Author Topic: Dust & Ashes targets Job wherever he is. (Read 13829 times)

Red · « **Reply #25 on:** January 16, 2011, 10:31:11 AM »

Will do.

Bryon · « **Reply #26 on:** January 16, 2011, 11:26:26 AM »

Quote from: Red on January 16, 2011, 08:37:15 AM

This ruleing doesn't work seeing as you can't harm something that isn't alive(In play by Redemption standards) Sorry elders ruling is not logical. Logic is a gift most of the Playtesters/elders don't have it seems.

Wow. I'd try to clarify this for you, but apparently I don't have the gift of logic so I won't bother trying to help you.

For the others in the thread who are more concerned about understanding the ruling than insulting the playtesters:

If I discard a card from your hand, or the top card of the deck, and it is an angel, the angel goes to Chamber. It always has. Nothing is changing about that. But Chamber does not say "If your angel is discarded FROM PLAY..." It just says "If your angel is discarded,..."

It is exactly the same with Dust and Ashes. "If your Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent,..." works just the same as "If your angel is discarded..."

The answer I gave on the playtester side of the board was not really intended to be a final wording for a ruling. I was just answering a question how I thought it should work and none of the playtesters disagreed. If anyone has a suggestion for a better way to word it, please help. Helping is better than mocking and insulting.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #27 on:** January 16, 2011, 12:28:10 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 16, 2011, 09:47:26 AM

Hey, three elders posting in this thread, can we get a ruling here that's worded properly?

How's this sound?

When the first half of a conditional "instead" ability targets a specific card without specifying a location, then it may target the card regardless of its location.

Basically: If (specific target) is/would be (verb-ed), instead do this.

See also:
Chamber of Angels
Dust and Ashes
The Masters Table
Potters Field
Wandering Spirit
Obadiah's Caves
City of Refuge
Covenant of Eden?
Haman's Gallows (doesn't really do much though, but it fits)
Herod's Temple
Lay Down your Life

STAMP · « **Reply #28 on:** January 16, 2011, 12:35:46 PM »

Reason #37 why I retired.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #29 on:** January 16, 2011, 12:43:56 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 16, 2011, 12:54:24 AM

The idea is that if a card refers to a specific card (ie. D&A targeting Job, or Prince of the Air targeting Chamber of Angels), then it targets that card even if it is NOT in play (ie. set aside).

"Not in play" is too general. Based on this particular statement (which I realize is just a generalization), a card that says "Discard Saph" could target a Saph still in a deck or set-aside.

Quote from: Bryon on January 16, 2011, 11:26:26 AM

The answer I gave on the playtester side of the board was not really intended to be a final wording for a ruling. I was just answering a question how I thought it should work and none of the playtesters disagreed. If anyone has a suggestion for a better way to word it, please help.

Is there currently a game term that refers to all face-up cards (including set-aside)? If not, then perhaps now is the time to create one, and apply it to this particular ruling.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 16, 2011, 12:28:10 PM

When the first half of a conditional "instead" ability targets a specific card without specifying a location, then it may target the card regardless of its location.

Basically: If (specific target) is/would be (verb-ed), instead do this.

So this ruling is only in reference to "instead" abilities?

I apologize for being a little behind in this conversation, especially since it appears to have taken place over three different threads. $:-\$

crustpope · « **Reply #30 on:** January 16, 2011, 05:49:46 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on January 16, 2011, 12:35:46 PM

Reason #37 why I retired.

I dunno, I may be with you. redemption is getting to hard to play. It is to complicated, Rules keep changing, and it takes way to much work to stay current on how to play the game correctly.

There has to be a better way

The Schaef · « **Reply #31 on:** January 16, 2011, 06:10:47 PM »

You'd think.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #32 on:** January 17, 2011, 12:54:19 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on January 16, 2011, 05:49:46 PM

There has to be a better way

I'm sure there's a better way. However, not one that's feasible. It's hard enough juggling 2,000 + cards, rulings and players under ideal conditions. Add to that players jumping all over you whenever they think you've made a mistake, and it's stressful. Now keep in mind that these are volunteers, working with limited resources.

Bryon · « **Reply #33 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:16:01 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on January 16, 2011, 12:28:10 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 16, 2011, 09:47:26 AM
Hey, three elders posting in this thread, can we get a ruling here that's worded properly?

How's this sound?

When the first half of a conditional "instead" ability targets a specific card without specifying a location, then it may target the card regardless of its location.

Basically: If (specific target) is/would be (verb-ed), instead do this.

See also:
Chamber of Angels
Dust and Ashes
The Masters Table
Potters Field
Wandering Spirit
Obadiah's Caves
City of Refuge
Covenant of Eden?
Haman's Gallows (doesn't really do much though, but it fits)
Herod's Temple
Lay Down your Life

That is a nice attempt, but there are two problems with it:
1) The first half of Chamber and the first half of Dust and Ashes don't target anything. They only say "if such and such happens to this (type of) card,..."
2) While the SECOND half of Dust and Ashes "redestines" a SPECIFIC card, Chamber of Angels "redestines" certain TYPES of cards. Whether the card title is mentioned or not doesn't really matter.

It appears this thread is really just about "redestination."

No wonder it has been so controversial.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #34 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:43:32 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 16, 2011, 12:43:56 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 16, 2011, 12:54:24 AM
The idea is that if a card refers to a specific card (ie. D&A targeting Job, or Prince of the Air targeting Chamber of Angels), then it targets that card even if it is NOT in play (ie. set aside).

"Not in play" is too general. Based on this particular statement (which I realize is just a generalization), a card that says "Discard Saph" could target a Saph still in a deck or set-aside.

Just thought this line of thinking had merit. also wanted to post this SA:

Joanna (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: White • Ability: 7 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard Herod's Dungeon. Immune to Herods. Negate special abilities on Evil Characters with toughness 2 or less. • Identifiers: NT Female Human • Verse: Luke 8:3 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #35 on:** January 17, 2011, 07:29:56 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on January 17, 2011, 01:16:01 AM

It appears this thread is really just about "redestination."

No wonder it has been so controversial.

That was funny

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #36 on:** January 17, 2011, 01:16:38 PM »

How about something like:

"The conditions for an 'instead' ability may be applied to any card regardless of location."

Are there any holes in that? I looked over the list of all insteads and it applies perfectly to all of them with the desired rule outcome. I also can't think of a counter-example for this rule. For example, the conditions on Chamber of Angel's "instead" is "your Angel about to be Discarded." That condition can be applied to a Captured Angel, and Angel in set-aside, an Angel in deck, hand, or anywhere else an Angel could be Discarded from.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #37 on:** January 17, 2011, 02:15:14 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 01:16:38 PM

How about something like:

"The conditions for an 'instead' ability may be applied to any card regardless of location."

If we are only talking about an exception for "instead" abilities, then I see no problem with it. I like short, simple sentences.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #38 on:** January 17, 2011, 02:44:08 PM »

And then since we already have the "card that can only exist in that location" rule for PoA v. Chamber, we would get the desired result without the bad new ruling opening up unnecessary targeting of cards in set-aside and possibly hands and decks.

Bryon · « **Reply #39 on:** January 19, 2011, 10:29:54 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on January 17, 2011, 01:16:38 PM

How about something like:

"The conditions for an 'instead' ability may be applied to any card regardless of location."

Are there any holes in that? I looked over the list of all insteads and it applies perfectly to all of them with the desired rule outcome. I also can't think of a counter-example for this rule. For example, the conditions on Chamber of Angel's "instead" is "your Angel about to be Discarded." That condition can be applied to a Captured Angel, and Angel in set-aside, an Angel in deck, hand, or anywhere else an Angel could be Discarded from.

I think that works. Thanks!

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #40 on:** January 19, 2011, 01:38:53 PM »

so now we figure some combo to do with captured angels so they go to chamber?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #41 on:** January 19, 2011, 02:03:21 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on January 19, 2011, 01:38:53 PM

so now we figure some combo to do with captured angels so they go to chamber?

One card combo: ANB

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #42 on:** August 19, 2013, 01:21:07 AM »

If Opponent plays Vain Philosophy with my Job in hand and D&A down, where does Job go?

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #43 on:** August 19, 2013, 03:57:51 AM »

It goes under the darn deck see bft sog mayhem ruling if bft cant protect sog in hand then dna cant instead job period

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #44 on:** August 19, 2013, 03:59:26 AM »

Quote from: christiangamer25 on August 19, 2013, 03:57:51 AM

It goes under the darn deck see bft sog mayhem ruling if bft cant protect sog in hand then dna cant instead job period

Protect works differently than instead.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #45 on:** August 19, 2013, 04:02:18 AM »

And I demand proof period

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #46 on:** August 19, 2013, 04:19:49 AM »

Quote from: christiangamer25 on August 19, 2013, 04:02:18 AM

And I demand proof period

I am Holy/Chamber of Angels. Discarded from hand, still insteaded.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #47 on:** August 19, 2013, 10:14:57 AM »

The issue isn't how instead works (as that clearly does the way Westy described), the issue is if the definition of "harmed" applies to cards in hand. I think it would make more sense for it to not apply (because of cards like VP and Mayhem) but I don't know for sure.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #48 on:** August 19, 2013, 10:42:34 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 19, 2013, 10:14:57 AM

The issue isn't how instead works (as that clearly does the way Westy described), the issue is if the definition of "harmed" applies to cards in hand. I think it would make more sense for it to not apply (because of cards like VP and Mayhem) but I don't know for sure.

The definition of harm requires that the card be targeted by an effect from the opposing alignment.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #49 on:** August 19, 2013, 12:27:30 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on August 19, 2013, 10:42:34 AM

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 19, 2013, 10:14:57 AM
The issue isn't how instead works (as that clearly does the way Westy described), the issue is if the definition of "harmed" applies to cards in hand. I think it would make more sense for it to not apply (because of cards like VP and Mayhem) but I don't know for sure.

The definition of harm requires that the card be targeted by an effect from the opposing alignment.

Well, technically, it just has to be a different alignment. Artifacts can harm Heroes and ECs as well.

I agree that at face value the rules on harm would say that a card in hand can be harmed, but I don't know that the particular situation has come up or has been considered beofre, which may require some re-evaluation.

Here's what would trip me up:

I have Job in hand (maybe just after he spent a turn in D&A) and D&A in set-aside. My opponent plays Mayhem. According to the definition of harm, Job has been harmed and thus goes to D&A. However, since part of the shuffle is insteaded, I did not shuffle my hand to draw 6. Therefore, I don't have a hand, just because I use Job and got Mayhem'd at an inopportune time. That's something I'd rather avoid. The same logic was applied to Birth Foretold and Son of God, which is why SoG is not protected by BF in hand.

News:

Author Topic: Dust & Ashes targets Job wherever he is. (Read 13829 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk