Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: LukeChips on May 25, 2014, 07:05:15 PM
-
And your opponents hand.
-
Unless they say otherwise, all cards default to play with their targets. Cards in hand are not in play, so Lampstand does not protect them.
-
Unless they say otherwise, all cards default to play with their targets. Cards in hand are not in play, so Lampstand does not protect them.
Lampstand does actually say otherwise. "Not in battle" is it's own location, which includes territories, set-aside, and the Land of Redemption. It does not cover hands (so the answer to the original question is no it does not), but it does cover the Land of Redemption, so your explanation isn't quite right.
-
Wasn't "not in battle" defined as being all cards face up on the table that were not in battle?
-
Lampstand does actually say otherwise. "Not in battle" is it's own location, which includes territories, set-aside, and the Land of Redemption. It does not cover hands (so the answer to the original question is no it does not), but it does cover the Land of Redemption, so your explanation isn't quite right.
If the hand is not in battle, why would it not also qualify?
As an aside, I feel like this card's ruling changes with whatever deck is popular. Can we please have an official Errata for this card that specifies exactly what is protected? And don't try to say that we don't need an "Errata," because clearly we do. This question comes up every year at tournament season.
-
Repeat questions always come up from new players, I asked them when I started and many players ask them as well. Lampstand has been the same since I started playing the game only a few years ago.
-
I don't think they're going to errata the card, what has changed is the definition of "not in battle" (which is a game rule/definition, Lampstand just happens to be the only card that uses the terminology currently). Currently, "not in battle" is defined as Chris mentioned. They haven't changed from this in awhile so I don't imagine they're going to unless that becomes overpowered somehow (remember, they don't change cards/game rules to make cards MORE powerful).
-
I don't think they're going to errata the card, what has changed is the definition of "not in battle" (which is a game rule/definition, Lampstand just happens to be the only card that uses the terminology currently). Currently, "not in battle" is defined as Chris mentioned.
Where is this definition listed?
-
It's actually found on page 122 of the REG (I, myself, was surprised to find it was in there).
-
It's actually found on page 122 of the REG (I, myself, was surprised to find it was in there).
Thank you. ;D I wasn't aware that the REG was still viable. :o
-
I want to know if you can play mayhem or vain philiosophy with lampstand still active?
-
I want to know if you can play mayhem or vain philiosophy with lampstand still active?
"Not in battle" defines a set of locations, which does not include hand. It does not protect from Mayhem or VP because they target a location that is not "not in battle".
-
Even though they're not in battle...
-
Yes, well, that argument isn't going to get us anywhere, much to my disappointment as well.
The problems that were to be had from not-in-battle had other solutions, IMO. But it has been done.
-
"Not in battle" doesn't literally translate to "all cards that aren't currently in battle". It's treated as a specific list of locations that were defined by the Elders. Whether or not "hand" is a part of this definition is arbitrary (hence the frustration that many people have), but when you look at it from that perspective, it makes sense at least.
-
No, I'm in the camp that is resigned to the decision. Doesn't mean I have to like it...