Author Topic: Creeping Deceiver question (Read 3040 times)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **on:** June 21, 2011, 02:32:56 PM »

So, I was just told that Creeping Deceiver is to be ruled sorta like Thadd. Meaning, he says "CBN by characters," and enhancements in battle are played on characters, meaning you can't use an enhancement in battle to negate CD.

Is this true? Would Abraham's Servant / Midianite Attack negate Deceiver or not?

Creeping Deceiver (Di)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Crimson • Ability: 1 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect up to 3 N.T. Lost Souls in Sites from rescue. May band to a heretic or N.T. female Evil Character. Cannot be negated by a character. • Identifiers: Generic NT Male Human • Verse: II Timothy 3:6-8 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2011, 02:34:08 PM »

You can use an enhancement to negate him. You can also target Thad with enhancements according to some members of the PtB.

CountFount · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2011, 02:35:49 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on June 21, 2011, 02:34:08 PM

You can use an enhancement to negate him. You can also target Thad with enhancements according to some members of the PtB.

Huh? please give an example.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2011, 02:36:30 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 21, 2011, 02:32:56 PM

Is this true? Would Abraham's Servant / Midianite Attack negate Deceiver or not?

Sadly, no. Creeping Deceiver cannot be negated by a character or an enhancement played on a character.

CountFount · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2011, 02:38:27 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 21, 2011, 02:36:30 PM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 21, 2011, 02:32:56 PM
Is this true? Would Abraham's Servant / Midianite Attack negate Deceiver or not?
Sadly, no. Creeping Deceiver cannot be negated by a character or an enhancement played on a character.

In Missouri you can.

Why not Minnesota?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 21, 2011, 02:47:45 PM »

Quote from: CountFount on June 21, 2011, 02:38:27 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 21, 2011, 02:36:30 PM
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 21, 2011, 02:32:56 PM
Is this true? Would Abraham's Servant / Midianite Attack negate Deceiver or not?
Sadly, no. Creeping Deceiver cannot be negated by a character or an enhancement played on a character.
Why not Minnesota?

For the same reason that you cannot target Thaddeus with an enhancement played on a Evil character who is toughness-challenged. Or--at any rate--that is how it has been explained to me.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #6 on:** June 21, 2011, 03:11:25 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 21, 2011, 02:47:45 PM

Quote from: CountFount on June 21, 2011, 02:38:27 PM
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 21, 2011, 02:36:30 PM
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 21, 2011, 02:32:56 PM
Is this true? Would Abraham's Servant / Midianite Attack negate Deceiver or not?
Sadly, no. Creeping Deceiver cannot be negated by a character or an enhancement played on a character.
Why not Minnesota?
For the same reason that you cannot target Thaddeus with an enhancement played on a Evil character who is toughness-challenged. Or--at any rate--that is how it has been explained to me.

Considering that Thad is possibly being ruled to be able to be targeted by enhancement even by guys like 1/1 King Jehoiachin, I wouldn't be so sure.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2011, 03:33:52 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on June 21, 2011, 03:11:25 PM

Considering that Thad is possibly being ruled to be able to be targeted by enhancement even by guys like 1/1 King Jehoiachin, I wouldn't be so sure.

This would be good news indeed. Please pass along some details.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2011, 03:43:21 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 21, 2011, 03:33:52 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on June 21, 2011, 03:11:25 PM
Considering that Thad is possibly being ruled to be able to be targeted by enhancement even by guys like 1/1 King Jehoiachin, I wouldn't be so sure.
This would be good news indeed. Please pass along some details.

It was ruled at MW that Thad only protected from characters and not enhancements played on them. John Earley and Mark Underwood were both there, and Mark actually made the ruling in an announcement before T12P, so take that as you will.

Master KChief · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2011, 03:45:29 PM »

if thats the case, then this should be brought up again. the current ruling is thad also protects from enhancements. the only 'up to the discretion of the judge' ruling still up in the air was if thad protects from numbers.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2011, 03:46:49 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on June 21, 2011, 03:45:29 PM

if thats the case, then this should be brought up again. the current ruling is thad also protects from enhancements. the only 'up to the discretion of the judge' ruling still up in the air was if thad protects from numbers.

This is what I've heard all along. I doubt they'd make another sudden change mid-season.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2011, 04:21:02 PM »

This has been in the process of discussion for several months. There is disagreement among the Elders, but it is unlikely that there will be a change from precedent (which says that Thad is protected from enhancements, and, similarly CD cannot be negated by enhancements) at least until Nationals.

It was ruled at MN States, IA State, NC Regionals, and most other tournies I have been to and heard of that Thad protects things from enhancements, and at the present point in the discussion, that is what Rob believes to be correct, although he has not firmly decided. So it is unlikely that any big announcement will be made in the near future changing the precedent, certainly not until Nationals, if at all.

It seems the intent of Creeping Deceiver was that FBTN characters wouldn't negate him, but the way he is worded, he is more powerful then intended, since enhancements are effectively actions performed by characters so a character playing a negate enhancement would be a character negating CD, which cannot happen. I will allow other Elders to chime in, but this is essentially where the discussion is currently, and where it will likely remain until Nationals, if not beyond.

As MKC stated, the only thing that may have to be left to the discretion of the judge, since judges have ruled different ways for different reasons, and there seems to be evidence either way, is whether Thad is protected from numbers on EC's. That is also a matter of discussion, and hopefully that will be resolved quickly.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #12 on:** June 21, 2011, 04:39:36 PM »

If there is a change, will it happen before Nats? It seemed kinda ambiguous in your post.

Master KChief · « **Reply #13 on:** June 21, 2011, 04:41:10 PM »

My problem is with the inconsistency. If people (especially elders) know the precedent, then WHY are we ruling differently at tournaments? Does disagreeing give you the right to change a ruling?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #14 on:** June 21, 2011, 04:46:00 PM »

There is a LOT of discussion about this among the elders and even Rob himself. Prior to this weekend, it appeared to John and myself that Rob leaned toward Thad being protected from SAs on ECs and the numbers on ECs, but not from the EEs that they play. Therefore, that was the way it was ruled at MW Regionals. I will probably rule at EC Regionals in July based on what Rob's leaning appears to be at that point.

However, there are technically 4 possible rulings being considered, and only 1 of them will be able to be used at Nats. Hopefully we will be able to announce what that will be before that time. And whatever is decided on Thad is likely to apply to Creeping Deceiver as well. Until the announcement is made, judges will have to make their own best guess as to what is right among the 4 choices below.

1 - Thad/CD is protected from SAs of ECs
2 - Thad/CD is protected from SAs of ECs, numbers of ECs
3 - Thad/CD is protected from SAs of ECs, numbers of ECs, SAs of EEs
4 - Thad/CD is protected from SAs of ECs, numbers of ECs, SAs of EEs, numbers of EEs

Master KChief · « **Reply #15 on:** June 21, 2011, 04:50:49 PM »

I feel sorry for the people that showed up with di decks at mw regionals only to find out the day of that a major precedent would be changed. Awesome heads up.

Gabe · « **Reply #16 on:** June 21, 2011, 04:52:19 PM »

The elders are in consensus that Thad and CD currently protect from characters and subsequently the enhancements used by those characters. Since both are CBI/CBN a negate/interrupt will not work on their ability. I find it very interesting that anyone has chosen to rule differently. My understanding is that will be the ruling through Nationals, possibly beyond.

We are discussing possible changes to this ruling. If there are changes they won't happen until after Nationals.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #17 on:** June 21, 2011, 04:54:17 PM »

Gabe,

With all due resepct, I wasn't aware that we were in consensus on the current ruling.

MKC,

Jon Greeson was one of only a few decks that I checked in running Thad-Rad-the-Mad, and he cruised along just fine with enhancements being able to target him.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #18 on:** June 21, 2011, 05:02:45 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on June 21, 2011, 04:39:36 PM

If there is a change, will it happen before Nats? It seemed kinda ambiguous in your post.

I can't say for certain, but all I can say is that it seems unlikely to me that such a big change would occur before Nats. Because it would be a big change that would affect a ton of tournament-tested decks, and it is my view that making such a change now would be irresponsible.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 21, 2011, 04:46:00 PM

There is a LOT of discussion about this among the elders and even Rob himself. Prior to this weekend, it appeared to John and myself that Rob leaned toward Thad being protected from SAs on ECs and the numbers on ECs, but not from the EEs that they play. Therefore, that was the way it was ruled at MW Regionals. I will probably rule at EC Regionals in July based on what Rob's leaning appears to be at that point.

However, there are technically 4 possible rulings being considered, and only 1 of them will be able to be used at Nats. Hopefully we will be able to announce what that will be before that time. And whatever is decided on Thad is likely to apply to Creeping Deceiver as well. Until the announcement is made, judges will have to make their own best guess as to what is right among the 4 choices below.

1 - Thad/CD is protected from SAs of ECs
2 - Thad/CD is protected from SAs of ECs, numbers of ECs
3 - Thad/CD is protected from SAs of ECs, numbers of ECs, SAs of EEs
4 - Thad/CD is protected from SAs of ECs, numbers of ECs, SAs of EEs, numbers of EEs

I still believe that judges shouldn't be guessing, but should rule based on the current precedent. The issue of whether Thad protects from numbers is comparatively small, and shouldn't really affect people's deck construction choices much if at all. That's the kind of decision that a judge could announce that day without too much effect. However, the issue of whether or not he protects from enhancements has a HUGE effect on deck construction, and shouldn't be left to a day-of decision.

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on June 21, 2011, 04:54:17 PM

Gabe,

With all due resepct, I wasn't aware that we were in consensus on the current ruling.

MKC,

Jon Greeson was one of only a few decks that I checked in running Thad-Rad-the-Mad, and he cruised along just fine with enhancements being able to target him.

Even I agree that Thad has always been able to protect from enhancements, and I'm the one who brought the issue up originally asking for a potential change before it got too late in the season. Also, regardless of how decks were or were not effective in the tournament, the fact remains that there has been much more precedent in favor of Thad protecting from enhancements in the past season, and that changing that would be a drastic change.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #19 on:** June 21, 2011, 05:12:57 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on June 21, 2011, 04:52:19 PM

The elders are in consensus that Thad and CD currently protect from characters and subsequently the enhancements used by those characters.

I also didn't get the impression that we were in consensus. In fact, most of the elders participating in the thread seem to disagree with the ruling you listed there.

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 21, 2011, 05:02:45 PM

the fact remains that there has been much more precedent in favor of Thad protecting from enhancements in the past season, and that changing that would be a drastic change.

Just because something is precedent in MN or the NC region doesn't mean that it is the precedent everywhere.

Gabe · « **Reply #20 on:** June 21, 2011, 05:19:05 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 21, 2011, 05:12:57 PM

Quote from: Gabe on June 21, 2011, 04:52:19 PM
The elders are in consensus that Thad and CD currently protect from characters and subsequently the enhancements used by those characters.
I also didn't get the impression that we were in consensus. In fact, most of the elders participating in the thread seem to disagree with the ruling you listed there.

Then you missed the part where the entire discussion is to figure out how we should rule this starting next season. Multiple elders have agreed that we will not make a change in the middle of State/Regionals and right before Nationals.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 21, 2011, 05:12:57 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 21, 2011, 05:02:45 PM
the fact remains that there has been much more precedent in favor of Thad protecting from enhancements in the past season, and that changing that would be a drastic change.
Just because something is precedent in MN or the NC region doesn't mean that it is the precedent everywhere.

Maybe you weren't active and on hiatus at the start of the tournament season when the ruling was made but this has been the ruling for the entire Redemption Nation, not just MN or the NC.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #21 on:** June 21, 2011, 05:21:15 PM »

In order to avoid having mirror discussions (since the discussion is still going on on the other side), I am going to lock this thread until further notice. We are doing what we can to resolve all the issues surrounding this, but as is obvious, it's a big issue, and resolving it will take some time.

News:

Author Topic: Creeping Deceiver question (Read 3040 times)

Lamborghini_diablo