Cactus Game Design Message Boards

So this would not impact the Arioch Ruling? It seems the Arioch ruling may not apply here, are NT and human considered identifiers?

So this would not impact the Arioch Ruling? It seems the Arioch ruling may not apply here, are NT and human considered identifiers?

Arioch was ruled unable to discard a captured hero for his ability.

The Arioch ruling is flawed on so many levels.

Than perhaps we should endeavor to fix it now.

It does seem inconsistent that we can target Discarded heroes by Identifier in PF, but not captured Heroes in RC.

Great combo.  It works.

Captured heroes are not heroes, and cannot be targeted as Heroes.  They can only be targeted as Lost Souls or Captured Heroes.

Discarded heroes ARE heroes.  They are targeted as Heroes by any card that searches your discard pile for a hero. 

I think because we don't treat Lost Souls as humans.

For a very brief time, we actually had a card on the list for the 2010 set that targeted a female Lost Soul.  We decided that would be too difficult to determine in some cases, but I think there is more to it than that.  How can I have a female lost soul that is not also considered a human?  Can I target a Lost Soul when a card says "discard a human"?

I think it is best to just treat lost souls and captured characters as nothing but Lost Souls and Captured characters.

We DO still look at the references on the Lost Souls.  "captured Genesis heroes" still works, as does "a N.T. lost soul."  But I don't see any other labels working beyond that.

I think because we don't treat Lost Souls as humans.

OK, that is fair enough. It does raise the question, however, why are we treating certain Lost Souls as Prophets when it comes to the first half of Arioch's SA?

FD cards lack identifiers, cept male human or angel.

There are a few places where I could put this, but I'd just like to say that I never thought face-down characters should be treated as being out of play if they are in an area that is considered to be in play for all other purposes. They can be treated as face-down characters, meaning cards that target specific kinds of cards cannot affect them, but I think that a card like Abomination of Desolation that does not specify card type in any way should be able to get rid of a face-down hero (or even an art from the art pile).

Unless specified otherwise, placed cards target cards "in play". This is going to be part of the new REG.

Although Royal Protection does specify otherwise, the targeted card has to be able to accept a placed card (face up). Placing on a face down card (or in a deck) seems rather twisted.

Mike

I would agree with you.  However, keep in mind that the point I was trying to make is that if we go by what Bryon says that heroes in the discard pile or Potter's Field are just "heroes", then any card that targets a "hero", and can do so in those locations, will work.  That's why I started the other thread about special abilities that state "not in battle".  Due to the Lampstand ruling, any special ability can target cards that are out of play if they state "not in battle".  If there was a card that says, "Capture any hero not in battle.", I would be able to pull one out of the discard pile.  BUT, if we went with my proposition that they are "discarded heroes", we wouldn't have that problem.

This is the same, old same old that has occurred with every ruling recently that someone didn't like. It spurs the desire to exploit the ruling in as many ways as possible. I admire Bryon, Schaef, Tim, and you (Mike) for all the hard work you put into this game, but I would never want to be in your shoes. To know that everything you say will be notpicked to death and manipulated into some convoluted combo would be too frustrating for me to endure.

Psst, STAMP!  You're retired.

Sorry guys.   Carry on.

This is the same, old same old that has occurred with every ruling recently that someone didn't like. It spurs the desire to exploit the ruling in as many ways as possible. I admire Bryon, Schaef, Tim, and you (Mike) for all the hard work you put into this game, but I would never want to be in your shoes. To know that everything you say will be notpicked to death and manipulated into some convoluted combo would be too frustrating for me to endure.

Once upon a time you could place multiple set asides on a character. That was the long standing rule and the rule was good. There was another rule for a special classification of SA called "human actions" that caused much confusion, so the PTB decided to do away with the human actions ruling in favor of and "all special abilities must complete" rule. The funny thing is eight or nine months later it was realized that requiring all special abilities to complete means you could no longer use multiple simultaneous set asides. The original rule of long standing was replaced (because of an unanticipated consequence) by a different rule.

Once upon a time Every Man's Sword stopped characters with site access SA's from initiating a battle if all the opponent's lost souls were in sites. That was the long standing rule and the rule was good. Meanwhile there was a lost soul that you could place under your deck "if a lone hero begins a rescue attempt." There was much discussion of what this meant and a ruling was issued. It wasn't recognized until literally years later that the ruling for that lost soul meant the sword couldn't work as it had forever. The original rule of long standing was replaced (because of an unanticipated consequence) by a different rule.

Now we have a new ruling about what the words "in battle" means. People are in the process of going through trying to uncover the consequences of this new ruling given that there are a number of other cards that contain exactly the same wording. It seems rather unfair to label this as nitpicking or manipulation. In terms of avoiding hurt feelings it is much better, IMO, to do things this way rather than have a judge at a local overturn a long standing ruling and have it take six months for that ruling to percolate up.

Quote from: Bryon on March 03, 2010, 05:56:10 PM

I think because we don't treat Lost Souls as humans.

OK, that is fair enough. It does raise the question, however, why are we treating certain Lost Souls as Prophets when it comes to the first half of Arioch's SA?

That is a good question.  While "human" is not a neccessary ingredient of a prophet (see Gabriel and Captain of the Host), it does seem odd that we would allow a captured prophet to be spotted as a prophet, if we don't allow a captured human to be targeted as a human.