Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

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.

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.

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).

It's actually found on page 122 of the REG (I, myself, was surprised to find it was in there).

I want to know if you can play mayhem or vain philiosophy with lampstand still active?

Even though they're not in battle...

"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.