Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Darius' Decree (TP)

Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Opponents may not play good Enhancements from hand, unless an Evil Character is in battle. You may discard this card to discard all Heroes in set-aside areas. • Play As: Restrict opponents from playing good Enhancements from hand, unless an Evil Character is in battle. You may discard this card to discard all Heroes in set-aside areas. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Daniel 6:9 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()

Seven Years of Plenty - evil (FF2)

Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Gold • Ability: 7 / 0 • Class: Territory • Special Ability: Search deck for a Genesis or Exodus Fortress. Place this card in your territory for 7 turns: Each upkeep, if you control a Genesis character, you may draw 1. • Play As: Search deck for a Genesis or Exodus Fortress. Place this card in your territory for 7 turns. While it remains there, each upkeep, if you control a Genesis character, you may draw 1. • Identifiers: OT, Based on Prophecy • Verse: Genesis 41:29 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers Extended booster packs (None)

I was wondering if Darius Decree stops a good/evil enhancement territory class enhancement from being played on an evil character outside of battle?  Thanks.

I think Duel good and evil enhancements (except maybe Philosopshy because its double sided) are always considered good and evil even when played.  (check the article on Foreign Sword because I think it mentions it there)

That's good to know, I was going by memory and apparently I was wrong.

But no matter how you use it, a Curse/Cov is still targetable as a curse/cov, right? Because that's what it is, it's just also targetable according to how it's being used. Right? That's the ruling i've always been told, at least.

Following that rule (that a card is always what it is at face value, unless converted) then why aren't good/evil cards always considered good/evil?

Ryupeco11 is correct that Curses/Cov cards can't be targeted as arts if they are used as enhancements and vice-versa.  However, Arch Angel is also correct that regardless of what they are being used as they can still be targeted as a Curse/Cov.

Since we don't have a special name for Good/Evil Enhancements, it makes this new territory for rulings.  However, I think that I agree with Browarod that since Curse/Cov cards keep their alignment even when being used as artifacts (which would normally be neutral), that it makes sense that Good/Evil Enhs would also keep their alignments even when being used as only 1.

So at this point, I think that Darius Decree WOULD stop an EC from playing a Good/Evil Enh unless that EC was in battle.

So you're saying that you can choose whether you will use a card as good or evil before playing it? How long before playing it? Or does the card magically lose an alignment at some point from hand to table? When does the card lose an alignment for targeting purposes? That just doesn't make any sense to me.

As I said, we're in new territory here, and aparently there is some difference of opinion among the elders at this point.  We'll talk about it on the other side and return with something official

I'm glad none of us will be able to understand the ruling now.

Hopefully once we get it worked out, we'll come back with the ruling AND the rationale for why the ruling is the most consistent/best for the game.  Then you'll have something official AND understand it too

Feel free to keep arguing about it here if you like.  You might come up with a good point that us elders didn't think of, which could aid our discussion.  But part of our job as elders is to be united in our leadership, and arguing about things here doesn't aid that goal

But part of our job as elders is to be united in our leadership, and arguing about things here doesn't aid that goal

This is where I disagree. This is the same rationale that our current electoral system suggests as the reason for its existance, and I just don't see any evidence to support it.

Whenever X elder rules on Y after his side lost the argument, I almost always hear X elder say "I didn't like the ruling, but it was what was decided on".

There's always going to be difference. It'd be nice to see what other people think instead of having secret back door conversations going on about what the ruling should be. I understand that it is typically bad when too many people get involved (begs the question of why so many elders, but I digress), but I thought the elder system was developed to combat the difficulty in the receiving an official ruling, not to move ruling discussions into a gentleman's club where the common people have no tangible concept of what is going on or what objections have been raised to certain rulings.

I do not think this is the case.  I have stated a lot of rulings here, and I very rarely have said anything like that.  I also have read many other elder rulings here and have very rarely seen them say that.  I challenge you to do a search for rulings by elders and see whether they truly "almost always" say anything like that.

I actually wasn't talking about the boards, since most people can just not post if they aren't completely on board. I have, however, had at least 2 instances that I recall of an elder commenting something along the lines of what I said while making a ruling during a tournament. I'm not saying that it is bad at all; I'm just saying I've never really felt that their was a unified front on all rulings like you seem to suggest. I really have no problem with that; it makes me feel like the elders are human.

It was developed to get official rulings faster (and has worked in that regard over the last 6 months).

Thaddeus and the definition of play don't really support that statement. It's definately a lot easier to receive official word if needed, but I'm not sold on the idea that discussion and decisions take less time.

You also don't paint an accurate picture with your gentleman's club implications.

"A gentlemen's club is a members-only private club of a type originally set up by and for British upper class men in the eighteenth century, and popularised by English upper-middle class men and women in the late nineteenth century"

The elders discussions are members only, posts on the board suggest the idea was started by someone taking iniative who could be considered Redemption "upper class", and it only will accept upper class members.

Again, this isn't a criticism per se, but I definately wouldn't say it's innacurate to compare the two entities.

The "common people" can read all the objections they want (probably more than they want) on this side of the forum, and can ask any questions they like when we come back with an official answer.

And, again, in similarity to Britain, the common people could say a lot of stuff and ask questions, but none of it mattered. It's not really asking a question if you know the answer is going to be "Wrong" or "Because we like this idea better or "Rule it this way for consistantcy" or whatever.