Author Topic: Can you have King Saul (good) and King Saul (evil) both in your deck? (Read 24373 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2012, 12:24:03 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 23, 2012, 11:52:31 AM

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2012, 05:42:55 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 23, 2012, 12:24:03 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #27 on:** February 23, 2012, 08:26:27 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #28 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:39:04 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 23, 2012, 08:26:27 PM

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.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #29 on:** February 23, 2012, 11:01:55 PM »

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).

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #30 on:** February 23, 2012, 11:05:30 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on February 23, 2012, 11:01:55 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2012, 01:15:27 AM »

@Techno, You've only ever been able to control duplicates through non-Banding SA's, so your example is moot.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2012, 03:01:13 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 23, 2012, 09:39:04 PM

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.

Korunks · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2012, 08:41:50 AM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:53:52 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 24, 2012, 03:01:13 AM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 23, 2012, 09:39:04 PM
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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #35 on:** February 24, 2012, 12:49:23 PM »

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?

Korunks · « **Reply #36 on:** February 24, 2012, 01:37:44 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 24, 2012, 12:49:23 PM

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?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #37 on:** February 24, 2012, 01:44:08 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on February 24, 2012, 01:37:44 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 24, 2012, 12:49:23 PM
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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #38 on:** February 24, 2012, 07:26:19 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 24, 2012, 12:49:23 PM

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.

Korunks · « **Reply #39 on:** March 13, 2012, 06:38:26 PM »

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.

adotson85 · « **Reply #40 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:31:31 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on March 13, 2012, 06:38:26 PM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #41 on:** March 13, 2012, 10:43:07 PM »

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:

Quote from: adotson85 on March 13, 2012, 10:31:31 PM

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:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 23, 2012, 02:52:31 AM

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:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 24, 2012, 03:01:13 AM

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?

adotson85 · « **Reply #42 on:** March 13, 2012, 11:21:10 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 13, 2012, 10:43:07 PM

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:
Quote from: adotson85 on March 13, 2012, 10:31:31 PM
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:
Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 23, 2012, 02:52:31 AM
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:
Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 24, 2012, 03:01:13 AM
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

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #43 on:** March 13, 2012, 11:26:18 PM »

Quote from: adotson85 on March 13, 2012, 11:21:10 PM

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.

adotson85 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 13, 2012, 11:33:15 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 13, 2012, 11:26:18 PM

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.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #45 on:** March 14, 2012, 12:21:02 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 23, 2012, 08:04:30 AM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 23, 2012, 03:30:51 AM
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?

Quote from: adotson85 on March 13, 2012, 11:33:15 PM

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.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #46 on:** March 14, 2012, 12:48:18 AM »

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)

Redoubter · « **Reply #47 on:** March 14, 2012, 12:59:37 AM »

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

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

Master KChief · « **Reply #48 on:** March 14, 2012, 03:24:43 AM »

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.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #49 on:** March 14, 2012, 08:32:14 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 14, 2012, 12:59:37 AM

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).

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on March 14, 2012, 12:48:18 AM

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.

Quote from: Master KChief on March 14, 2012, 03:24:43 AM

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.

News:

Author Topic: Can you have King Saul (good) and King Saul (evil) both in your deck? (Read 24373 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy