Author Topic: Gates of hell  (Read 6301 times)

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2011, 11:49:17 PM »
0
If that's true, then I have a combo to remember. I just remember it didn't work because of not being able to enter twice. Although, I'm not sure I was planning on shuffling/placing it.

Offline CJSports

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1403
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2011, 08:19:13 AM »
0
Thank you everybody, helped alot.
Life is not a promise but eternity is...

Rawrlolsauce!

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2011, 11:46:46 AM »
0
Whether or not you have more than one copy of it doesn't matter. It has to do with how the "once per battle" rule works in relation to generics.
Do you have any backing for this statement? I found a thread where two elders disagree with that, but it is pretty old (and before the elders were elders...).

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2011, 11:56:41 AM »
0
Whether or not you have more than one copy of it doesn't matter. It has to do with how the "once per battle" rule works in relation to generics.[citation needed]

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2011, 12:40:40 PM »
0
The only thing I've found in the official rules regarding characters entering battle more than once is this:

Quote from: REG > Instant Special Abilities > Withdraw from Battle > Special Conditions
If a character is forced to withdraw or withdraws from a battle voluntarily, it may not not re-enter the current battle (see Withdraw in the glossary).  Moreover, the character may enter on a new battle on the same turn.

If someone knows of another REG quote on this topic please share it.  In that quote I don't find anything about generic vs. unique characters.  As it's currently written this rule appears to apply broadly to all characters.

It's my opinion that generic characters should be able to re-enter battle regardless of the number of copies in your deck.  I've ruled that way in T2 in the past but I don't recall this ever coming up in T1.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2011, 05:24:01 PM »
0
Last time this question came up, I explained how it worked and an elder agreed with me. There is currently nothing about it one way or the other in any rules document.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline adotson85

  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2011, 05:36:18 PM »
0

It's my opinion that generic characters should be able to re-enter battle regardless of the number of copies in your deck.  I've ruled that way in T2 in the past but I don't recall this ever coming up in T1.

This is how I think it should work also, especially with the addition of Legion.
"Don't forget in the darkness what you have learned in the light."

Offline Professoralstad

  • Tournament Host, Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10841
  • Everything is Awesome!
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2011, 08:59:23 PM »
0

It's my opinion that generic characters should be able to re-enter battle regardless of the number of copies in your deck.  I've ruled that way in T2 in the past but I don't recall this ever coming up in T1.

This is how I think it should work also, especially with the addition of Legion.

I agree with Gabe/Pol as well, though I have had tournament judges rule differently.
Press 1 for more options.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2011, 10:32:01 PM »
0
I agree with Gabe/Pol as well, though I have had tournament judges rule differently.

Which is why we need an official Elder ruling.

Oh wait..... Gabe and now the Professor...... WE HAVE A RULING!!  ;D
My wife is a hottie.

Offline TheJaylor

  • Trade Count: (+18)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3119
  • Fortress Alstad
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Redemption with Jayden
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2011, 10:58:36 PM »
0
Yeah I get the question now that I have refreshed myself of Gates' ability. I believe that generic can enter when ever needed especially since you can have more than one generic character in battle at the same time in T2 and rarely T1 but yes T1 too. Tribal Elder x5 to Jacob to Captain, Tribal Elder is in there and same with the Legions you can have more than one in battle, how come they wouldn't be able to re-enter if needed?

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #35 on: January 10, 2011, 09:59:56 AM »
0
Ok here we go again.

<rant>

This is yet another case where the REG is incorrect and I would have ruled this wrong.  Can we please get this cited in what ever is the official REG corrections thread? (there are two and I have no clue which is the correct one).  This whole correction thread approach is useless unless some one actually maintains it.  Can we have it clearly labelled?  And rename the other one? 

</rant>

I am however glad that is resolved.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 10:06:07 AM by Korunks »
In AMERICA!!

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #36 on: January 10, 2011, 09:50:25 PM »
0
Actually the REG is not incorrect about this. It is totally silent on the issue.

Now, to KKFA, it's not quite that easy to get generics back into battle. If a generic character has left battle during a battle phase and is still in territory or set-aside, the battle still remembers that character and it will not be able to re-enter.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #37 on: January 11, 2011, 10:21:25 AM »
0
Quote
Actually the REG is not incorrect about this. It is totally silent on the issue.

I disagree.

Quote from: REG > Instant Special Abilities > Withdraw from Battle > Special Conditions
If a character is forced to withdraw or withdraws from a battle voluntarily, it may not not re-enter the current battle (see Withdraw in the glossary).  Moreover, the character may enter on a new battle on the same turn.

I would have used this as a guideline and made the wrong ruling.
In AMERICA!!

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2011, 10:49:33 AM »
-1
Then the fault would have been yours for forgetting about the "cards reset in deck/discard pile" rule.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2011, 11:07:47 AM »
0
But the battle does not reset whether the status of the card did.  Is it ruled any where that the battle "forgets" that the character was in the battle, even if the card resets and no longer has the "was in this battle" status?
In AMERICA!!

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2011, 12:49:29 PM »
0
Then the fault would have been yours for forgetting about the "cards reset in deck/discard pile" rule.

If absolutely everything resets when a card hits the deck, then I demand to be able to use Jephthah multiple times.

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #41 on: January 11, 2011, 02:54:58 PM »
0
But the battle does not reset whether the status of the card did.  Is it ruled any where that the battle "forgets" that the character was in the battle, even if the card resets and no longer has the "was in this battle" status?
No, and the opposite is never stated either. I've laid this out before, even on this thread. When the REG is silent you have to use logic. I explained how I reached the proper conclusion just through Logic and 3 elders confirmed my findings. It wasn't all that complicated either.

Lambo, nice try :)
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #42 on: January 11, 2011, 03:36:23 PM »
0
But the battle does not reset whether the status of the card did.  Is it ruled any where that the battle "forgets" that the character was in the battle, even if the card resets and no longer has the "was in this battle" status?
No, and the opposite is never stated either. I've laid this out before, even on this thread. When the REG is silent you have to use logic. I explained how I reached the proper conclusion just through Logic and 3 elders confirmed my findings. It wasn't all that complicated either.

I am not arguing that your scenario is incorrect or complicated.  Just that without this ruling the information in the REG would not have led to your conclusion.

You said:
Quote
The reason the rule works that way is that in cases of generic characters, there is no memory of the character by title in battle, otherwise WS wouldn't be able to band to WS. There is memory of the individual card, but that memory gets erased when the card resets in deck. Therefore, if a generic is brought back out again it has no longer already entered battle.

part one:
Quote
The reason the rule works that way is that in cases of generic characters, there is no memory of the character by title in battle, otherwise WS wouldn't be able to band to WS.

Where in the REG is the rules for what the battle "remembers"?  I cannot locate it. 

part two:
Quote
There is memory of the individual card, but that memory gets erased when the card resets in deck.

So you are stating that the battle does remember the card but that it gets reset when the card resets.  Where is that in the REG? I can't locate it.  If that is not what you are saying please correct me.

part: three
Quote
Therefore, if a generic is brought back out again it has no longer already entered battle.

Yes this follows from your premises, but I am suggesting without digging throught the forums your logical and "simple" deduction would have been impossible because the REG does not, in it's current form, support your premises.  So how could a host (aside from spending copious amounts of time on the forums) make the same deduction?  If the REG actually does confirm those premises please correct me. 
In AMERICA!!

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2011, 03:54:45 PM »
-1
It's logic. There must be some mechanism by which a generic character may be banded into battle by another copy of itself, yet can't re-enter battle if forced to withdraw from battle. The only logical solution to that is the battle memory solution, which has precedence in that "per game" cards are "remembered" by the game. As a logical extrapolation, we can then assume that since cards like Unknown Nation can add generics of a kind that is already in battle to battle, the status of memory must be tied to the individual card and resets like all other attributes when in deck or Discard.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2011, 04:28:17 PM »
+1
Clearly what is "logical" is subjective. This is a situation that the REG needs to no longer be silent about.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2011, 05:08:43 PM »
0
Quote
As a logical extrapolation, we can then assume that since cards like Unknown Nation can add generics of a kind that is already in battle to battle, the status of memory must be tied to the individual card and resets like all other attributes when in deck or Discard.

Add the basis for that extrapolation, the Unknown Nation ruling, is it defined in the REG?  Or does it also require knowledge of a ruling made on the forums?  Again I can find no mention of that ruling in the REG.  Whence comes this revelation?

When I am a host and have been asked a question I don't have the luxury of hours to dig through several old posts and then spend time pondering until I reach that conclusion.  I need an answer fairly quickly.
In AMERICA!!

Offline galadgawyn

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Gates of hell
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2011, 11:26:20 PM »
0
cards also reset in hand, right?  so would that work the same?


as far as the ruling goes, I can't think of any other logical, consistent way to rule it.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal