Samuel said must, I would agree with the statement that the card abilities override the game rule, but it does not. It says may, and may means that you must have a target. If the target is already occupied, game rule says I can't replace it. TSE's example does apply in this situation. Are we also saying that If I use Rachel instead with Joseph having Palsy on him, I could exchange Rachel for the white Joseph in my deck (for sake of argument) and then I could get rid of the blue one in play for the white one? If so, why?
Samaritan Water Jar is a great example in favor of Samuel being ruled the way most do currently. Lets say you have a Samuel in play. I reveal Samuel with Samaritan Water Jars. The Samuel that goes to set-aside area from SWJ is discarded due to not being able to control duplicates but is still targeted. Same thing when I reveal a duplicate artifact or fortress with SWJ. The one revealed is discarded when a copy is currently in play. SWJ is able to target duplicates so Samuel should be able to as well.
You're missing the point. Samaritan Water Jar is a MUST. It MUST happen, and so you have to resolve the multiple characters.
Samuel is a MAY. It MAY happen, so you cannot use it to control multiple characters.
The difference here is between MUST and MAY, and the examples are in no way relevant to each other.
Redoubter give me an example that backs up your distinction between may and must when it comes to unique characters. I've got capture on my side what have you got? Where is this distinction between may and must you are coming up with regards to uniques.
I missing what intent has to do with anything. Of course you can put him in your hand. So if you want to get your other David, push the first one into battle, let it get defeated, and then you can put in play the other one. Who knows, you might get a lost soul out of the deal instead. Now, it could happen that your opponent places an enhancement (like Palsy or other disease) or you run into a stonewall defense, but that's a chance you might have to take...
a MUST ability does not care if there is a valid target, a MAY does. Show me an example where you MAY do something that you the game rules prevent you from doing...
TE I don't understand where you are getting "a MUST ability does not care if there is a valid target, a MAY does." I can't think of any game example that backs this up.
-
What do you want, an example of, say, placing characters? It's the same thing. The game rules state I MAY place characters in my territory during my prep and discard phases. Obviously, since that is a may, I may also place them and just discard one of the ones already there or in set-aside, right? No. That's the point. The game rules already have plenty of examples of this.
How about "you may play an enhancement", does that mean I can play one that is illegal to play due to brigades if that is the only enhancement in hand? No, it means I have the option to play WITHIN THE GAME RULES. If I "may add a character to territory", I still have to do so WITHIN THE GAME RULES.
If I can place David off of Sam on a may ability in violation of the game rules, why can I not violate the game rules on a may ability that allows me to play an enhancement?
-
I love when people post blanket statements without specific examples...thanks MKC...
I'm still thinking about the discarding a unique hero instead of capturing scenario...
-
What do you want, an example of, say, placing characters? It's the same thing. The game rules state I MAY place characters in my territory during my prep and discard phases. Obviously, since that is a may, I may also place them and just discard one of the ones already there or in set-aside, right? No. That's the point. The game rules already have plenty of examples of this.
Game rule vs game rule.
How about "you may play an enhancement", does that mean I can play one that is illegal to play due to brigades if that is the only enhancement in hand? No, it means I have the option to play WITHIN THE GAME RULES. If I "may add a character to territory", I still have to do so WITHIN THE GAME RULES.
Game rule vs game rule.
If I can place David off of Sam on a may ability in violation of the game rules, why can I not violate the game rules on a may ability that allows me to play an enhancement?
Special ability vs game rule. Big distinction.
I love when people post blanket statements without specific examples...thanks MKC...
I'm sorry, I thought it would be pretty clear when I said 'pretty much every may ability in the game'. Does this really require a list of examples?
-
Please actually explain your posts. Your entire post added nothing to the discussion.
You failed to tell me how the SA for "play enhancement" and the SA for "put character in territory" don't BOTH violate game rules.
Please actually post content.
-
Not a list, but a few would have been appropriate to show you actually want to contribute logic to the situation. What does saying "nearly every may ability" add to the conversation? I am not trying to be snarky, but I do not know every ability like the back of my hand. So cut me a little slack and show me a few examples that would satisfy your claim...
Also, you still have yet to explain what would happen in my Palsied Blue/Green Joseph so I attempt to use Rachel to get White Joseph out of the draw pile to put Blue/Green Joseph into the discard to grab at another time...If this doesn't work, how does Samuel and David/Saul work?
-
What do you want, an example of, say, placing characters? It's the same thing. The game rules state I MAY place characters in my territory during my prep and discard phases. Obviously, since that is a may, I may also place them and just discard one of the ones already there or in set-aside, right? No. That's the point. The game rules already have plenty of examples of this.
That's exactly it. It's a game rule, not a special ability. The game rule disallows a player from placing a unique character in their territory if they already have that same unique character in their territory. Special abilities, however, are allowed to violate game rules. There wouldn't be an argument here if Samuel didn't say "may," so don't bring in arguments that don't specifically apply to that.
Brad, the best example of may abilities violating game rules would be, as Prof A mentioned, capture abilities.
-
Please actually explain your posts. Your entire post added nothing to the discussion.
You failed to tell me how the SA for "play enhancement" and the SA for "put character in territory" don't BOTH violate game rules.
Please actually post content.
The point is EXACTLY as I posted it. We have already established that all of these examples break game rules. Lets move away from that. The point is that one instance breaks game rule without a special ability. The other breaks it by implementing a special ability. Special abilities are in nature allowed to do that.
Not a list, but a few would have been appropriate to show you actually want to contribute logic to the situation. What does saying "nearly every may ability" add to the conversation? I am not trying to be snarky, but I do not know every ability like the back of my hand. So cut me a little slack and show me a few examples that would satisfy your claim...
The logic is there. I answered your question entirely. Every may ability in the game. As in, every single one. If you want an example, lets use an oldie but goodie: Reach of Desperation. Normally you are not allowed to draw cards outside of draw phase by game rule. However, the special ability on Reach gives you the option of drawing 3 if you wish. That is a special ability. That is what is allowing you to break the standard game rule of not drawing outside of draw phase. That is my point: that special abilities by virtue allow you to do something you are not normally allowed to do by game rule. That is what makes them 'special'.
I'm not trying to be offensive either and I do apologize if I came off that way. I just do not know how to frame it any simpler than what I have already said.
-
Not a list, but a few would have been appropriate to show you actually want to contribute logic to the situation. What does saying "nearly every may ability" add to the conversation? I am not trying to be snarky, but I do not know every ability like the back of my hand. So cut me a little slack and show me a few examples that would satisfy your claim...
You have Amalekite's Slave in your territory. I block with my TAS and capture him to your LoB. You now control duplicate characters because of my may ability. This has always worked.
You attack with Thaddeus. I have Thaddeus in my territory. I use Unholy Writ to capture your Thaddeus. I now control duplicates because of my may ability and discard one.
I attack with Woman at the Well. I search your deck for The Rabshakeh, and you already have the Rabshakeh in your territory. You now control duplicates and must discard one. This is a sneaky play that has been legal since TexP.
Hope that helps.
Also, you still have yet to explain what would happen in my Palsied Blue/Green Joseph so I attempt to use Rachel to get White Joseph out of the draw pile to put Blue/Green Joseph into the discard to grab at another time...If this doesn't work, how does Samuel and David/Saul work?
The difference here is that Rachel adds Joseph to battle. That's the one place you can never control duplicate characters, in order to prevent a situation where you band in your opponent's unique character in order to discard it because of the one in your territory. It may seem a bit convoluted, but it really has been this way for a long time. It's just that there has rarely been a non-capture situation where it was beneficial to do so until Sam.
-
That's the one place you can never control duplicate characters, in order to prevent a situation where you band in your opponent's unique character in order to discard it because of the one in your territory. It may seem a bit convoluted, but it really has been this way for a long time.
I understand it has been this way for a long time. Apparantly there are 'hard' game rules that can never be broken even by special ability, and that is one of them. At least that was the way it was posed to me when I had a ruling question awhile back about Fishing Boat. And that is where the lines are skewed and primarily why some ruling questions cause huge problems and headaches. Because we have no concrete list to point to which are the 'hard' game rules that can never ever be broken. This is why I have always favored the top-down system, because there would be no question whatsoever what trumps what.
If we feel no need for the simple top-down system and find the necessity to invent 'hard' rules at a moments whim, then I propose we have a solid list posted somewhere to reference.
-
What it comes down to is there is a rule that exists and exists for a reason.
Also, people have found a way to abuse the power of a card and its in question. Isn't that the same reason Holy Grail and A New Beginning (along with other cards) got errata'd was abuse?
-
To be clear, both the other copy of TAS and Thad could have been discarded since I have more than 1 in territory, yes? Not just because Thad was captured via Writ and TAS was via his special ability?
Also, while I concede WatW is a similar situation, it also is an implied must ability, not may. I do not have the option of bringing in an EC, I have to. If it were may, then I would conclude we'd be in the same situation and you could not bring in a second copy of a unique character to force me to discard one.
-
What it comes down to is there is a rule that exists and exists for a reason.
Also, people have found a way to abuse the power of a card and its in question. Isn't that the same reason Holy Grail and A New Beginning (along with other cards) got errata'd was abuse?
But that is not what is being debated here, what is being debated here is how it currently works. Whether or not it needs an errata is an entirely different issue which we can resolve once we can get a consensus on how it currently should be ruled.
-
What it comes down to is there is a rule that exists and exists for a reason.
What it comes down to is apparantly there are hard rules that can never be broken no matter what and rules that can be broken with a special ability.
Also, people have found a way to abuse the power of a card and its in question. Isn't that the same reason Holy Grail and A New Beginning (along with other cards) got errata'd was abuse?
Going off on a completely different tangent, errata is issued for cards that are too broken for play otherwise. If Sam is deemed to be too broken for play, then he should be errata'd.
-
What it comes down to is there is a rule that exists and exists for a reason.
Also, people have found a way to abuse the power of a card and its in question. Isn't that the same reason Holy Grail and A New Beginning (along with other cards) got errata'd was abuse?
But that is not what is being debated here, what is being debated here is how it currently works. Whether or not it needs an errata is an entirely different issue which we can resolve once we can get a consensus on how it currently should be ruled.
I was trying to point out a ruling would make it so you wouldn't have to errata this card to stop the abuse, but I agree that the ruling is most important issue. Rulings should follow the game rules... Sorry if I muddied the waters there.
What it comes down to is there is a rule that exists and exists for a reason.
What it comes down to is apparantly there are hard rules that can never be broken no matter what and rules that can be broken with a special ability.
Usually there are rules about special abilities so you don't break the game rules... those are called amended rules (well in real life anyhow =) )
PS- on a completely different note, I finally learned how to double quote! No more double posting for me ;D
-
Usually there are rules about special abilities so you don't break the game rules... those are called amended rules (well in real life anyhow =) )
But every single special ability in the game breaks a game rule. I cannot think of one that does not. This is why there must be a reference to point to which game rules can absolutely not be broken, even by special ability.
-
Usually there are rules about special abilities so you don't break the game rules... those are called amended rules (well in real life anyhow =) )
But every single special ability in the game breaks a game rule. I cannot think of one that does not. This is why there must be a reference to point to which game rules can absolutely not be broken, even by special ability.
example of rule-
You begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing a Hero in the Field of Battle. The Hero can be played from your hand or your territory.
example of special ability rule-
A band ability brings a character into battle to assist another character that is already in the battle. (this does not break the first rule)
example of breaking special ability rule-
I will band my hero to an evil character... that breaks the rule...
-
Actually your example of an SA rule breaks the first rule.
Because the first rule doesn't allow you to add any hero at will, only one hero once, banding breaks that rule because it brings in a second hero.
A better example is this.
Normally I can't just grab my opponent's hand and look at it, but If I RA with Daniel I can do so.
Thus we see further support for KChiefs position that SAs allow us to break game rules.
-
Actually your example of an SA rule breaks the first rule.
Because the first rule doesn't allow you to add any hero at will, only one hero once, banding breaks that rule because it brings in a second hero.
A better example is this.
Normally I can't just grab my opponent's hand and look at it, but If I RA with Daniel I can do so.
Thus we see further support for KChiefs position that SAs allow us to break game rules.
No... here is the full rule on battle...
You begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing a Hero in the Field of Battle. The Hero can be played from your hand or your territory. Some Heroes have a special ability printed over the picture on the card. This special ability does not become active until the Hero enters battle. Once the Hero enters battle, the special ability is activated simultaneously. The instructions on the card must be applied at that moment. If the special ability includes the word “may,” you can choose to activate the special ability or skip it for that battle. Once the Hero has entered battle and special ability completed, he has begun the battle. At this point, declare your intentions to make a rescue attempt or battle challenge.
And then rules applicable to special abilities kick in... no violation of rules. There are rules that govern the game, SA rules are sub categories of those rules and are governed by the game rule...
-
You begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing a Hero in the Field of Battle... Once the Hero has entered battle and special ability completed, he has begun the battle. At this point, declare your intentions to make a rescue attempt or battle challenge.
So by this logic when another hero is banded into battle you start a new rescue or battle challenge every time a hero enters battle. Thus a band should start a new battle for each hero. Obviously this doesn't happen so we see banding breaks a game rule.
-
You begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing a Hero in the Field of Battle... Once the Hero has entered battle and special ability completed, he has begun the battle. At this point, declare your intentions to make a rescue attempt or battle challenge.
So by this logic when another hero is banded into battle you start a new rescue or battle challenge every time a hero enters battle. Thus a band should start a new battle for each hero. Obviously this doesn't happen so we see banding breaks a game rule.
No... read the SA definition/rule for banding:
A band ability brings a character into battle to assist another character that is already in the battle. (this does not break the first rule)
-
You begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing a Hero in the Field of Battle.
This is the game rule. Which says you may place a Hero in the Field of Battle to start a rescue attempt. A. Singular. One. You cannot add any more than 1 Hero to the field of battle within the game rules or you will be in violation of said game rules. Now, there are ways to get around those game rules. Those are called special abilities. Banding abilities are one of those special abilities. It is allowing you to break the normal game rule of 1 Hero starting a rescue attempt by bringing in more Heroes.
-
Prof, just a question for my own edification. If I had a copy of Jacob in my territory are you saying that I could not use Unholy Writ to capture your Jacob in battle?
Unholy Writ is an optional ability, so I would currently like to rule that a person would not be allowed to capture a hero if they already had that hero in their territory.
Apparantly there are 'hard' game rules that can never be broken even by special ability
It is true that there are some game rules that are allowed to be broken by special abilities, and there are other game rules that are NOT allowed to be broken by special abilities. I also agree with you that it would be a good idea to have a list of both. However, I also admit that coming up with such a list seems overwhelming.
The point is that this is a difficult decision, so please let us keep discussing it on the other side. We will return with an answer (before big tournaments) :)
-
I attack with Woman at the Well. I search your deck for The Rabshakeh, and you already have the Rabshakeh in your territory. You now control duplicates and must discard one. This is a sneaky play that has been legal since TexP.
Hold on. Let me play catch-up. So currently a player CAN search another player's deck and put a duplicate of a unique card in play, but CANNOT search their own deck to put a duplicate of a unique card in play?
And if so, it's different because the overall general rule is written in the first person?
-
You begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing a Hero in the Field of Battle.
This is the game rule. Which says you may place a Hero in the Field of Battle to start a rescue attempt. A. Singular. One. You cannot add any more than 1 Hero to the field of battle within the game rules or you will be in violation of said game rules. Now, there are ways to get around those game rules. Those are called special abilities. Banding abilities are one of those special abilities. It is allowing you to break the normal game rule of 1 Hero starting a rescue attempt by bringing in more Heroes.
Read the battle/game rule-
You begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing a Hero in the Field of Battle. The Hero can be played from your hand or your territory. Some Heroes have a special ability printed over the picture on the card. This special ability does not become active until the Hero enters battle. Once the Hero enters battle, the special ability is activated simultaneously. The instructions on the card must be applied at that moment. If the special ability includes the word “may,” you can choose to activate the special ability or skip it for that battle. Once the Hero has entered battle and special ability completed, he has begun the battle. At this point, declare your intentions to make a rescue attempt or battle challenge.
It allows for special abilities (thus governing their allowance). Then, banding is allowed:
A band ability brings a character into battle to assist another character that is already in the battle. (and is allowed and governed by the game rule)
Can I use a band ability outside of battle (meaning when there is no battle occurring)? No, because banding is governed within the rule of battle....
-
I attack with Woman at the Well. I search your deck for The Rabshakeh, and you already have the Rabshakeh in your territory. You now control duplicates and must discard one. This is a sneaky play that has been legal since TexP.
Hold on. Let me play catch-up. So currently a player CAN search another player's deck and put a duplicate of a unique card in play, but CANNOT search their own deck to put a duplicate of a unique card in play?
And if so, it's different because the overall general rule is written in the first person?
A player can search anyone's deck and put a unique duplicate in play. That is the current rule, and it is currently being debated, since some elders and others believe it not to be the case.
-
I attack with Woman at the Well. I search your deck for The Rabshakeh, and you already have the Rabshakeh in your territory. You now control duplicates and must discard one. This is a sneaky play that has been legal since TexP.
Hold on. Let me play catch-up. So currently a player CAN search another player's deck and put a duplicate of a unique card in play, but CANNOT search their own deck to put a duplicate of a unique card in play?
And if so, it's different because the overall general rule is written in the first person?
A player can search anyone's deck and put a unique duplicate in play. That is the current rule, and it is currently being debated, since some elders and others believe it not to be the case.
From my recollection, a player could NOT put a unique duplicate in an in-play area that they control (i.e. their own territory or their side of the battle) IF the player had a choice of targets or if it was an action they "may" do.
Examples:
1. I cannot put King David down in my territory if I control David in my territory or my side of the battle (game rule specifies player "may" place a character in territory or battle).
2. I cannot search my own deck to put King David down in my territory if I already control David (like #1) IF there are other targets available OR the special ability specifies "may".
3. I can search my own deck to put King David down in my territory if I already control David IF it is the only target AND IF the special ability doesn't specify "may" (i.e. I have to do it and I only have the one target).
As for putting a unique duplicate in an in-play area that my opponent controls, I've always ruled that a player can EXCEPT for the one condition where both duplicates are in battle.
It was always a bit cumbersome to remember, and I'm not at all sure I ever was ruling it correctly, but I vote for simplicity and consistency. :)
-
It is true that there are some game rules that are allowed to be broken by special abilities, and there are other game rules that are NOT allowed to be broken by special abilities. I also agree with you that it would be a good idea to have a list of both. However, I also admit that coming up with such a list seems overwhelming.
You wouldn't need a list of both, because I'm betting you can't count a list of the 'hard' rules on one hand.
Read the battle/game rule-
You begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing a Hero in the Field of Battle. The Hero can be played from your hand or your territory. Some Heroes have a special ability printed over the picture on the card. This special ability does not become active until the Hero enters battle. Once the Hero enters battle, the special ability is activated simultaneously. The instructions on the card must be applied at that moment. If the special ability includes the word “may,” you can choose to activate the special ability or skip it for that battle. Once the Hero has entered battle and special ability completed, he has begun the battle. At this point, declare your intentions to make a rescue attempt or battle challenge.
It allows for special abilities (thus governing their allowance). Then, banding is allowed:
Yes, it tells you exactly when special abilities activate by game rule. This is besides the point.
A band ability brings a character into battle to assist another character that is already in the battle. (and is allowed and governed by the game rule)
Can I use a band ability outside of battle (meaning when there is no battle occurring)? No, because banding is governed within the rule of battle....
You're exactly right. Game rule states banding (which is a special ability) happens within the battle phase. But then what do you call it when a card is created that allows you to band outside of battle? Thats right, a special ability. That allows you to break a game rule. That is the sole purpose of a special ability. That is their primary function and what they are designed to do. To allow you to do something that you are not normally allowed to do within the game rules.
The real debate here is exactly what are the hard rules that cannot be broken no matter what, even by special ability.
A player can search anyone's deck and put a unique duplicate in play. That is the current rule, and it is currently being debated, since some elders and others believe it not to be the case.
If this is a rule, why do we have judges ruling it differently in other locales? Does debating a current ruling give judges the right to rule it as they choose now?
-
You're exactly right. Game rule states banding (which is a special ability) happens within the battle phase. But then what do you call it when a card is created that allows you to band outside of battle? Thats right, a special ability. That allows you to break a game rule. That is the sole purpose of a special ability. That is their primary function and what they are designed to do. To allow you to do something that you are not normally allowed to do within the game rules.
The real debate here is exactly what are the hard rules that cannot be broken no matter what, even by special ability.
[/quote]
I would find it interesting if you could band out side of battle... pre-battle band LOL... it would be an amended rule to banding... it would then be with in the rules of the game... much like territory class enhancements. They don't break the rules, because rules have been written/added to the prep/discard phases... They are still governed by game rules.
What's being debated is if a may (optional) ability work within the game rules... if they don't then the current ruling/way it is played should be changed, because it would be a rule violation. However, if the ruling is concurrent with the game rules then it should stay as is.
What many of us are debating is that the way it is played right now doesn't follow the rule of you can't bring duplicates into play by your own will, but in the situation where it is forced (not chosen) then there is a rule to unbreak the game. The rule is there to unbreak the game, not allow for Sam. draw abuse. Or in other words, when forced to break the rules there is a provision, but you shouldn't be allowed to break the rule on purpose. I think that is the contention and debate at this point.
-
There is no rule against bringing multiple unique characters under your control. The rule is that if you come to control multiple unique characters, you must Discard one, with an appendix that specifically prohibits causing this situation via banding or playing from hand by game rule. That's all.
-
I would find it interesting if you could band out side of battle... pre-battle band LOL... it would be an amended rule to banding... it would then be with in the rules of the game...
It is not within the normal game rules. It is a SPECIAL ABILITY that is breaking (bending/going around/going through/frame it as you choose) the game rules.
much like territory class enhancements. They don't break the rules, because rules have been written/added to the prep/discard phases... They are still governed by game rules.
They DO break the rules. Are you normally allowed to play regular enhancements during prep/discard phase? If the answer is no, then what is allowing you to do so? A special ability. Is this special ability directly against the normal game rules? Absolutely. Game rules governing when certain special abilities take place really have nothing to do at all with what I am talking about.
What's being debated is if a may (optional) ability work within the game rules...
They currently do. They always have. This is the precedent.
What many of us are debating is that the way it is played right now doesn't follow the rule of you can't bring duplicates into play by your own will
Please point to me in the game rules where you cannot bring duplicates to play outside of battle by special ability.
The rule is there to unbreak the game, not allow for Sam. draw abuse.
This leads me to believe you are trying to frame rules only to make a certain Hero less powerful. Thats not a very objective approach to the real situation here. We shouldn't be making rulings based on if a certain character is abusing the meta. We should be making rulings based on what they actually are.
Or in other words, when forced to break the rules there is a provision, but you shouldn't be allowed to break the rule on purpose. I think that is the contention and debate at this point.
Then this would be a hard rule the game needs to establish. I have been saying this continuously now.
-
I would find it interesting if you could band out side of battle... pre-battle band LOL... it would be an amended rule to banding... it would then be with in the rules of the game...
It is not within the normal game rules. It is a SPECIAL ABILITY that is breaking (bending/going around/going through/frame it as you choose) the game rules.
It is currently not in the rules because there is no special ability that allows for this and therefore no rule allowing this...
much like territory class enhancements. They don't break the rules, because rules have been written/added to the prep/discard phases... They are still governed by game rules.
They DO break the rules. Are you normally allowed to play regular enhancements during prep/discard phase? If the answer is no, then what is allowing you to do so? A special ability. Is this special ability directly against the normal game rules? Absolutely. Game rules governing when certain special abilities take place really have nothing to do at all with what I am talking about.
They are within the game rules because there was a rule created for territory class enhancements. How could you play them if there was no rule governing them??????????
What many of us are debating is that the way it is played right now doesn't follow the rule of you can't bring duplicates into play by your own will
Please point to me in the game rules where you cannot bring duplicates to play outside of battle by special ability.
our contention is that by general rule, you can't break the rules by will...
The rule is there to unbreak the game, not allow for Sam. draw abuse.
This leads me to believe you are trying to frame rules only to make a certain Hero less powerful. Thats not a very objective approach to the real situation here. We shouldn't be making rulings based on if a certain character is abusing the meta. We should be making rulings based on what they actually are.
My intention is for consistency on the rule that you can not willfully add a duplicate to play...
Or in other words, when forced to break the rules there is a provision, but you shouldn't be allowed to break the rule on purpose. I think that is the contention and debate at this point.
Then this would be a hard rule the game needs to establish. I have been saying this continuously now.
I agree
-
There is no rule against bringing multiple unique characters under your control. The rule is that if you come to control multiple unique characters, you must Discard one, with an appendix that specifically prohibits causing this situation via banding or playing from hand by game rule. That's all.
Yes, there is a rule:
No player may control duplicates of a unique character or cause them to fight each other. This includes unique characters in play, in battle, in a side battle, face down, or in a set-aside area. Character cards with the same card title and the same art or with the same title and the same brigade are considered duplicates for deck building purposes. A player may have only control one of these at any time. The only exception to this rule is non-unique characters with different card art.
The point of the provision is when you are forced to have duplicates under your control, you then have to discard one. The provisional rule prevents you from breaking the game rule. At least that's how I interpret the point of the provisional rule. It seems like when you use an optional ability like "may..." it is taking advantage of a rule that was intended to keep the game from being broken, rather than a rule that allows you to do something.
A tidbit of information: rules and laws don't grant liberty, but rather restrict freedoms for the good of a community. For example, a speed limit doesn't allow you to go under the limit but rather restricts you from going above it.
The point is is that the rule is grey... it does not specify the parameters... whichever way it is decided will clarify the issue.
-
It is currently not in the rules because there is no special ability that allows for this and therefore no rule allowing this...
Ok, so you have a game rule that says when you can play a specific type of card. This is not new. This is the foundation games are built on. Otherwise every single card in the game would be unplayable because there are no parameters to govern when they can be played. I still don't see where you're going with this, or how you have explained to me how special abilities do not break normal game rules by virtue.
They are within the game rules because there was a rule created for territory class enhancements. How could you play them if there was no rule governing them??????????
Right. I gave you that. I am not talking about game rules that govern how cards are played. As said earlier, if there were no game rules, this game would be completely unplayable. We are talking about how special abilities naturally break the game rules. Using Territory-Class enhancements as an example, are you normally allowed to convert an opponents human evil character during prep phase on a moments whim? No. It is the special ability on a card such as Meeting the Messiah that allows you to break that game rule.
our contention is that by general rule, you can't break the rules by will...
Absolutely. I agree with you 100%. This is why special abilities give you that option.
My intention is for consistency on the rule that you can not willfully add a duplicate to play...
Not by game rule. By special ability yes. UNLESS there is a game rule that specifically prohibits a specific special ability from doing it (see: banding). This would make it a 'hard' game rule.
Yes, there is a rule:
No player may control duplicates of a unique character or cause them to fight each other. This includes unique characters in play, in battle, in a side battle, face down, or in a set-aside area. Character cards with the same card title and the same art or with the same title and the same brigade are considered duplicates for deck building purposes. A player may have only control one of these at any time. The only exception to this rule is non-unique characters with different card art.
The point of the provision is when you are forced to have duplicates under your control, you then have to discard one. The provisional rule prevents you from breaking the game rule. At least that's how I interpret the point of the provisional rule. It seems like when you use an optional ability like "may..." it is taking advantage of a rule that was intended to keep the game from being broken, rather than a rule that allows you to do something.
A tidbit of information: rules and laws don't grant liberty, but rather restrict freedoms for the good of a community. For example, a speed limit doesn't allow you to go under the limit but rather restricts you from going above it.
The point is is that the rule is grey... it does not specify the parameters... whichever way it is decided will clarify the issue.
The rules also outline what you are to do if such an occurance occurs. You are not allowed to control duplicates by game rule. This means you cannot use normal game rule functions to put duplicate Heroes in play. This is not the case for special abilities. If such a rule existed that you are unable to put duplicate characters into play no matter what (special abilities included), then it would be completely pointless to include the actions that must be taken when you control duplicate characters (discard duplicates until you only control 1).
-
The rules also outline what you are to do if such an occurance occurs. You are not allowed to control duplicates by game rule. This means you cannot use normal game rule functions to put duplicate Heroes in play. This is not the case for special abilities. If such a rule existed that you are unable to put duplicate characters into play no matter what (special abilities included), then it would be completely pointless to include the actions that must be taken when you control duplicate characters (discard duplicates until you only control 1).
There in lies the contention: when a card says you must do something, you have to do it, even if it causes another rule to be broken. Therefore, you must fix the broken rule to allow for the break. Thus, it becomes a rule that in a forced duplicate situation you must discard one of the duplicates. Problem fixed... what the problem becomes is whether or not you allow people to intentionally break the rule, or only allow the provisional rule apply to forced situations. This problem is that "May" abilities are not required by game rule, but "Must" abilities are...
-
The rules also outline what you are to do if such an occurance occurs. You are not allowed to control duplicates by game rule. This means you cannot use normal game rule functions to put duplicate Heroes in play. This is not the case for special abilities. If such a rule existed that you are unable to put duplicate characters into play no matter what (special abilities included), then it would be completely pointless to include the actions that must be taken when you control duplicate characters (discard duplicates until you only control 1).
There in lies the contention: when a card says you must do something, you have to do it, even if it causes another rule to be broken. Therefore, you must fix the broken rule to allow for the break. Thus, it becomes a rule that in a forced duplicate situation you must discard one of the duplicates. Problem fixed... what the problem becomes is whether or not you allow people to intentionally break the rule, or only allow the provisional rule apply to forced situations. This problem is that "May" abilities are not required by game rule, but "Must" abilities are...
The biggest argument for "May" abilities to be treated the same way "Must" abilities are in these scenarios is that of intention. It makes a lot more sense and offers a lot less potential breakage to simply leave things the way they are.
-
The rules also outline what you are to do if such an occurance occurs. You are not allowed to control duplicates by game rule. This means you cannot use normal game rule functions to put duplicate Heroes in play. This is not the case for special abilities. If such a rule existed that you are unable to put duplicate characters into play no matter what (special abilities included), then it would be completely pointless to include the actions that must be taken when you control duplicate characters (discard duplicates until you only control 1).
There in lies the contention: when a card says you must do something, you have to do it, even if it causes another rule to be broken. Therefore, you must fix the broken rule to allow for the break. Thus, it becomes a rule that in a forced duplicate situation you must discard one of the duplicates. Problem fixed... what the problem becomes is whether or not you allow people to intentionally break the rule, or only allow the provisional rule apply to forced situations. This problem is that "May" abilities are not required by game rule, but "Must" abilities are...
The biggest argument for "May" abilities to be treated the same way "Must" abilities are in these scenarios is that of intention. It makes a lot more sense and offers a lot less potential breakage to simply leave things the way they are.
How does it offer less breakage? (sincerely, I can listen to a well argued thought-out point here)
-
I'm tired and sick, and thus unable to conjure specific examples right now, but I think the main thing is that it currently isn't broken, so why mess with it? I think the old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here. I'm sure MKC or Alex or somebody can come up with a better reason than that though.
-
I'm tired and sick, and thus unable to conjure specific examples right now, but I think the main thing is that it currently isn't broken, so why mess with it? I think the old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here. I'm sure MKC or Alex or somebody can come up with a better reason than that though.
I will then wait for the response =)
-
There in lies the contention: when a card says you must do something, you have to do it, even if it causes another rule to be broken. Therefore, you must fix the broken rule to allow for the break. Thus, it becomes a rule that in a forced duplicate situation you must discard one of the duplicates. Problem fixed...
No, because even if the special ability said must, you are still being prohibited from carrying out such an ability by hard game rule. Therefore it is still pointless to include what to do when a duplicates situation arose.
what the problem becomes is whether or not you allow people to intentionally break the rule, or only allow the provisional rule apply to forced situations. This problem is that "May" abilities are not required by game rule, but "Must" abilities are...
Must abilities make you break the game rules, no ifs ands or buts (unless prohibited by hard game rule), so there is no argument there. I think the real problem is how we are defining 'may'. Consider this: just because a special ability contains 'may' syntax, does that somehow automatically mean that if a portion of the may ability causes a game rule to be broken, that the game rule takes any authority over the special ability? Or is the 'may' ability just simply giving the player 2 options: to break a game rule or not to break a game rule? Seeing as how special abilities naturally break game rules by their very existence, its quite easy to see what 'may' abilities default to.
-
There in lies the contention: when a card says you must do something, you have to do it, even if it causes another rule to be broken. Therefore, you must fix the broken rule to allow for the break. Thus, it becomes a rule that in a forced duplicate situation you must discard one of the duplicates. Problem fixed...
No, because even if the special ability said must, you are still being prohibited from carrying out such an ability by hard game rule. Therefore it is still pointless to include what to do when a duplicates situation arose.
what the problem becomes is whether or not you allow people to intentionally break the rule, or only allow the provisional rule apply to forced situations. This problem is that "May" abilities are not required by game rule, but "Must" abilities are...
Must abilities make you break the game rules, no ifs ands or buts (unless prohibited by hard game rule), so there is no argument there. I think the real problem is how we are defining 'may'. Consider this: just because a special ability contains 'may' syntax, does that somehow automatically mean that if a portion of the may ability causes a game rule to be broken, that the game rule takes any authority over the special ability? Or is the 'may' ability just simply giving the player 2 options: to break a game rule or not to break a game rule? Seeing as how special abilities naturally break game rules by their very existence, its quite easy to see what 'may' abilities default to.
but they don't break game rules... game rules allow them to operate within their parameters... what I have seen is that they create rules to fix it when rules get broken by other rules, so therefore there are rules that govern the game, they don't get broken, they get amended/provision to explain what should happen in specific situations... this debate is chicken or egg at this point... what it comes down to is how the elders see it and they see enough of an issue to look it over...
-
If special abilities do not break game rules, then please explain to me how you are able to draw 3 cards during battle phase. Convert a human evil character during prep phase. Discard all evil characters during battle phase. Are these game rules that allow a person to do this? Because I would just love to tell my opponent I'm discarding all of his evil characters without using a special ability.
-
If special abilities do not break game rules, then please explain to me how you are able to draw 3 cards during battle phase. Convert a human evil character during prep phase. Discard all evil characters during battle phase. Are these game rules that allow a person to do this? Because I would just love to tell my opponent I'm discarding all of his evil characters without using a special ability.
But there are game rules that govern the allowance and limitations of those special abilities. Think of it this way, special abilities are allowed by provisional rules within the phases. Territory class cards were provisioned/added/written-in/allowed/amended to the game rules. They have rules that govern them. All special abilities are governed by the rules of the game or there would be chaos without those rules that allow for them.
-
If special abilities do not break game rules, then please explain to me how you are able to draw 3 cards during battle phase. Convert a human evil character during prep phase. Discard all evil characters during battle phase. Are these game rules that allow a person to do this? Because I would just love to tell my opponent I'm discarding all of his evil characters without using a special ability.
But there are game rules that govern the allowance and limitations of those special abilities. Think of it this way, special abilities are allowed by provisional rules within the phases. Territory class cards were provisioned/added/written-in/allowed/amended to the game rules. They have rules that govern them. All special abilities are governed by the rules of the game or there would be chaos without those rules that allow for them.
None of this explains what I have asked of you. I'm asking you to tell me how I am able discard all of your evil characters during battle.
-
If special abilities do not break game rules, then please explain to me how you are able to draw 3 cards during battle phase. Convert a human evil character during prep phase. Discard all evil characters during battle phase. Are these game rules that allow a person to do this? Because I would just love to tell my opponent I'm discarding all of his evil characters without using a special ability.
But there are game rules that govern the allowance and limitations of those special abilities. Think of it this way, special abilities are allowed by provisional rules within the phases. Territory class cards were provisioned/added/written-in/allowed/amended to the game rules. They have rules that govern them. All special abilities are governed by the rules of the game or there would be chaos without those rules that allow for them.
None of this explains what I have asked of you. I'm asking you to tell me how I am able discard all of your evil characters during battle.
due to a special ability that is allowed to be played according to the game rules.
-
due to a special ability...
This is the only part that is relevant. We already know game rules dictate when special abilities can be played. This however has no correlation to what special abilties do: break a game rule somewhere.
-
due to a special ability...
This is the only part that is relevant. We already know game rules dictate when special abilities can be played. This however has no correlation to what special abilties do: break a game rule somewhere.
but they are still restricted to the games rules. SA's have rules that they follow...
-
I'm betting you can't count a list of the 'hard' rules on one hand.
Just a few I can think of off the top of my head:
A card that is placed on a card follows that card (except LSs on sites and WC enhs on captured characters). I know this is a "hard" rule because KotW does NOT protect characters in it from being discarded if you discard KotW
A card that CBN when it is played can NEVER be negated. I know this because even if the situation changes so that it COULD be negated (ie. Nergalshazzer becomes the only Babylonian in play), then you still can't go back and negate the previous EEs.
If a FBN character is added to battle, then the battle is FBN from then on. I know this because if you band a FBN character to battle, then their special ability should negate the band and therefore make it NOT FBN after all, but that would cause a loop, so we made a "hard" rule.
I'm sure there are more of these, but those are a few. So the question is whether we want another of these "hard" rules to be that you can't have duplicate characters in play. That is what we're debating on the other side.
-
Hey,
Game rules that govern how the game happens if no special abilities are used can be overridden by special abilities.
Game rules that govern how special abilities work and are carried out cannot be overridden by special abilities.
The duplicates in play rule that is currently in the REG is partially the first and partially the second, and isn't clear about which part is which, thus the source of our confusion on the topic.
Some people are tripping up on the fact that Samuel is an optional ("may") ability. That's not the issue here. We have allowed optional abilities to cause a player to control duplicate copies of the same unique character for at least 8 years. For those that like examples, Unholy Writ is the prime and probably original example of this. Prof U has expressed a personal desire to change that, but that is representative of his opinion, not the status quo. (In ironing out this ruling we could decide to change that.)
Since this is not a may/must issue the following rule isn't really pertinent to this discussion, but since some people have emphasized the optionality of Samuel it's worth noting that...
If a search ability is optional once you choose to view the cards you must select a target (if there is one) for the ability paired with the search ability.
So once you pick up the deck to look through it, the search ability isn't optional anymore.
The issue here is the destination. The elders have uniformly allowed capture (destination=land of bondage) to cause a player to control duplicate copies of a unique character. The elders have uniformly disallowed banding (destination=field of battle) to cause a player to control duplicate copies of a unique character. We are now, as a result of current discussions, realizing that some elders have been allowing and some elders have been disallowing put in play (destination=a territory) to cause a player to control duplicate copies of a unique character.
So as far as how to rule between now and when an official announcement comes from the Elders, that should answer the question for all cards except Samuel and Woman at the Well. For those two cards the host/judge will have to use their own digression. The majority of the elders involved in the private discussion on the matter believe the status quo allows Samuel to put into play a unique character that you already have in play, but it is only a slight majority.
It is also noteworthy that in addition to unifying the national understanding of the status quo on this issue, we are also considering making modifications to the rule that governs it, so when we do announce an official ruling, it may include a change from what everyone is used to.
Lastly, and slightly off topic,
If a search ability states what to search “for” but does not have an ability paired with the search ability on the card, then there is an implied “place it in hand” ability paired with the search ability that targets the card that is searched “for.”
This means that if a search ability states what to search "for" and does have an ability paired with the search ability on the card, then the destination of the card searched for is determined by the ability paired with the search ability. The implied "place it in hand" ability only applies to cards that do not specify what to do with the card. So you can not use Samuel and end up with Saul or David in your hand.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Game rules that govern how the game happens if no special abilities are used can be overridden by special abilities.
Game rules that govern how special abilities work and are carried out cannot be overridden by special abilities.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
This beautifully states what I was trying to say, thank you! As I said the area is grey and so I'm glad its being looked at. :)
-
Yes, thanks Tim, now I see where the battle lies and other possible consequences :P.
-
This beautifully states what I was trying to say, thank you!
Call me crazy, but I dunno, it seemed to me some peoples entire arguments in this thread were completely wrapped around the word 'may' and the implications thereof, when it was clearly pointed out the word did not matter at all towards the discussion. Perhaps that is where the true confusion has stemmed from; some people were off on a tangent not related to the real issue being discussed.
-
Actually the word "may" does still apply considering that one of the options that we are discussing on the other side does differentiate between "optional" and "forced" situations.
We may or may not end up going with that option, but it is currently on the table.
-
Actually the word "may" does still apply considering that one of the options that we are discussing on the other side does differentiate between "optional" and "forced" situations.
Some people are tripping up on the fact that Samuel is an optional ("may") ability. That's not the issue here. We have allowed optional abilities to cause a player to control duplicate copies of the same unique character for at least 8 years. For those that like examples, Unholy Writ is the prime and probably original example of this. Prof U has expressed a personal desire to change that, but that is representative of his opinion, not the status quo.
Hmm.
-
Well this is one where:
A. I've ruled it differently over the past 11 years.
B. I can see all points of view and don't rightly have a preference.
So due to A. and B. I can only offer my advice to make it SIMPLE and CONSISTENT. ;)
-
Actually the word "may" does still apply considering that one of the options that we are discussing on the other side does differentiate between "optional" and "forced" situations.
Some people are tripping up on the fact that Samuel is an optional ("may") ability. That's not the issue here. We have allowed optional abilities to cause a player to control duplicate copies of the same unique character for at least 8 years. For those that like examples, Unholy Writ is the prime and probably original example of this. Prof U has expressed a personal desire to change that, but that is representative of his opinion, not the status quo.
Hmm.
The point is that the rule needs to be looked at and rightfully so... Thank you elder team :)
-
Actually, the point is (if some people need it reiterated) is may abilities creating duplicates has been the precedent for 8 years.
-
Actually, the point is (if some people need it reiterated) is may abilities creating duplicates has been the precedent for 8 years.
The elder team will let us know
-
Actually, the point is (if some people need it reiterated) is may abilities creating duplicates has been the precedent for 8 years.
Actually the point--according to Sir Nobody (and how I learned to play it)--is may abilities creating duplicates has been a precedent for 8 years in certain situations and may abilities not being allowed to create duplicates has been a precedent for 8 years in a different situation. Now there is a third situation and the elders are trying to decide which of the two earlier precedents will apply.
-
How can both of those statements possibly be true at the same time? You honestly can't say we've been playing Unholy Writ differently in different locales for 8 straight years? What is the second situation?
-
How can both of those statements possibly be true at the same time? You honestly can't say we've been playing Unholy Writ differently in different locales for 8 straight years? What is the second situation?
He means UW and Banding. They both deal with duplicates and they come to opposite conclusions.
-
That is because there is a hard rule specifically prohibiting bringing duplicates into battle. There is no such rule for bringing them to play outside of battle by special ability.
-
This is a few pages back now, but I still contend there is no rule against controlling multiples. "No player may control duplicates of a unique character or cause them to fight each other" is what is used to imply there is, but I read that, and pretty much everyone has been reading that for a long time, as saying you can't control multiples because one of them has to be Discarded. There is a hard rule against entering that situation by playing a card via game rule or via banding, but otherwise, you can't control multiples because you must Discard all but one.
I hate to be arguing against the side that would make Sam decks weaker, but having a different rule for the same ability based on whether it has a "may" is bad for the game, as is any ruling that looks at intentionality or unknown circumstances (such as "add to battle" being a banding ability). There should be one simple set of top-down rulings that apply to all cards and all abilities so that even a RLK could extrapolate any ruling in any situation, not many branching rulings with many conditions and caveats.
-
How can both of those statements possibly be true at the same time? You honestly can't say we've been playing Unholy Writ differently in different locales for 8 straight years? What is the second situation?
No player may control duplicates of a unique character or cause them to fight one another.
There is exactly the same prohibition against controlling duplicates as there is against letting them fight against one another. In the latter cause you are allowed to do absolutely nothing to cause them to fight one another. In the former you are allowed to do a whole raft of things that allow you to control a duplicate at least momentarily. (And you must have control of the duplicate otherwise how could you possibly be allowed to discard it?)
Even within the "control a duplicate character" there have been both situations. Capture a character to force control of a duplicate--sure no problem. Place a character from my hand down to force control a duplicate--nuh-uh not allowed.
I hate to be arguing against the side that would make Sam decks weaker, but having a different rule for the same ability based on whether it has a "may" is bad for the game, as is any ruling that looks at intentionality or unknown circumstances (such as "add to battle" being a banding ability). There should be one simple set of top-down rulings that apply to all cards and all abilities so that even a RLK could extrapolate any ruling in any situation, not many branching rulings with many conditions and caveats.
I hate to be arguing on the side of Pol ( ;) ), but I would mostly agree with this (with the exception of unknown circumstance 'cause I'm not sure how you would resolve that). I think Pol and I probably have different resolutions to this conflict, but I agree with these principles.
-
There should be one simple set of top-down rulings that apply to all cards and all abilities so that even a RLK could extrapolate any ruling in any situation, not many branching rulings with many conditions and caveats.
Pol and I probably have different resolutions to this conflict, but I agree with these principles.
I think that all the elders are also in agreement with these principles. We all want the rules to be simple and consistent, and to lead to a fun game. Balancing those things in the best way is the tricky part :)
-
This is the official decision on the matter of creating duplicates.
"Players are restricted from performing optional game rules that would result in a player controlling multiple copies of the same unique character. A card is protected from any ability that would cause that card to become a second copy of a unique character controlled by a single player. If a player does end up controlling multiple copies of a unique character, all copies of that character except the original copy are discarded regardless of protection. Note: captured characters are not characters and thus do not affect these rules."
-
Thanks for the decision Gabe. I don't play Samuel that much anymore, so I'm a fan of it. I'm sure Brad will be excited too.
-
This is the official decision on the matter of creating duplicates.
"Players are restricted from performing optional game rules that would result in a player controlling multiple copies of the same unique character. A card is protected from any ability that would cause that card to become a second copy of a unique character controlled by a single player. If a player does end up controlling multiple copies of a unique character, all copies of that character except the original copy are discarded regardless of protection. Note: captured characters are not characters and thus do not affect these rules."
Thank you for a ruling on this! Just to clarify, by "control" we mean "have in battle, territory, or set-aside"? Just want to make sure it's clear to my slow brain :)
Definitely wasn't expecting this to come down this soon because of the rules issues behind it, thanks again elders!
-
End of semester and another rule that others agree with me on? Priceless! In reality i thank the elders for consistency. That captured character duplicate nonsense confused me anyway.
-
So too make it as painfully simple as possible, I can no longer us Unholy writ to capture a character to cause a duplicate to be discarded?
-
So too make it as painfully simple as possible, I can no longer us Unholy writ to capture a character to cause a duplicate to be discarded?
I'm pretty sure they clarified that too, anticipating you ;)
Note: captured characters are not characters and thus do not affect these rules."
-
Correct, you can capture Moses, even if you control Moses. Previously you had to choose one to discard. That is no longer the case. Just as a captured Hero cannot be targeted as a Hero (think banding or Christian Martyr) a captured character does not count towards duplicates because it's treated as another card type (usually a Lost Soul).
-
You said that cards are protected from abilities that would cause them to become a duplicate, and then clarified what would happen if a duplicate was created. What circumstances would a duplicate be successfully created?
-
You said that cards are protected from abilities that would cause them to become a duplicate, and then clarified what would happen if a duplicate was created. What circumstances would a duplicate be successfully created?
They also said "optional" abilities. A good example I could think of would be in a T2 game with:
Midwives (Wo)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 7 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: Each time Midwives enter the Field of Battle, return to Field of Play all Green Brigade Male Heroes from all discard piles
Not optional, so we'd have to have a rule to fall back on. Is that correct?
-
You said that cards are protected from abilities that would cause them to become a duplicate, and then clarified what would happen if a duplicate was created. What circumstances would a duplicate be successfully created?
Good question. Here are examples provided by one of my peers.
You have David in your territory and another copy of David in your hand. I attack and play Praise Him Moon and band the copy of David in your hand into battle. Since it joins battle on my side (controlled by me) and since the David you already had in play isn't in battle the band itself doesn't violate the rule, so it's allowed. But after battle the David I banded to returns to your territory by mandatory game rule. Which results in you controlling two copies of David. Returning David to your territory is not restricted by the wording I used because my wording specifies "optional game rule." If you were restricted from the mandatory game rule of returning David to your territory, then what happens to David? He just sits in battle? He returns to my opponent's territory instead of mine? He goes back to my hand? It seems simplest to allow the mandatory game rule to happen and then have another rule to discard him after the fact.
A similar situation could occur if you capture Goliath from my territory and then I use unknown nation to add Goliath to battle from my draw pile and then I negate your capture. The negate doesn't target the captured Golr.iath, so the protect line isn't applicable, but the negate does cause by mandatory game rule, the captured Goliath to return to my territory as a non-captured Goliath character leaving me with two copies of Goliath.
-
So too make it as painfully simple as possible, I can no longer us Unholy writ to capture a character to cause a duplicate to be discarded?
I'm pretty sure they clarified that too, anticipating you ;)
Note: captured characters are not characters and thus do not affect these rules."
Aww now I feel "special". I don't like this ruling, but I am at least glad it is consistent now.
-
Midwives (Wo)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 7 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: Each time Midwives enter the Field of Battle, return to Field of Play all Green Brigade Male Heroes from all discard piles
Not optional, so we'd have to have a rule to fall back on. Is that correct?
The note of protection didn't look like it was limited to optional abilities, but all abilities that would cause a duplicate.
Gabe, that answers my question, thanks.
-
Ok, serious questions based on the responses:
1. What does happen with Midwives (Wo)? There is no "may" about it, and it doesn't say any number, it just says "all". If that would cause duplicates, are those cards just protected from Midwives period?
2. Nice to see the captured characters ruling become something not so complicated, but does this mean I could (especially in T2) capture multiples of my opponent's (and my) characters? And since this seems to be the case, would they be protected from something like Covenant with Palestine if there is already a copy in territory, or multiple captured copies?
Covenant of Palestine (Pa)
Type: Covenant • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 5 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: Use as an enhancement or an Artifact. Return all Heroes in all Lands of Bondage to owners' territories. Capture of Heroes is prevented.
Thanks!
-
Ok, serious questions based on the responses:
1. What does happen with Midwives (Wo)? There is no "may" about it, and it doesn't say any number, it just says "all". If that would cause duplicates, are those cards just protected from Midwives period?
2. Nice to see the captured characters ruling become something not so complicated, but does this mean I could (especially in T2) capture multiples of my opponent's (and my) characters? And since this seems to be the case, would they be protected from something like Covenant with Palestine if there is already a copy in territory, or multiple captured copies?
Covenant of Palestine (Pa)
Type: Covenant • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 5 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: Use as an enhancement or an Artifact. Return all Heroes in all Lands of Bondage to owners' territories. Capture of Heroes is prevented.
Thanks!
1. The Duplicates in Discard pile are protected from midwives ability. If that argument doesn't work for you then we have that last line says all copies other than the original that somehow make it through the other portions are immediately discarded. So they'd go right back into the discard pile.
2. If you had no copies of the duplicated captured character in territory, you'd get one back with the others being protected from the covenant. If you already have another copy, you get none.
-
1. The Duplicates in Discard pile are protected from midwives ability. If that argument doesn't work for you then we have that last line says all copies other than the original that somehow make it through the other portions are immediately discarded. So they'd go right back into the discard pile.
2. If you had no copies of the duplicated captured character in territory, you'd get one back with the others being protected from the covenant. If you already have another copy, you get none.
On the first, that's my point. Which way is it, are they protected or are they put in territory and then discarded? This matters because of fortresses and the like that would deal with where the character ends up. They wouldn't necessarily just hit the discard pile again. That's why we need to know if abilities like these have that protection clause or trigger the 'fail-safe'. Do mandatory abilities like Midwives work differently now?
On the second, what you've suggested may actually go against the example posted by Gabe that SirNobody gave, and that is why I'm asking for elder input.
If someone involved in the ruling could help me with these questions, that'd be appreciated :)
-
If captured characters aren't characters then cards like I am Redemption don't work. Because if they aren't characters then they aren't able to be targeted as a hero even if it says captured heroes.
-
If captured characters aren't characters then cards like I am Redemption don't work. Because if they aren't characters then they aren't able to be targeted as a hero even if it says captured heroes.
This is incorrect. There's been a long-standing rule that "captured heroes" are different than "heroes". That particular aspect of this ruling only serves to widen the gap.
-
Hmmmm... never remembered that rule. Hmph I need to read the REG more.
-
What does happen with Midwives (Wo)? There is no "may" about it, and it doesn't say any number, it just says "all". If that would cause duplicates, are those cards just protected from Midwives period?
Yes, this is a "hard" rule, so SAs do not overcome it. The duplicates would be protected from Midwives and would NOT enter play.
-
What does happen with Midwives (Wo)? There is no "may" about it, and it doesn't say any number, it just says "all". If that would cause duplicates, are those cards just protected from Midwives period?
Yes, this is a "hard" rule, so SAs do not overcome it. The duplicates would be protected from Midwives and would NOT enter play.
Thank you!
So that means only things like what SirNobody posited could overcome the rule and trigger the fail-safe. And in my second scenario, any captured heroes that would become duplicates would be protected from being returned.
Hard rule, got it.
-
Please make sure you tell everyone this rule, especially Type 2 players.
I forgot to tell my own son this rule, and today he learned that his 4x Night Raids didn't keep his opponent from introducing new copies of unique characters. He went on to lose the Type 2 game as a result. He is going to modify his deck now. :)
-
Please make sure you tell everyone this rule, especially Type 2 players.
I forgot to tell my own son this rule, and today he learned that his 4x Night Raids didn't keep his opponent from introducing new copies of unique characters. He went on to lose the Type 2 game as a result. He is going to modify his deck now. :)
Welp, nobody can say you're biased.
-
Please make sure you tell everyone this rule, especially Type 2 players.
I forgot to tell my own son this rule, and today he learned that his 4x Night Raids didn't keep his opponent from introducing new copies of unique characters. He went on to lose the Type 2 game as a result. He is going to modify his deck now. :)
Welp, nobody can say you're biased.
I can. HE'S BIASED! ;)
-
Yes. Just like you can have David (Red), David (Green), and King David (Purple) in the same deck.
[/quote]
While we're on the subject of David....I have a question. If a card says "May band to David" or "CBN if David is in play" does that include King David or just the red/green Davids?
-
If a card targets "David," it targets all Davids, including the king. If it says "King David" it only targets King David.
-
ah I see....just curious.
-
I think I already know the answer to this, but I want to be sure because I saw some discussion that looked like it was going the other way.
If Midwives is trying to bring back a Hero that you already control, nothing happens. If there are two of the same Hero in your Discard Pile and none you control, both come back and one gets discarded (since she targets both at the same time and at that time there are no copies already in play). Similarly, if Creation of the World is played, all Genesis heroes you already control remain in deck, and any you do not control come out all at once, (step I'm unsure of), and all but one are Discarded. The step I am not sure of is whether they enter battle en paradox and are then discarded, or are somehow discarded while still in limbo.
-
Pol brings up a very good point. Would you do the ability one character at a time, sort of like a band? Because as I pointed out, it is important whether a card ends up in play and is then discarded or never hits play. I'm pretty sure they'll say that one copy comes out and the other is protected...but good question :(
Also yeah, this may change or not change how we treat CotW, so good questions both :)
I guess they boil down to when the duplicates (if none are already in play) gain the protection?
-
If Midwives is trying to bring back a Hero that you already control, nothing happens. If there are two of the same Hero in your Discard Pile and none you control, both come back and one gets discarded (since she targets both at the same time and at that time there are no copies already in play). Similarly, if Creation of the World is played, all Genesis heroes you already control remain in deck, and any you do not control come out all at once, (step I'm unsure of), and all but one are Discarded. The step I am not sure of is whether they enter battle en paradox and are then discarded, or are somehow discarded while still in limbo.
Great question.
I take this rule: A card is protected from any ability that would cause that card to become a second copy of a unique character controlled by a single player.
to mean that once I've selected one hero with Creation otW or Midwives, I can't select another. I know that "all" cards are technically targeted by the ability simultaneously, but in reality, we select them one at a time. I could be wrong on this, though.
-
I take this rule: A card is protected from any ability that would cause that card to become a second copy of a unique character controlled by a single player.
to mean that once I've selected one hero with Creation otW or Midwives, I can't select another. I know that "all" cards are technically targeted by the ability simultaneously, but in reality, we select them one at a time. I could be wrong on this, though.
I think that sounds like the simplest solution :)
-
I would really support and appreciate this understanding of the rule because...
1) It is intuitive (if a player understands that duplicates cannot enter play, their natural response is to avoid abilities that would cause that to happen).
2) It is consistent with other "Simultaneous, yet Consecutive" rulings such as Captain before Strong Angel and Lockdown LS before Shuffler LS.
...I love that we're getting some of this stuff nailed out before the next rulebook, thanks for all the hard work elders!
-
Yeah, my Sam deck loves it. NOT.
But I think it is best for simplicity and for teaching new players.
-
I thought of another instance where this "simultaneous, yet consecutive" thing might need to be followed:
A mass band enhancement (Siege, Second Seal) that brings in a King Saul hero from one territory and a King Saul EC from another player's territory. There isn't one in battle, so neither is protected from the initial targeting of "all," but once one has been selected to enter battle, the second can't enter. Does that make sense?
-
I personally wasn't aware that the uniqueness rule extended to all players inside a battle.
-
Now that we're here, why not drop the last instance of "simultaneously" in Redemption and have mass banders enter battle one-at-a-time? That would solve so many problems.