Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I know this was brought up a short while ago, but I just want to make sure the Elders are discussing what happens when a Good Weapon encounters Covenant with Death. Personally I think the best ruling would be it's SA doesn't activate, simple as pie.

Logically I disagree with this, but as far as gameplay and the current definition of "play" I have to agree that the special ability would not activate.

When I asked Prof U on this, he said it wouldn't negate the effect but it would keep you from placing it on a WC Hero, but I have also heard counterdicting statements on this, and I'm not sure if Gabe came to a conclusion on it at Nats...

I agree with Pol and ProfA, good weapons do not activate in battle when DD or CoD is active.

...I'm not sure if Gabe came to a conclusion on it at Nats...

I did. Admittedly, at Nationals, I didn't remember the answer off the top of my head and needed to look at the OFFICIAL New Rulings Announcement Thread where ProfU reposted the announcement I made when we came to a conclusion on the definition of "play". I did look it up and read the correct ruling to whomever asked for it. Here's what it says:

Clarification for Definition of "Play"
-You play an enhancement by attempting to activate its special ability (or numbers in battle)
-You play a character or multicolor site by putting it in your territory or your side of the battle.
-You play any other card type by putting it face up on the playing surface from hand, deck, or discard pile due to your special ability or game action, except when you discard a card from hand.

The first sentence describes how Enhancements (including weapon class enhancements) are played, that is when their special ability activates in battle. They are not played when you place them on a warrior class character during your preparation or discard phase.

The Elders had a 156 post discussion over the course of about 9 months to iron this out. I don't expect we will be doing that again anytime soon.

ah, right.

So is the Weapon delayed or all-out negated?

Quote from: adotson85 on August 21, 2012, 03:44:01 PM

Logically I disagree with this, but as far as gameplay and the current definition of "play" I have to agree that the special ability would not activate.

What's your logical disagreement out of curiosity?

I guess it is kind of like the "defeat" argument. The redemption definition is just different than what you would the think the word "play" means. Logically, I would consider a card played when it is put into the field of play, whether it be in territory or battle. I'm not arguing the ruling, just pointing out why their has been so much disagreement/confusion on this ruling.

Quote from: megamanlan on August 21, 2012, 09:49:56 PM

So is the Weapon delayed or all-out negated?

They are not delayed or negated, they are restricted from activating.

@ProfU Does this mean that Weapons are delayed or completely Negated and have stats of 0/0?

Wouldn't that be more confusing then just saying that both the numbers and effect are treated as not ever played or that both are delayed until after the block?

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 21, 2012, 11:23:28 PM

What I am more sure of is that the weapon's special ability will never activate if CwD is active.

Wouldn't it function similar as if it was negated, then later the negate was negated?  If it is instantaneous, like Sword of Punishment, it wouldn't happen, but if it is ongoing, like when Spear and Shield is worth 3/7, it would work?

The problem is that it never activates.  The rule on weapons say that, when on a WC character that enters battle, it activates then, in the declared order of abilities.  If it cannot activate at that moment, then there is no other time it is allowed to activate.  Even if it was ongoing, the SA never became active, because it was not able to at the time that it was allowed to activate.

Allowing any sort of "delayed reaction" type ruling would require further tinkering with the definitions of "play" and/or "restrict," which have already been painstakingly crafted to accommodate a host of factors.

Its not really a negate, the card just can't be activated. Although I don't like the idea of cards being played unless they come from hand, deck or discard pile (or in principle removed from the game, except for the fact that it is, well, removed from the game)

But I am more happy that we have a definition than I am annoyed that I would prefer a different definition.

Although I don't like the idea of cards being played unless they come from hand, deck or discard pile

It's definitely a strange, convoluted definition. However, for once I don't oppose it for being so. I was around when it was being hashed out, and the reason it is what it is is because all other possible definitions had a major gameplay problem associated with them. It's a bit nuanced, but believe me when I say what we have is the simplest possible definition of "play."

It's really the same thing. I look at it the same way.

You may look at it the same way, but restrict is not the same as Negate any more than instead is the same as negate or protect is the same as negate. Stopping an ability from working does not a negate make.