Author Topic: Darius Decree (Read 30678 times)

The Schaef · « **Reply #100 on:** February 12, 2010, 10:31:09 PM »

That's a question for a more objective voice regarding the state of the REG.

Bryon · « **Reply #101 on:** February 13, 2010, 01:32:51 AM »

Did a card leave a hand, deck, or discard pile and end up in a location other than those? Then it was played.

And before I'm asked, "removed from the game" is not a location. It isn't in the game anymore.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #102 on:** February 13, 2010, 03:38:20 AM »

I do like Bryon's idea of what play should be, there is still a large distinction between play and place, even though it makes a few cards a little more powerful. I don't really think it would be very problematic to the game if we define cards being played as going from hand, deck or discard pile, since that to me sounds like an intuitive ruling, it seems a bit odd that you play cards when they are placed in storehouse but that might just be me wanting my storehouse to always work.

As for face down artifacts (or FD characters, set aside cards etc) I still find it odd that if I have a face down character in my territory that its not in play, same thing with artifacts, but I've come to accept that one a little more since it would cause too many problems.

But I mainly want the rules to be clearly laid out so whatever the ruling is, so long as it makes some sense and doesn't break the game, I will be happy with and play that way.

The Schaef · « **Reply #103 on:** February 13, 2010, 06:44:01 AM »

That's sort of the point, though, is that my definition has been clearly laid out from a very early point in this discussion and has not needed to be altered in the least to accommodate everything that has come up since then. Bryon has had to re-word his definition some half dozen times over the same period of time. That suggests to me that the idea of what constitutes playing a card has been more of an "understood" thing than one clearly defined.

Second, the exact scenarios - all the exact scenarios - you mention as not seeming right as "playing a card" are the ones that my definition does not count. You are also the fourth or fifth person in this thread to say those don't seem right.

So it boils down to this: which is simpler, more clear, and more intuitive to you?
1). to move any card that goes from any hand, deck, or discard pile, to any location other than a hand, deck, or discard pile
- cards placed face-down are still played
- cards placed into a location by a special ability (e.g. Storehouse) are still played
- "abilities that allow you to play" and "play abilities" are two different things

2). to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
- cards placed face-down are not "played" until activated
- cards placed by a special ability are not "played" unless/until activated

and on a related note, the differing definitions of place:
1). to put a card in a location or on a card, as long as it stays there until the next phase
- a card used in battle was never "placed" in the Field of Battle
- not clear whether an Artifact that is used and discarded the moment it's put down counts as being "placed" in your Artifact pile

2). to put a card in a location or on a card

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #104 on:** February 13, 2010, 08:16:17 AM »

I think that both definitions seem like they could work at this point, so I guess I'd like to look at a specific disagreement between the 2...face down artifacts.

According to Bryon, putting an artifact face-down in you art pile is "playing" it because you put it on the table.
According to Schaef, it is "placing" it, but the card wouldn't be "played" until a later point when it enters "play" by being turned face-up (ie. "activated").

Are there any current rulings that would be messed up by either of these perspectives?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #105 on:** February 13, 2010, 08:53:30 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 10:31:09 PM

That's a question for a more objective voice regarding the state of the REG.

Was that a slight of me? If so, then LOL.

If not, then I don't get it.

If you're saying that my voice is not worth hearing, then join the club. Otherwise, I would think that any voice should be welcome on these forums if it results in a solution.

Regarding the "New REG," my point has always been that until said REG is released, the "Current REG" lays in disrepair and despair with hosts making incorrect rulings on unclear (or false) quotes. I (and others) have volunteered our time to make updates to the "Current REG" to avoid such confusion. We know that the rest of you are consumed by the production of the "New REG," which is why we have offered our services. To refuse our help and then poke us in spite of it leaves you no more objective than me.

The Schaef · « **Reply #106 on:** February 13, 2010, 09:34:36 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2010, 08:53:30 AM

If you're saying that my voice is not worth hearing, then join the club.

I was saying that I don't think I am qualified to answer the question.

Quote

We know that the rest of you are consumed by the production of the "New REG," which is why we have offered our services. To refuse our help and then poke us in spite of it leaves you no more objective than me.

Aside from the fact that I was not poking fun of you, I have never refused anyone the opportunity to help, even when I was in a position to do so. But as "the rest of you" is a term applied more loosely than you realize, the point turns out to be moot.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #107 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:04:00 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 13, 2010, 09:34:36 AM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2010, 08:53:30 AM
If you're saying that my voice is not worth hearing, then join the club.

I was saying that I don't think I am qualified to answer the question.

Then the "otherwise" portion of my statement applies. Your opinion still matters, regardless of what some may consider contradictory.

Quote from: The Schaef on February 13, 2010, 09:34:36 AM

But as "the rest of you" is a term applied more loosely than you realize, the point turns out to be moot.

I admit, then, that you are right about what I realize. I was under the impression that all significant moderators were part of the "New REG" construction, which is a subset that would include you. Who exactly is working on the "New REG" then, so I don't generalize inappropriately?

Bryon · « **Reply #108 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:19:09 AM »

Right now, EVERYONE on this board is (supposed to be) contributing to the new REG. Tim posted a link to most of it for everyone to read and comment on. A couple people have actually helped by calling out sections that they didn't understand or agree with.

Others just complain or tease about how long it's taking everyone else to do it.

STAMP · « **Reply #109 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:39:02 AM »

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #110 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:45:49 AM »

@ Bryon
So if I "play" an artifact face down, My opp is entitled to DON it correct? After all, it was "played" (Which requires a card to be in PLAY to be PLAYed). Right?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #111 on:** February 13, 2010, 10:50:26 AM »

Well playced STAMP, lol.

Quote from: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 10:19:09 AM

Right now, EVERYONE on this board is (supposed to be) contributing to the new REG. Tim posted a link to most of it for everyone to read and comment on. A couple people have actually helped by calling out sections that they didn't understand or agree with.

Others just complain or tease about how long it's taking everyone else to do it.

There is only so much we can do to help with only one section posted. If we could see more sections of the REG to offer advice, then I think things may move along faster.

Bryon · « **Reply #112 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:00:25 AM »

So it comes down to two options for defining play (unless someone else has another suggestion):

1) to move a card from hand, deck, or discard pile to a location other than those
- No exceptions

2) to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
- except that every time a character, weapon, or multi-colored site leaves your territory and enters battle to activate its special ability, that doesn't count as "play"
- except that every time a character, weapon, or site returns from set aside by game rule (not by a "return" special ability stated on a card), that doesn't count as play

Our definitions of "place" (the special ability) are identical: "Put the card in the specified location. It remains indefinately." This matches the REG.

Our definitions of "place" (the action by game rule or the consequece of other abilities) are identical as well, with these possible exceptions: playing an enhancement or dominant.

Card A: Each time opponent plays a dominant or enhancement, draw a card.
Card B: Each time opponnet places a dominant or enhancement, draw a card.

To me, those trigger at different times, because "place" has a permanent feature (placed cards remain indefinately). That permanence is part of what makes "place" different from "play."

Bryon · « **Reply #113 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:03:35 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 10:50:26 AM

Well playced STAMP, lol.
There is only so much we can do to help with only one section posted. If we could see more sections of the REG to offer advice, then I think things may move along faster.

One section?!? I count about 37.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #114 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:10:20 AM »

Lol.

I see the almanac of abilities as one piece.

Bryon · « **Reply #115 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:46:50 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 11:10:20 AM

Lol. I see the almanac of abilities as one piece.

LOL. The "almanac of special abilities" IS the new REG.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #116 on:** February 13, 2010, 11:51:04 AM »

Well theres the whole glossary of terms and stuff too, thats a huge part as well.

SirNobody · « **Reply #117 on:** February 13, 2010, 12:16:14 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 12, 2010, 10:28:30 PM

I see. Are the definitions of "Play" and "Place" clarified in the "New REG," or is that part of the debate (i.e. How should we define them?).

The new REG clearly defines the keywords "Play an Enhancement" and "Place."

That is different from the conditions "played" or "placed." I believe a major source of confusion in this thread is that people see "Play an Enhancement" on Ethiopian Treasurer and "If no good enhancements are played" on Trembling Demon and think that they refer to the same term. They don't. It would be nice if they could refer to the same term, but we're 15 years in to a game that doesn't cycle out cards, has never had a rules reset, and hasn't always had an abundance of forethought in game development. Sometimes (often) we have to just do the best with what we have. In this case that means that an ability to "Play an Enhancement" is different than a condition of "in play."

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

SirNobody · « **Reply #118 on:** February 13, 2010, 12:19:37 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2010, 08:53:30 AM

I (and others) have volunteered our time to make updates to the "Current REG" to avoid such confusion. We know that the rest of you are consumed by the production of the "New REG," which is why we have offered our services. To refuse our help and then poke us in spite of it leaves you no more objective than me.

Perhaps I should have given more information about the development of the new REG a while ago. I have added an FAQ to the new REG thread that hopefully explains why we haven't availed ourselves to much to the help offered by players and what sort of things players can do to help.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

The Schaef · « **Reply #119 on:** February 13, 2010, 12:57:21 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 11:00:25 AM

2) to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
~~- except that every time a character, weapon, or multi-colored site leaves your territory and enters battle to activate its special ability, that doesn't count as "play"~~
That is not an exception to the above.
~~- except that every time a character, weapon, or site returns from set aside by game rule (not by a "return" special ability stated on a card), that doesn't count as play~~
That is not an exception to the above

I find it incredibly disappointing to see a mischaracterization in response to my honest, accurate and unembellished layout.

Quote

Our definitions of "place" (the special ability) are identical...Our definitions of "place" (the action by game rule or the consequece of other abilities) are identical as well...

If you consider there to be any distinction between these two definitions, then it is logically impossible for your two definitions to be an identical match to my one definition. I would think the mere fact that you have two different definitions should make that obvious.

Another interesting factoid about my definitions is that they don't require a distinction from the conditions by the same name, as has been supposed in this thread.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #120 on:** February 13, 2010, 01:17:46 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 10:19:09 AM

Right now, EVERYONE on this board is (supposed to be) contributing to the new REG. Tim posted a link to most of it for everyone to read and comment on. A couple people have actually helped by calling out sections that they didn't understand or agree with.

I must remind you that the offer some of us made was to help update the "Current REG," not the "New REG." Until the "New REG" is released, there are many misguided or otherwise incorrect rulings being made. There have also been rulings on these boards that have not made their way to the "Current REG" so some hosts are not aware of them.

Quote from: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 10:19:09 AM

Others just complain or tease about how long it's taking everyone else to do it.

I realize that this is how I have come across and I apologize for that. My concern is that the amount of time necessary for those involved in the "New REG" to complete their daunting task leaves current hosts using the "Current REG" without necessary modifications. I'm only talking about sentence alterations and wording, not grand scale redefinitions. The "New REG" will take time, and it should. I am offering my services to tweak the "Current REG" to help cover hosts in the meantime.

Bryon · « **Reply #121 on:** February 13, 2010, 01:28:12 PM »

Honestly, Schaef, I was NOT trying to mischaracterize anything. HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, for crying out loud. HOW is it not an exception? I DON'T get it. Help. Really. Please.

The way I read your definition, placing a hero into territory is playing it, and then pushing it into battle to activate its special ability is playing it again, and then returning the character from set aside to territory is playing it again, right? Am I understanding your position? If not, then clarify it. Clarify your rule so that it doesn't confuse me.

And again,

There IS a difference between "discard abilities" and "discard" (see HPPalace).

There IS a difference between "place abilities" and "is placed" (see exchange lost soul + deck discard soul)

There IS a difference between "play abilities" and "is played."

The Schaef · « **Reply #122 on:** February 13, 2010, 01:38:26 PM »

Quote

HOW is it not an exception?

If it's not an exception, explain to me how the weapon got placed into territory without satisfying my condition of being put into play by one of the two listed methods.

Since I never even used the word "again", and since I have accepted from the very beginning of this discussion that your position only suggests that a card is played the first time it meets the condition, and not every time, I made the mistake of assuming you were giving my definition the same consideration.

The only difference in the things you mentioned is that "discard ability" refers to an ability that discards. It is my understanding that discarding by game rule is taking something and putting it in the discard pile, and discarding by special ability is taking something and putting it in the discard pile. The base term "discard" has only one definition regardless of how it is applied.

There is no reason that the base term "place" requires two definitions based on how it is used.

Bryon · « **Reply #123 on:** February 13, 2010, 01:42:19 PM »

Quote

Since I never even used the word "again", and since I have accepted from the very beginning of this discussion that your position only suggests that a card is played the first time it meets the condition, and not every time, I made the mistake of assuming you were giving my definition the same consideration.

Ah. Now I understand completely.

I was mistaken in thinking your definition was complete. It assumes a nebulous "first time" (though is that true for deactivated and reactivated artifacts by your definition? Not returned to hand and put in play again?) Please rewrite your rule so that it clarifies this "first time" for me.

You were mistaken in thinking my definition was incomplete. It is not. It is a play EVERY time it satisfies the condition.

The Schaef · « **Reply #124 on:** February 13, 2010, 01:58:50 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 01:42:19 PM

You were mistaken in thinking my definition was incomplete. It is not. It is a play EVERY time it satisfies the condition.

You were the one who said cards are played once and activated multiple times thereafter. I am not at fault for defining the terms under your parameters. Especially when the game has been ruled this way for years. You cannot activate something already activated, you cannot discard something already discarded, but you can play something already played? Is that what I am now forced to clarify?

News:

Author Topic: Darius Decree (Read 30678 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef