Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Lamborghini_diablo on November 14, 2009, 10:45:38 PM
-
Ok, I was talking to Matt S., and something came up in a game he played today at a tournament. Another player used DoN to negate lampstand so he could play Burial. The logic behind this was the ruling that resulted from the PoA vs Twelve Fingered Giant discussion, which was that you cannot protect from a negate.
So, I'm bringing this question up again. Using the ruling from before, can DoN legally negate, not discard, an artifact for one phase while Lampstand is active? Was this play, which decided the winner of the game, ruled correctly in the tournament?
Destruction: Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.
Lampstand: Protect all cards not in battle from evil Dominants (grim-reaper icon cards).
-
You can't protect from a negate. However a dominant (Lampstand) can't be interrupted, and therefore can't be negated to begin with. So I think it was ruled incorrectly.
Nevermind, that was dumb :)
-
You can't protect from a negate. However a dominant (Lampstand) can't be interrupted, and therefore can't be negated to begin with. So I think it was ruled incorrectly.
Lampstand isnt a dominant... its an artifact. o_O
-
The problem is the way DoN is worded. It says to Discard, then Negate. The Negation is contingent upon the Discard, DoN is powerless to Discard Lampstand, so the Negation never triggers.
-
The problem is the way DoN is worded. It says to Discard, then Negate. The Negation is contingent upon the Discard, DoN is powerless to Discard Lampstand, so the Negation never triggers.
No it doesnt. It says Discard. Negate.
There is no "then" in the ability.
-
There is if you read it closely.
Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.
The first sentence is clear enough. It targets one artifact for Discard. But the target of the second sentence isn't one active artifact, it's "[that] Artifact," i.e. the Discarded artifact.
-
Where does it say the artifact MUST be discarded? Why doesnt it attempt to discard, get stopped by protection, then negate it?
-
The wording of DoN's second ability reads so that the negate is dependent on the discard happening. It's not an If, Then ability per se, but it definitely seems to function as one
-
Don't mean to Hijack the thread - But I also have a quick Lampstand question - How does Prep phase work? Can you deactivate Lampstands, then perform another action (Say Play FA) then Reactivate Lampstands? If Yes, why?
-
Don't mean to Hijack the thread - But I also have a quick Lampstand question - How does Prep phase work? Can you deactivate Lampstands, then perform another action (Say Play FA) then Reactivate Lampstands? If Yes, why?
The answer is "No." I'm not sure of the reasoning, but it has been ruled that way consistently since LotS came out.
-
What is PoA?
How can I find the PoA vs 12FG debate?
-
PoA = Protection of Angels. I'm not sure if those debates were purged or not. But it was a HUGE debate.
Yeah... it got purged, but here are some recient threads about it:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14316.15 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14316.15)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16581.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16581.0)
-
Notice the first post on that says "Have we figured out how this is played yet? It was argued about a while ago, but I never got to the end of it."
That wasnt the original. It got deleted.
-
So the result of that is that DoN can be used while Lampstand is active? That doesn't seem right to me.
-
I agree with Pol's reasoning.
-
So the result of that is that DoN can be used while Lampstand is active? That doesn't seem right to me.
I also agree it seems odd that it got ruled that way in a tournament. However, I can see the logic on both sides, so i'm honestly 50/50 on this issue.
-
I think it is silly that DoN works while Lampstand is active. If a card is protected then you have to negate the protection. DoN can't do that to Lampstand.
-
It was ruled Twelve Fingers could negate heros through protection. The only way to protect from a negate is with Cannot Be Negated.
-
12FG doesn't negate the protection afforded by PoA, that makes no sense.
-
It was ruled that PoA protects heroes from harm, and negation is not considered harm.
-
How does "evil cards" get widdled down to mean just "harm"?
-
lol, I'm just reporting what the officials ruled on it in the past... :-\
They said Protection = protect from harm, CBN = protect from negates.
-
They said Protection = protect from harm, CBN = protect from negates.
Well there's the problem. Protection has nothing to do with harm. Cards say what they protect from. PoA protects from evil cards. Lampstand protects from evil Dominants. Wall of Protection protects your characters from your opponent's cards. If protect means protect from harm then Wall of Protection is the most glorified piece of eye candy in the history of Redemption since banding isn't considered harm.
-
A lot of people didn't either, but thats how it got ruled, so thats how I'm applying the logic to the case at hand.
-
Hey,
The problem is the way DoN is worded. It says to Discard, then Negate. The Negation is contingent upon the Discard, DoN is powerless to Discard Lampstand, so the Negation never triggers.
This is exactly correct.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
They said Protection = protect from harm, CBN = protect from negates.
Well there's the problem. Protection has nothing to do with harm. Cards say what they protect from. PoA protects from evil cards. Lampstand protects from evil Dominants. Wall of Protection protects your characters from your opponent's cards. If protect means protect from harm then Wall of Protection is the most glorified piece of eye candy in the history of Redemption since banding isn't considered harm.
I would agree with you if Wall said protect from harm - But it doesn't
Wall of Protection
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place this site in your territory. No character in your territory may be brought into battle by an opponent. • Play As: Place this site in your territory. Characters in your territory are protected from being brought into battle by an opponent. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Kings 9:15 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Ultra Rare)
It very clearly states what it protects from - Them being brought into battle.
-
Protection of Angels
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 2 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: All Heroes in Holder's territory are immune to harm or effect until end of turn. • Play As: Protect all Heroes in holder’s territory until end of turn. • Identifiers: OT, Involves Music • Verse: Psalms 91:11 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Uncommon)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 2 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and protect all Heroes in play and set aside areas from evil cards until end of turn. • Identifiers: OT, Involves Music • Verse: Psalms 91:11 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Common)
I would say that it depends on which POA you use (since the Play As is only attached to the warrior version (though, I never read the debate))
As for the OP, I would say DON can't go through LOTS.
-
The priests PoA is worded pretty similarly to Lampstand. It protects one type of card (heros/Arts) from another type of card (Evil cards/evil dominants).
-
You can't be protected from negation, it goes back to the whole rock/paper/scissors thing.
It was ruled when Lampstand first came out that DoN could negate it, but the wording doesn't really work for that.
-
They said Protection = protect from harm, CBN = protect from negates.
Well there's the problem. Protection has nothing to do with harm. Cards say what they protect from. PoA protects from evil cards. Lampstand protects from evil Dominants. Wall of Protection protects your characters from your opponent's cards. If protect means protect from harm then Wall of Protection is the most glorified piece of eye candy in the history of Redemption since banding isn't considered harm.
I would agree with you if Wall said protect from harm - But it doesn't
Wall of Protection
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place this site in your territory. No character in your territory may be brought into battle by an opponent. • Play As: Place this site in your territory. Characters in your territory are protected from being brought into battle by an opponent. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Kings 9:15 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Ultra Rare)
It very clearly states what it protects from - Them being brought into battle.
You sir, understand my point exactly.
You can't be protected from negation, it goes back to the whole rock/paper/scissors thing.
I do not believe this to be a proper understanding of the rock/paper/scissors rule set. The whole premise of interrupt/negate (paper) is that you stop the protection (rock) in order to do something or to end the protection permanently. 12FG doesn't even target PoA, it target's Heroes. If I want to stop Blue Tassel's protection, I have to target Blue Tassels with a negate ability. I don't target the characters because it wouldn't stop the protection.
-
Minister Polarius and SirNobody (and those that agreed) are correct.
The second sentence of Destruction says "that artifact," which refers to the artifact that was discarded. If there was no discarded artifact, then there is no "that artifact."
You are all correct, though, that you cannot generally protect from a negate. Only "cannot be negated (I/P)" limits the targets of negates.
-
The second sentence of Destruction says "that artifact," which refers to the artifact that was discarded. If there was no discarded artifact, then there is no "that artifact."
Does it make a difference that the second sentence of Destruction doesn't actually say "that artifact?"
DoN Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.
Even if the word "that" was included why would "that" refer to the "Discard" as opposed to point back to "one active artifact?"
I really don't understand why this doesn't follow the "as much as you can" and the "two separate sentences" meta-rules. If the sentences are contingent on each other, why can I use DoN on a CBN artifact to discard it?
-
Does it make a difference that the second sentence of Destruction doesn't actually say "that artifact?"
DoN Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.
Even if the word "that" was included why would "that" refer to the "Discard" as opposed to point back to "one active artifact?"
I've been asking that as well. It seems that when you play DoN, it targets an artifact, and then two abilities activate based on that target. First it tries to discard. In this case, it can't due to protection. Then, it tries to negate it, which it can do because you cant protect from negates.
Now, some of you all say "but you cant do that, because the first part is protected against!" Why then... can I play AoCP when there are EC's that are protected from discard? If I cant discard ALL evil characters, I shouldn't be able to play the card then. Can you not play cards regardless of if their targets are protected?
I really don't understand why this doesn't follow the "as much as you can" and the "two separate sentences" meta-rules. If the sentences are contingent on each other, why can I use DoN on a CBN artifact to discard it?
I've been trying to follow this logic as well. Why apply "as much as you can" to some cards, but then say it doesnt work with others.
-
Perhaps it is time to give DoN a better "Play As" to avoid confusion.
I agree with Polarius as well. Cards like Meal in Emmaus would make no sense if there was no presumption of completing the previous sentence. The word "Artifact" in the second sentence is referring only to the "new artifact" from the first sentence. Otherwise, if the holder did not activate a new artifact, TMiE would do what - activate an artifact that was already activated and then negate the artifact from last turn?
The Meal in Emmaus
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle. Holder may activate a new Artifact. Artifact takes immediate effect. Previous Artifact's effect is negated. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Luke 24:30-31 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Rare)
-
why not just fix cards like TMiE?
"Holder may activate a new Artifact, which takes immediate effect. Negate the previous Artifact."
Smaller, simpler, and easier to understand
-
If the sentences are contingent on each other, why can I use DoN on a CBN artifact to discard it?
Because the second sentence is contingent on the first, not the other way around (at least, that's what I've gotten from the thread thus far). DoN can discard but then fail to negate; however if the discard fails the negate isn't even attempted.
-
If the sentences are contingent on each other, why can I use DoN on a CBN artifact to discard it?
Because the second sentence is contingent on the first, not the other way around (at least, that's what I've gotten from the thread thus far). DoN can discard but then fail to negate; however if the discard fails the negate isn't even attempted.
Again, how does this play into the "do as much as you can" ruling?
If I have no cards left in my deck, I can still play reach to interrupt the battle and play the next enhancement, regardless of not having anything to draw.
If I use Stalks of Flax to swap two heroes, and both of their heroes die, I still get my heroes back after two turns, even though all the heroes are not left to return.
If I have Jerusalem Tower active, and my opponent plays confusion or Gabriel, they still get to search through my deck, even though they are not allowed to discard anything.
-
why not just fix cards like TMiE?
"Holder may activate a new Artifact, which takes immediate effect. Negate the previous Artifact."
Smaller, simpler, and easier to understand
Really? What if I have Tables of the Law active in my artifact pile, then activate Solomon's Temple and move Tables of the Law to the temple. I then activate a new artifact in my artifact pile. In battle, I then use TMiE as an ehancement but do not choose the "may" option. Does the second sentence still activate, therefore negating my "previous artifact" Tables of the Law?
I only suggested a "Play As" for DoN because I know that some poeple refuse to accept what is obvious. Sentences that were clearly meant to be contingent are contingent.
-
"Artifact" in the second sentence is referring to the artifact you discarded.
If we wanted you to be able to negate and discard the artifact, we would have worded it that way. ("Negate and discard an artifact.") We actually had that discussion in playtesting.
You can't negate the artifact if it isn't discarded, since "Artifact" is clearly referring to the artifact you discarded.
-
The "Do as much as you can" rule still applies here:
1) discard the artifact
2) negate the discarded artifact
If the artifact can't be negated, then that has nothing to do with the first special ability. The art is still discarded.
If the artifact is protected from discard, then there is no artifact to negate. So, "as much as you can" happens to be zero actions in this case.
-
why not just fix cards like TMiE?
"Holder may activate a new Artifact, which takes immediate effect. Negate the previous Artifact."
Smaller, simpler, and easier to understand
Really? What if I have Tables of the Law active in my artifact pile, then activate Solomon's Temple and move Tables of the Law to the temple. I then activate a new artifact in my artifact pile. In battle, I then use TMiE as an ehancement but do not choose the "may" option. Does the second sentence still activate, therefore negating my "previous artifact" Tables of the Law?
I would say TMiE would do what you described as it already is.
-
*cough cough paired abilities*
-
"Artifact" in the second sentence is referring to the artifact you discarded.
If that is the case, why did you base your initial post on this around a non-existent "that' in DoN's SA? Seriously, you initially claimed that the word "that" was important in making the second sentence contingent on the first. Now, you claim that it doesn't matter. I'm not arguing here, I am trying to understand what your original argument actually was and whether or not an extra "that" would have made a difference.
Secondly, it appears you are skipping over the question that is being asked. Neither L Diablo nor I are arguing that the word "Artifact's" in the second sentence is referring to a different artifact than mentioned in the first sentence--this is a red herring. We are asking why the negate is contingent on the discard.
In general two special abilities separated by a period are treated as independent SAs. We know that artifacts can simply be negated so there is no requirement that an artifact be discarded before it can be negated. What is it in the sentence "Artifact's ability is negated." that makes the negate SA contingent upon the success of the discard SA?
-
If that is the case, why did you base your initial post on this around a non-existent "that' in DoN's SA? Seriously, you initially claimed that the word "that" was important in making the second sentence contingent on the first.
Are you seriously suggesting that you can discard artifact A and then negate artifact B? Clearly "Artifact" refers to the artifact that was discarded. Whether the word "that" is there or not is not important.
-
If that is the case, why did you base your initial post on this around a non-existent "that' in DoN's SA? Seriously, you initially claimed that the word "that" was important in making the second sentence contingent on the first.
Are you seriously suggesting that you can discard artifact A and then negate artifact B?
Since I said that
Neither L Diablo nor I are arguing that the word "Artifact's" in the second sentence is referring to a different artifact than mentioned in the first sentence--this is a red herring.
I'm guessing that I didn't mean to suggest that at all. I was trying to understand why you choose to make such a big deal of the non-existent "that" in your original post. Since you built your entire argument around "that" I thought maybe it was important.
Since we all agree that the artifact in sentence one and two are the same, can you answer the actual question that L Diablo and I actually are asking--to whit...
What is it in the sentence "Artifact's ability is negated." that makes the negate SA contingent upon the success of the discard SA?
-
Since we all agree that the artifact in sentence one and two are the same, can you answer the actual question that L Diablo and I actually are asking--to whit...
What is it in the sentence "Artifact's ability is negated." that makes the negate SA contingent upon the success of the discard SA?
+1 I see nothing in there that says the discard MUST be sucessful. However, I do see two abilities that share the same target.
-
Hey,
Since we all agree that the artifact in sentence one and two are the same, can you answer the actual question that L Diablo and I actually are asking--to whit...
What is it in the sentence "Artifact's ability is negated." that makes the negate SA contingent upon the success of the discard SA?
The lack of an adjective (a, any, one, all, etc) before "artifact" in the second sentence suggests that either the ability is referring to the card it is on, the character the card is played on (neither of which applies in the case of a dominant), or a previous ability on the card. Since it refers to the previous ability on the card, if the previous ability on the card doesn't target anything then it doesn't target anything either.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
However, I do see two abilities that share the same target.
If the artifact cannot be targeted by the first ability because of a protect ability, and the two abilities have the same target, then the second ability cannot target the artifact either. Which is exactly what Bryon and I are saying.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I am the judge who made the ruling that is in question. I understand the point of view that says that it I ruled incorrectly, but how exactly is a new host supposed to know which cards with 2 sentences are "paired" abilities and which aren't. We seem to have a lack of a general rule on how to play cards like DoN. It is a supposedly "paired" ability that is written like two separate abilities. I took it as "discard an artifact. That artifact's ability is negated" Which because of 12FG PoA which says protect does not stop negation. So 1 + 1 =\= 2. DoN has no play as or errata that would suggest they are paired abilities. I even consulted another vetern player and they agreed. So thats 2 people with experience(counting JDS) plus me who did not see the "paired" abilities. Just because the implication is obvious to some (i.e. the playtesters) does not mean it is obvious to every one else. Isn't that the purpose of the REG to contain the information I need to do my job as a host?
On the play itself, why does DoN's negate not interrupt the ongoing protect to prevent it? The definition of negate is interrupt and prevent. Lampstand does not say cannot be prevented or negated. In battle I can target a protected character to remove their protection with a negate, why not in this case?
-
how exactly is a new host supposed to know which cards with 2 sentences are "paired" abilities and which aren't.
The simple solution to this entire thread is to give DoN a "play as".
In battle I can target a protected character to remove their protection with a negate, why not in this case?
This is a good question. If Abiezer (immune to crimson) is blocked by Saphira (crimson FBN), then Abiezer ceases to be protected. I assume that people will say that the problem here is that DoN's abilities are in the wrong order to do what you are thinking. If DoN said, "negate and artifact. discard that artifact." then it seems that it would be able to get rid of LotS.
However, what I think is really behind all this is that DoN probably should be able to get rid of LotS based on it's wording, however it goes against the purpose of LotS (stopping evil doms), and therefore a long time ago people twisted the words around to make it work the way it was intended. Once again, I think that a "play as" would be a better solution.
-
Hey,
how exactly is a new host supposed to know which cards with 2 sentences are "paired" abilities and which aren't.
Take each sentence separately and ask yourself "would this ability make sense as the ability on a card by itself?" If the answer is no then the abilities are probably paired. In the case of Destruction "Artifact's ability is negated" is not an ability that makes sense by itself, so it's safe to assume that it is paired.
Also certain abilities are always paired, so if you see a set aside, poison, disease, search, or interrupt ability then you know it is paired.
In battle I can target a protected character to remove their protection with a negate, why not in this case?
You don't actually target the protected character with the negate, you target the character's ability (which is partially why you cannot protect a card from being negated).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Not trying to be argumentative but this
Artifact's ability is negated
does make sense to me, the previously mentioned artifacts ability is negated. I don't see how that could be difficult to understand. The target for the first statement was invalid, but if the card was treated like 2 separate abilities, the negate would work. Just because the first line could not target it doesn't mean the second line couldn't, coming from the point of view of both sentences being a separate abilities. I saw it like this.
DoN line 1: "I am discarding you Lampstand of Sanctuary"
LotS: "Tough I protect from you, so nyah(:P)"
DoN line 2: "I am going to negate who he tried to discard" *points to LotS*
LotS: "Oh noez I am negated"
This at first blush doesn't seem like a bad call, but if there had been a play as that says that they were paired, I wouldn't have ruled it that way. I repeat what I said earlier. While the current wording may seem fine to some, to others it can logically interpreted as something else, but once some one says oh well this really works it is like "x" not "y" then people would agree. I do not understand the hesitance to use play as to make the cards more understandable and make the game flow better. I often see requests for play as to resolve an issue with a combo or situation, but they are rarely actually done. Is there a reason for that?
-
Hey,
Not trying to be argumentative but this
Artifact's ability is negated
does make sense to me, the previously mentioned artifacts ability is negated.
The question isn't does it make sense, the question is does it make sense when removed from it's context. The previously mentioned artifact only exists if you do not remove the context. If you do remove the context then there is no previously mentioned artifact, and you can't negate something that doesn't exist.
The target for the first statement was invalid
DoN line 1: "I am discarding you Lampstand of Sanctuary"
LotS: "Tough I protect from you, so nyah(:P)"
This isn't quite how protection works (and I think is a good part of why some people are being confused in this thread). Lampstand is protected, that doesn't mean that you can target it but it just doesn't do anything, it means you cannot target it at all. Lampstand cannot be the artifact that Destruction is targeting to discard, therefore it cannot be the previously mentioned artifact that is the subject of the second sentence on Destruction.
I do not understand the hesitance to use play as to make the cards more understandable and make the game flow better. I often see requests for play as to resolve an issue with a combo or situation, but they are rarely actually done. Is there a reason for that?
The reason that you don't see cards getting play as these days is because all REG related efforts (inadequate as they may be) at the moment are being spent on getting the new REG out. If we spent some of the existing REG efforts on minor fixes like play as for Destruction of Nehushtan it would result in the new REG taking longer before it's released. The new REG is already a year late as it is, if we don't put all REG related efforts into it now it will simply never get finished. I would love to see a ton of cards get play as, but the nature of a small market CCG like Redemption is that the money isn't there to fund a rules management employee, so the rules are managed by volunteers who naturally cannot commit the time to rules management that an employee could. We try to do the best we can with the time we have.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
+1 with MJB, Lambo and Korunks.
-
Further to Tim's last paragraph, arguing an already-explained point on this board only compounds the lack of time issue when working on the REG.
This exact question has been asked on this board at least a couple previous times. The answer has always been the same. The "negated" in the second sentence refers to the artifact that was targeted by the "discard" in the first sentence. We all agree there. You CANNOT target a card for discard if it is protected. You can't say "I am trying to target that protected artifact for discard." You can't select a protected target. Period. I don't know why you think you could.
If you can't target the card for discard, then there is no artifact that can be targeted for the negate.
Get it? Please?
-
This exact question has been asked on this board at least a couple previous times. The answer has always been the same. The "negated" in the second sentence refers to the artifact that was targeted by the "discard" in the first sentence. We all agree there. You CANNOT target a card for discard if it is protected. You can't say "I am trying to target that protected artifact for discard." You can't select a protected target. Period. I don't know why you think you could.
If you can't target the card for discard, then there is no artifact that can be targeted for the negate.
+1 Makes complete sense to me.
-
This exact question has been asked on this board at least a couple previous times. The answer has always been the same.
Get it? Please?
And the Dead Horse says "Beat Me Beat Me Beat Me Again"...
;)
-
Hey,
And the Dead Horse says "Beat Me Beat Me Beat Me Again"...
;)
Who killed my horse!?!
...oh, wait.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
This exact question has been asked on this board at least a couple previous times. The answer has always been the same.
But with each round of new hosts, the question will come up again. The problem here is still that the veteran players already know the rule, but the rest of us don't.
Just put it in the REG. Please?
-
The reason that you don't see cards getting play as these days is because ...the rules are managed by volunteers who naturally cannot commit the time to rules management that an employee could.
If that is the only problem, then I hope that when the new REG is released that there is the ability to give approved people access to change it (with a password or something). If that is the case, then I would gladly take 5 mins of my time to add a simple "Play as" to DoN. It's worth 5 mins of my time to keep this from coming up again.
I've spent more than 5 mins on this thread already :)
-
The easiest fix for this would simply be to say...
"Discard an artifact in play. The discarded artifact's ability is negated."
That'd solve any and all confusion.
-
ok as much as i hate to cause trouble i need to dig this up again. It was stated in this thread by Byron and tim maly that the ruling was wrong yet i asked roy cruz aka reyzen at a tourney this weekend and the wrong ruling was made again this time by an experienced host that i know and love. and im sorry to do this roy but i need a set in stone ruling on the matter cause apparently byrons post was not enough.
-
ok as much as i hate to cause trouble i need to dig this up again.
Did you tell Reyzen--per Bryon's earlier post--that by ruling as he did that he is responsible for the delays in getting the new REG out? Maybe that might have swayed him.
-
lol no i didn't but i seriously would like to have a solid official answer on this i thought i had that when byron posted but alas no
-
ok as much as i hate to cause trouble i need to dig this up again. It was stated in this thread by Byron and tim maly that the ruling was wrong yet i asked roy cruz aka reyzen at a tourney this weekend and the wrong ruling was made again this time by an experienced host that i know and love. and im sorry to do this roy but i need a set in stone ruling on the matter cause apparently byrons post was not enough.
When it comes to official rulings, the only person who is above Byron is Rob himself, so I would consider his ruling official.
When it comes to the new REG, Tim wrote it, so he's pretty official as well.
If you pointed the host to this thread, and they still ruled that DoN discarded LotS, then they are making a blatantly wrong ruling.
-
what was the ruling again? lampstand cannot be negated by don?
-
correct mkc and yes professor u thats why i dug this up again we need a decision by rob cause this whole issue is truly annoying and im kinda starting to get annoyed when i know im right and byron and tim support me
-
....as long as we are all clear here that the updated REG is the problem, not the hosts. I certainly would not assume that Roy (or any other host) reads every thread on these boards. When it is crunch time during a tournament, hosts need to use the REG, not search through post after post in some thread looking for a post from Bryon. That would take too long.
-
Which is why its generally a good idea, if you know there has been a ruling recently (which could affect your gameplay), to print out the thread (If you're able) and bring it with you to the tournament.
-
Which is why its generally a good idea, if you know there has been a ruling recently (which could affect your gameplay), to print out the thread (If you're able) and bring it with you to the tournament.
I agree, especially (as you are implying) if your deck includes cards that had changes or unique rulings. That will make the host's job easier.
-
ok as much as i hate to cause trouble i need to dig this up again. It was stated in this thread by Byron and tim maly that the ruling was wrong yet i asked roy cruz aka reyzen at a tourney this weekend and the wrong ruling was made again this time by an experienced host that i know and love. and im sorry to do this roy but i need a set in stone ruling on the matter cause apparently byrons post was not enough.
I love you too, Matt.
As what YourMathTeacher has said, he is right. I did not catch Bryon's post here on the threads up until now. It was crunch time and I used the usual ruling.
Many budding and experienced hosts, when judging, just like referees, can make honest mistakes. For my part, I did not know it was a mistake until I read the posts tonight.
Thus, another post was useful to say, just like JDS always does, print out a ruling and take to the tourney with you. The judge can easily make a better judgement call based on that. Worst case scenario, can even call the highest power in Redemption.
Godbless!
-
print out a ruling and take to the tourney with you
Also from my experience, it is probably good to tell the judge for your event before the event starts so that they can be aware of the ruling ahead of time. I have personal experience (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16609.msg259657#msg259657) with this.