Author Topic: Cov with Noah question. (Read 8956 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** August 02, 2012, 11:43:07 AM »

Regardless, that is not the way it is now.

Redoubter · « **Reply #26 on:** August 02, 2012, 06:50:08 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 02, 2012, 11:20:04 AM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 02, 2012, 11:03:08 AM
I'd be ok with changing the rule to allow anything that would interrupt the card causing removal,
This seems to go along with the recent decision to allow any type of negate to work (instead of separating "negate last" etc.) which is another reason why I feel like this is the more intuitive way to go.

Agree all around, but I certainly see Pol's point. Without a change of the language of the rules on Special Initiative (which, frankly, needs an overhaul anyway), it does lead to a bad practice to allow things just because they aren't specifically disallowed.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #27 on:** August 03, 2012, 12:22:36 AM »

quick question then back on topic:

I attack with gold hero, opponent blocks with black EC. Opponent plays Joseph in Prison. Am I allowed to play Deborah's Directive if it doesnt target the card causing removal? question based on quote below and trying to understand interrupt pertaining to todays gamerules...

Quote

As far as the ruling here, I disagree with Pol's assertion that only abilities on enhancements can be used during special initiative, especially given the example of Silver Trumpets by ChristianSoldier. I'm looking at the rules on Initiative in the REG, and all it says is that Initiative (regardless of the 'type', of course, since the REG doesn't reference 'special' initiative per se) only restricts what you play to enhancements. It specifies in the case of removal that the enhancement must target the card causing removal if played, but it does not say that other abilities cannot be activated.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #28 on:** August 03, 2012, 06:22:09 AM »

DD does indeed target JiP for interruption.

Redoubter · « **Reply #29 on:** August 03, 2012, 07:40:56 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 06:22:09 AM

DD does indeed target JiP for interruption.

Agreed, and to show why, you just have to look at Interrupt the Battle. ITB specifically interrupts all ongoing abilities, any abilities causing the defeat/removal of your character in battle, and the last enhancement played (if played by an opponent). JiP meets the second and third conditions, and so Deborah's Directive does interrupt it.

So in most situations, you can either interrupt/negate the specific ability or interrupt the battle when you have special initiative (in fact, if multiple abilities are causing removal, you may only have ITB as an option).

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #30 on:** August 03, 2012, 11:45:28 AM »

I thought of another situation that confirms my desire to rule this the way that we are discussing:

Any big hero attacks with Cov of Noah as an active artifact.
Herodias defends with a Herod in territory.
Herodias has initiative and plays Herod's Treachery which places it on the Herod in territory. Since it has no numbers (and leaves battle anyway) it doesn't pass initiative.
The defender immediately discards HT thus causing the hero to withdraw from battle.

This is the exact thing that Cov of Noah intuitively seems to exist for. Canceling an EE that is causing the hero to lose the battle. And if HT can affect the battle as an EE from territory, then it seems fair that CoN can negate it from the artifact slot.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #31 on:** August 03, 2012, 12:26:00 PM »

I know that you like CoN and would like it to be better. At first I thought I'd be ok with changing it to work like that, but now I realize I oppose it for these reasons:

1. It would make offense better by a lot. Right now, very few things remain to defense as a way to block the meta offense; Herod's Treachery is one of them and would not be if activated abilities were allowed to take place during special initiative.

2. It would complicate future card design. The way it is now, you don't need to worry about whether triggered abilities can be used during special initiative; if it's designed to be that way, it will say so.

3. We should definitely not change any ruling with the intent to make a card more powerful (or less powerful for that matter, looking at you, Temples). If a ruling is to be changed, it should only ever be because it's more simple and better.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #32 on:** August 03, 2012, 02:04:52 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 12:26:00 PM

1. It would make offense better by a lot.

I like how you appeal to my defense-loving nature with this reason. However, I don't see speed decks using up their art slot for Cov of Noah, so I don't think this will really make much difference.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 12:26:00 PM

2. It would complicate future card design.

Again, I don't think this will really be a problem. I think in the future that we would either: word a card that stays active with an ability like TST or TNotL, or else we wouldn't put "interupt" in it's ability to begin with. I think this is really only going to affect CoN and Unsuccessful.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 12:26:00 PM

3. We should definitely not change any ruling with the intent to make a card more powerful

I agree with you completely on this point. However, I'm not looking at this from a standpoint of making any card more powerful. I really think that it makes the most sense to rule it this way. If someone uses an EE to win a battle (ie. HT), then a player with CoN active is going to assume that they can negate that EE, since that's what their card says. And I really like letting cards do what they say unless it breaks the game (which this doesn't).

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #33 on:** August 03, 2012, 02:21:51 PM »

I'm not so sure about that. For years we've been assuming you can't use CoN in special initiative, which kind of robs the statement that people would assume you could of its credibility. You're not disallowing the card from doing what it says by continuing to only allow the playing of an Enhancement that will interrupt during Special Initiative.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #34 on:** August 03, 2012, 04:09:55 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 02:21:51 PM

For years we've been assuming you can't use CoN in special initiative, which kind of robs the statement that people would assume you could of its credibility.

For years we didn't really have a very clear idea of "special initiative" to begin with. But players who are learning the game today and are being taught that when you are suddenly losing a battle due to a SA, then you have to interrupt or negate the card that caused that, will intuitively assume that CoN would work to negate an EE causing that situation. And my statement's credibility is backed up by the fact that a player in my own playgroup who is learning the game today assumed that in a recent game. They were angry when I told them that there were some people who believe that they couldn't use their CoN to negate the EE that caused them to lose that battle.

I think this is the most logical ruling at this point unless some other elder feels differently.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #35 on:** August 03, 2012, 04:47:29 PM »

Be careful of your terminology. Right now, the ruling must and only can be that CoN cannot be used in Special Initiative. Again, it is bad practice to allow something just because it is not specifically disallowed. The rule, however, could be changed if more people agree with you that it would be better for the game.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #36 on:** August 03, 2012, 05:06:39 PM »

fwiw, Covenant of Noah should be able to negate any evil enhancement that has been played regardless of whether or not the EE is still in play to be targeted. I don't understand why it wasn't able to target DoU, BB, or the like. When we got the card in Patriarchs, I treated it like a negate that could be played "AT ANY TIME" since it used an artifact slot. I don't have to have initiative for Writ or Charms, so why do I have for CoN? I'm choosing to use as an artifact slot for a negate, it should be able to be negated anytime. There's a reason you haven't seen it in top decks since before Priests....because we keep changing the definition of what could be negated and when...

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #37 on:** August 03, 2012, 05:31:35 PM »

I agree with TechnoEthicist.

Drrek · « **Reply #38 on:** August 03, 2012, 05:34:18 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on August 03, 2012, 05:06:39 PM

fwiw, Covenant of Noah should be able to negate any evil enhancement that has been played regardless of whether or not the EE is still in play to be targeted. I don't understand why it wasn't able to target DoU, BB, or the like. When we got the card in Patriarchs, I treated it like a negate that could be played "AT ANY TIME" since it used an artifact slot. I don't have to have initiative for Writ or Charms, so why do I have for CoN? I'm choosing to use as an artifact slot for a negate, it should be able to be negated anytime. There's a reason you haven't seen it in top decks since before Priests....because we keep changing the definition of what could be negated and when...

I think it should be able to be played at any time like writ or charms, but I do NOT think it should be able to negate DoU, BB or the like, because it should not be able to insert itself during their abilities, and by the time they complete they are out of play and give no initiative.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #39 on:** August 03, 2012, 05:51:00 PM »

I'm curious if we could get some feedback from Bryon or the playtesters of that era (fully aware that few if any are even on the boards anymore) to understand more the intent of that card, was it meant to be played as a negate last? Because that's how it should be played. it negates the last enhancement that is played, regardless of whether or not it's in play. It's not inserting in between abilities, it is nullifying the entire evil enhancement (the discard and the protect)...

Drrek · « **Reply #40 on:** August 03, 2012, 05:59:13 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on August 03, 2012, 05:51:00 PM

I'm curious if we could get some feedback from Bryon or the playtesters of that era (fully aware that few if any are even on the boards anymore) to understand more the intent of that card, was it meant to be played as a negate last? Because that's how it should be played. it negates the last enhancement that is played, regardless of whether or not it's in play. It's not inserting in between abilities, it is nullifying the entire evil enhancement (the discard and the protect)...

Except the wording is not like a negate last, its worded as a negate an EE, so negate last rules do not and should not apply here. Also you should know as well as anyone that the intent of how a card was to work does not matter as much as the actual wording on the card.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #41 on:** August 03, 2012, 06:21:23 PM »

Language has changed many times during the course of the game. Some prevents have become protects based on new definitions. Some protects are now restricts based on new language, I'm just making sure that CoN doesn't need an updated definition as well, that's all. It's just interesting that the first negates (Ehud's Dagger, Flaming Sword) stated last enhancement played while CoN printed three sets later had no destination (which at the time I took it to mean was it was able to negate any evil enhancement played, first, last, or whatever). I realize that the game today is not the same game as it was during Patriarchs (the simplicity of Rock, Paper, Scissors is dead and gone sadly), just was wondering if it was time to look at it again...

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #42 on:** August 03, 2012, 06:35:17 PM »

There are no grounds for changing the nature of CoN's ability without an errata. And with regard to the discussion Prof and I are having about what it should be able to target, neither of us is saying it could work on DoU-like cards.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #43 on:** August 03, 2012, 06:45:43 PM »

I understand that, what I still don't quite understand is why, and you might be able to remind me Pol. When did it change that negating a a card required that card to be in play when it happened? Why isn't the fact that the card was in battle enough to be a target? That's the part I never quite understood (even back when the arguments were made about Invoking Terror/Herod's Treachery prior to the introduction of special initiative). If something was played and I have a negate active, why can't I play it? Because I could have sworn in Pittsburgh Nationals that players were using Covenant of Noah to negate DoU...but that was almost 10 years ago and my brain's a little fuzzy...

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #44 on:** August 03, 2012, 07:00:18 PM »

All effects default to targeting in-play, and Negate is not an exception. There's really nothing complicated about it; no card can target a card that's not in play unless it specifically says so.

Redoubter · « **Reply #45 on:** August 03, 2012, 08:32:38 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 04:47:29 PM

Be careful of your terminology. Right now, the ruling must and only can be that CoN cannot be used in Special Initiative. Again, it is bad practice to allow something just because it is not specifically disallowed. The rule, however, could be changed if more people agree with you that it would be better for the game.

Pol, the rule on Defeat is that only the EC being discarded or the hero winning the battle constitutes defeat. However, you have argued that a Remove from Game ability that the EC uses (not the hero) constitutes defeat. That directly contradicts the actual wording of the rules, and allows something that is not there.

There can certainly be a ruling without an actual change to the 'rule', even if that is not preferred. Again, these are outdated terms (heck, the rules we're discussing are for 'Special Initiative'...which isn't even a term in the rules!), and rulings can be made without changing the wording. Not in favor of it, but I disagree with your assertion that there is only one way to rule this currently.

Otherwise, SSS would not place Survivor in opponent's LoB and cards in hand or deck could enter battle even if ignored (and I'm sure other examples we could come up with).

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #46 on:** August 03, 2012, 09:03:28 PM »

Quote

heck, the rules we're discussing are for 'Special Initiative'...which isn't even a term in the rules!

This is where the distinction lies. The "defeat" ruling is old and has been established as incorrect. It hasn't been changed in writing, but we have a new ruling on it.

The rules for Special Initiative are very recent and are agreed to be correct.

I agree it's weird that new rules take forever to be written, but one mustn't suppose only that which is written is the newest, most correct rule. That's a problem with the accuracy of the written REG, not to be applied to all rules that have been made since it was last updated.

Redoubter · « **Reply #47 on:** August 03, 2012, 09:38:22 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 09:03:28 PM

The rules for Special Initiative are very recent and are agreed to be correct.

They're actually not codified and there is still some disagreement (even in recent threads). If you go by what it is actually written, Defeat cannot include an evil RFG ability. That doesn't mean that it cannot be ruled otherwise. Just like in this case Special Initiative can be updated to include what Prof U is describing. There is no written rule that would stop you from using CoN, and since all of it is based on rulings like this one, there is absolutely no reason it could not be updated as such.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #48 on:** August 03, 2012, 09:40:38 PM »

Sorry, you're getting hung up on what's written with regard to Redemption rulings. That's where you err.

It could indeed be updated as such, a rule change like I said, but it hasn't been yet.

Redoubter · « **Reply #49 on:** August 03, 2012, 10:05:17 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 09:40:38 PM

Sorry, you're getting hung up on what's written with regard to Redemption rulings. That's where you err.

Sorry, but that did not come off well at all. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, on it, but it sounds like you're implying I have no idea what I'm talking about, which is not true.

What's written is in the REG and in the (many) rulings on these boards. What is written in the REG versus what's written in rulings is what I'm actually saying you're having trouble differentiating.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 09:40:38 PM

It could indeed be updated as such, a rule change like I said, but it hasn't been yet.

Then I'll point you to your quote that I referred to and have an issue with:

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 03, 2012, 04:47:29 PM

Be careful of your terminology. Right now, the ruling must and only can be that CoN cannot be used in Special Initiative. Again, it is bad practice to allow something just because it is not specifically disallowed. The rule, however, could be changed if more people agree with you that it would be better for the game.

You're saying that he can only rule your way, and that is what the 'rules' say. However, rulings on these boards override the REG all the time. If he says that is the ruling and has no dissent (which I see in the last part of your quote, which is why I included that) then it is the ruling. But your post seems to be implying that Prof U can't say that CoN can be used in SI, when he certainly can. That's the nature of the boards and the updating of old rules (which SI is a perfect example, since it has been defined almost entirely on the boards).

I'm not getting hung up on anything. I'm taking issue with your statement that Prof U can only rule one way, which is not true.

News:

Author Topic: Cov with Noah question. (Read 8956 times)