Author Topic: Chaldeans (Read 4261 times)

bruce2213 · « **on:** January 09, 2012, 02:34:46 AM »

Can Chaldeans target an Artifact that is not active but in the Artifact Pile.

Chaldeans
3/3 Crimson/Pale Green
Negate and Discard an Artifact unless it's owner has at least two characters in play with the same testament as the Artifact.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2012, 02:50:38 AM »

bruce2213 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 09, 2012, 02:54:29 AM »

Why can't it be targeted?

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #3 on:** January 09, 2012, 02:59:29 AM »

because you can never target face down cards unless the card your using specifically says so targets default to in play and only face up arts are in play

Professoralstad · « **Reply #4 on:** January 09, 2012, 03:00:50 AM »

Quote from: christiangamer25 on January 09, 2012, 02:59:29 AM

because you can never target face down cards unless the card your using specifically says so targets default to in play and only face up arts are in play

CG25 is correct.

bruce2213 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 09, 2012, 03:02:20 AM »

Thanks

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #6 on:** January 09, 2012, 12:59:56 PM »

To expound on that a little bit, all abilities default to "in play" unless they specify otherwise. Locations that are in play include your territory and the field of battle. Locations that are not in play include all decks, discard piles, the set-aside area, and the face down cards in your artifact pile. Because of this, Chaldeans cannot target cards that are out of play, however a card like The Imperial Guard ("If another Babylonian is in play, discard a face-down Artifact at random from opponent's Artifact pile.") can target the artifact pile, because it specifically references it.

browarod · « **Reply #7 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:08:48 PM »

Chronic is correct, with the exception that "instead" abilities do not default to in play. They target the ability they are replacing (regardless of the location of that ability).

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #8 on:** January 09, 2012, 01:13:32 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 09, 2012, 01:08:48 PM

Chronic is correct, with the exception that "instead" abilities do not default to in play. They target the ability they are replacing (regardless of the location of that ability).

Ah that's right. Examples of where this comes into effect would be Chamber of Angels and The Gates of Hell.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #9 on:** January 10, 2012, 04:10:50 AM »

To get even more technical, I think "instead" abilities still default to "in play," but currently the only cards that can do things from set-aside are GoH and Boat. The only time it would ever matter is if GoH Discarded an Angel, and it would not go to Chamber.

browarod · « **Reply #10 on:** January 10, 2012, 10:32:46 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 10, 2012, 04:10:50 AM

To get even more technical, I think "instead" abilities still default to "in play," but currently the only cards that can do things from set-aside are GoH and Boat. The only time it would ever matter is if GoH Discarded an Angel, and it would not go to Chamber.

If insteads default to in play, then Judas' Plot doesn't work at all and you could also use Darius' Decree to successfully discard Job from Dust and Ashes (which has been ruled to not be the case).

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2012, 04:10:52 PM »

Not true. Darius' Decree is in play, so DNA insteads its Discard of Job to sending Job to DNA.

Judas' Plot is a bit tricky, but there have been issues with the mechanics of that card since forever. While I'm not entirely sure how it works, the Dom clearly can't still be in hand while Plot is doing its thing, or hand protection abilities would stop it (which they don't).

I stand by what I say, "instead" still defaults to in play, but it targets the card whose ability is being insteaded, not the target that it's insteading. The only cards in the game that have abilities which activate from set-aside are GoH, Boat, Chamber, and Tartaros, and the only times it will matter is if GoH Discards an Angel (will not go to Chamber) or a non-Orange Demon (will not go to Tartaros).

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2012, 04:34:57 PM »

Tartaros and Gates have always sent angels to chamber and non orange demons to tartaros. Proffesor A ruled that way here.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2012, 05:15:22 PM »

Sorry, but it takes more than one elder saying "correct" to overturn targeting defaulting to play.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2012, 05:22:23 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 11, 2012, 05:15:22 PM

Sorry, but it takes more than one elder saying "correct" to overturn targeting defaulting to play.

OK, then we'll make it 2. I have also consistently seen it ruled that angels which are discarded by Gates of Hell, are sent to Chamber of Angels.

I understand your point about targeting, and perhaps this isn't the best ruling possible. However, I do think that it is the current ruling.

I would be interested in getting more input on this from other elders, to see if this could be something that changes.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #15 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:28:37 PM »

As long as you realize you're overturning years of "defaults to in play" precedence for a single ruling.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #16 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:34:45 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 11, 2012, 06:28:37 PM

As long as you realize you're overturning years of "defaults to in play" precedence for a single ruling.

Quote

I understand your point about targeting, and perhaps this isn't the best ruling possible. However, I do think that it is the current ruling.

Underwood acknowledges that it probably isn't the best ruling, but it is how it has been ruled in the past.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #17 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:43:15 PM »

Sort of. It was ruled for a long time that Priestly Breastplate worked the way it was intended, but when people realized that clashed with other, more established rulings, it was immediately called into question and quickly overturned. Just because people overlooked an incorrect ruling for a long time doesn't mean that it should continue to be supported when the discrepancy is brought to attention.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #18 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:44:23 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 11, 2012, 05:22:23 PM

I would be interested in getting more input on this from other elders, to see if this could be something that changes.

Sounds like at least one of the Elders is open to changing this.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #19 on:** January 11, 2012, 06:48:05 PM »

It shouldn't be about changing so much as recognizing a ruling that's been incorrect since it was first brought up. The evidence we have to go on is essentially someone saying "I can do this, right?" and an Elder saying "sounds about right."

SomeKittens · « **Reply #20 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:25:14 PM »

We clamor and complain about lack of official rulings, Rob gives us the Elder system. The Elder system works, we complain that they didn't agree with us. Boy do we sound like the Israelites.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #21 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:43:20 PM »

The elder system works mostly. Can anyone point to anywhere the "defaults to play" rule has actually been overturned? All we're going on is one situation where an elder ruled contrary to that core rule. Then another elder comes along and agrees that that's how people are ruling it.

I ask again, if "defaults to play" is not being overturned, how is the "current ruling" on Gates and Chamber tenable?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #22 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:47:48 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 11, 2012, 07:43:20 PM

The elder system works mostly. Can anyone point to anywhere the "defaults to play" rule has actually been overturned? All we're going on is one situation where an elder ruled contrary to that core rule. Then another elder comes along and agrees that that's how people are ruling it.

I ask again, if "defaults to play" is not being overturned, how is the "current ruling" on Gates and Chamber tenable?

Except nobody has said anything that should make you assume that we don't disagree with you. We have two Elders who have said that that is how it is ruled right now, and the only one who has posted in this topic has requested other Elders give their opinions with the intention of possibly overturning this ruling, the same way it was done for Priestly Breastplate. Until other Elders do post their opinions in this topic, I'm not sure what insisting that you're right and defending a viewpoint that nobody is yet attacking is going to accomplish.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #23 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:50:13 PM »

It's back to my base complaint about the elder system: elders are too quick to set a precedent without thinking about all the implications, and too slow to correct errors. There can be no argument that the "current ruling" is either incorrect or overturns a core rule, so why wasn't it stricken down as easily as established?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #24 on:** January 11, 2012, 07:52:34 PM »

Alright, we get it, you have a complaint. However, continuing to complain without an official response just makes you look like you're whining, and don't care about getting anything accomplished.

News:

Author Topic: Chaldeans (Read 4261 times)

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

browarod

TheHobbit13

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy