Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: sepjazzwarrior on May 01, 2010, 10:45:36 AM

Title: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on May 01, 2010, 10:45:36 AM
if i block a RA with 2 kings/queens of Judah while Gates of J is up, would i get to draw 2 cards and both of their abilities can't be negated?

Gates of J=protect king/queens of judah in terriotry from opponents cards.  if one blocks, draw a card and its ability cant be negated
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: BubbleBoy on May 01, 2010, 10:48:38 AM
I believe the blocking action is only performed once, so no, I'm pretty sure you would only get to draw 1. Actually, by the wording, if you block with two characters, you shouldn't be able to draw at all! :o ;) But yes, both their abilities are CBN.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: RTSmaniac on May 02, 2010, 12:46:11 AM
i think you would draw as many as blocking
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on May 04, 2010, 11:55:54 AM
could i get a more definate ruling on this? 
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: BubbleBoy on May 04, 2010, 12:30:24 PM
I'm sorry I don't have enough defins for you...
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on May 04, 2010, 12:32:50 PM
well someone else posted the opposite ruling that you, i didnt mean it as a personal attack and im sorry if i offended.  But also wouldnt the cannot be negated and the drawing either both apply to each character or only to the first character to enter battle? i dont see any reason why they would be split up.  also if several characters are in battle, are they not all blocking, making teh ability apply to all characters
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: BubbleBoy on May 04, 2010, 01:13:20 PM
well someone else posted the opposite ruling that you, i didnt mean it as a personal attack and im sorry if i offended.
Oh, no no no. I just forgot to use the lamejoke tag. ;)
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: RTSmaniac on May 05, 2010, 01:46:55 AM
Just to clarify, i based my ruling on thorn in the flesh.

Thorn in the Flesh
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Pale Green • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place this card on a Hero. It cannot be removed by a Healing card. Each time holder's demon blocks that Hero, holder discards a card at random from opponent's hand. • Play As: Place this card on a Hero. Hero is protected from healing. Each time holder’s demon blocks that Hero, holder discards a card at random from opponent’s hand. • Identifiers: NT, Sin, Depicts a Weapon, Connected with Demons • Verse: II Corinthians 12:7 • Availability: Promotional cards (2003 Regional Tournament)

If i block with multiple demons, do i get to discard multiple cards?

Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 05, 2010, 01:54:27 AM
No,

This ruling has been hashed out multiple times. blocks is a singluar action that only occurs upon the first evil character entering battle.
Blocking is an ongoing variation of the aforementioned, which allows abilities like Herod's Dungeon to work.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on May 05, 2010, 09:58:32 AM
so then just the firsts characters ability cant be negated then?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 05, 2010, 11:01:11 AM
Correct.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: RTSmaniac on May 05, 2010, 11:42:04 AM
Quote
No,

This ruling has been hashed out multiple times. blocks is a singluar action that only occurs upon the first evil character entering battle.
Blocking is an ongoing variation of the aforementioned, which allows abilities like Herod's Dungeon to work.

Yea, i couldnt remember- i knew it could go either way.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 05, 2010, 12:03:33 PM
No,

This ruling has been hashed out multiple times. blocks is a singluar action that only occurs upon the first evil character entering battle.
Blocking is an ongoing variation of the aforementioned, which allows abilities like Herod's Dungeon to work.

Just as I convinced Bryon at nationals that a provisioned lone green hero can use HT after choosing the blocker because all hero abiilties must complete before the hero is considered beginning a battle, I would also rule that a Queen Maachah/King somebody band is considered one block with both characters getting CBN from Gates because Queen Maachah is considered to be be blocking after her ability completes, and by then there are two EC that are blocking.

 :2cents:
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Captain Kirk on May 06, 2010, 09:43:48 AM
Just as I convinced Bryon at nationals that a provisioned lone green hero can use HT after choosing the blocker because all hero abiilties must complete before the hero is considered beginning a battle, I would also rule that a Queen Maachah/King somebody band is considered one block with both characters getting CBN from Gates because Queen Maachah is considered to be be blocking after her ability completes, and by then there are two EC that are blocking.

 :2cents:

I agree with Stamp. There is only "block," but the evil characters are performing it together.  Therefore, both should have their ability CBN and you draw 2 cards.

Kirk
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 06, 2010, 10:56:04 AM
Cool. I'm rebuilding my old-school Panic-Demon, Thorn in the Flesh deck then.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: RTSmaniac on May 06, 2010, 11:10:05 AM
cool then im building my old panic demon/thorn in the flesh/sin in the camp/high places deck then
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 06, 2010, 11:23:23 AM
For sure :)

I'm 1000% positive this is contrary to how its been ruled in the past.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Professoralstad on May 06, 2010, 11:25:12 AM
For sure :)

I'm 1000% positive this is contrary to how its been ruled in the past.

And I'm 98% sure that Koalas don't understand the concept of percentage...
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 06, 2010, 11:28:11 AM
I think theres a less than 0% chance I understood that.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on May 06, 2010, 11:53:29 AM
5 out of 4 people aren't good at statistics
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: CountFount on May 06, 2010, 11:55:55 AM
5 out of 4 people aren't good at statistics

And 99% of the lawyers in this country give the other 1% a bad name.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 06, 2010, 12:06:17 PM
For sure :)

I'm 1000% positive this is contrary to how its been ruled in the past.

Chris Bany always ruled it correctly.

To say that only the 1st EC in a banding chain is blocking is to say that only the 1st hero in a banding chain is rescuing.

5 out of 4 people aren't good at statistics

So those people have bad teeth while statisticians have good teeth??

 ;)
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 06, 2010, 12:13:11 PM
Quote
To say that only the 1st EC in a banding chain is blocking is to say that only the 1st hero in a banding chain is rescuing.

Ah, but that's not what I'm saying, and I was very careful not to say that.

I said that 'Blocks' is an action that only happens once, upon the first evil character entering battle
'Blocking' is a state which can be occupied by multiple characters.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 06, 2010, 12:17:22 PM
So, does that mean that Women as Snares only works when she's the first EC to enter battle?

"When using this character to block, take prisoner all male Evil characters of one opponent and place them in your land of bondage.  They are treated as lost souls"

I think thats a silly distinction to make. I see no reason why Gates of Jerusalem and Thorn in the Flesh should not activate every time that specific type of character enters battle.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 06, 2010, 12:17:55 PM
Found it:

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17424.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17424.0)

Theres the thread with the ruling.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 06, 2010, 12:22:47 PM
My question remains the same, if Women as Snares is banded in, how can she "block" when thats a one time deal?

I say if an EC enters the field of battle against a hero at any time, it is blocking, and should be counted as such. Every time an EC enters, it is also blocking, and should be counted as such, meaning, thorn in the Flesh should activate numerous times if a chain of panic demons enters battle.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Professoralstad on May 06, 2010, 12:26:48 PM
My question remains the same, if Women as Snares is banded in, how can she "block" when thats a one time deal?

I say if an EC enters the field of battle against a hero at any time, it is blocking, and should be counted as such. Every time an EC enters, it is also blocking, and should be counted as such, meaning, thorn in the Flesh should activate numerous times if a chain of panic demons enters battle.

"When using this character to block" = "When this character is blocking" =/= "When you block with this character". It's a subtle difference in ongoing vs. instantaneous action.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 06, 2010, 12:30:46 PM
I don't think that seperation is even required. Why is there even a difference?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 06, 2010, 12:31:57 PM
So that you can't block a thorned character with a PD chain. That's pretty much the reason.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Minister Polarius on May 06, 2010, 12:45:13 PM
Sounds like a bottom-up ruling to me. Thought we didn't have those anymore.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Master KChief on May 06, 2010, 01:17:42 PM
So that you can't block a thorned character with a PD chain. That's pretty much the reason.

if a person is silly enough to rescue with a thorned hero and sees a backfield full of demons, i'd say he deserves to discard 7 cards.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Minister Polarius on May 06, 2010, 01:21:00 PM
There's that, too.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 06, 2010, 02:01:54 PM
Agreed. People might cry that loosing 7 cards from their hand is too powerful, yet we have a card that kills every EC in play.

If you RA with a hero with thorns on them, you run that risk. I'd quite like to see that card played more often. Also, it requires the player to have an 8 card combo.

How is that broken?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 06, 2010, 02:26:01 PM
Found it:

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17424.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17424.0)

Theres the thread with the ruling.

My question remains the same, if Women as Snares is banded in, how can she "block" when thats a one time deal?

I say if an EC enters the field of battle against a hero at any time, it is blocking, and should be counted as such. Every time an EC enters, it is also blocking, and should be counted as such, meaning, thorn in the Flesh should activate numerous times if a chain of panic demons enters battle.

"When using this character to block" = "When this character is blocking" =/= "When you block with this character". It's a subtle difference in ongoing vs. instantaneous action.

 :doh:  D'OH!  THIS IS MADNESS!  YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!  CHARLIE BROWN, YOU BLOCKHEAD!

(I don't usually yell, but then my wife does say that my voice is always very loud, so maybe all caps works for me.  ;) )

But seriously, block/is blocking/blocked/will block/was blocked/would have been blocking/etc. works the same as all the forms of the word "rescue".  It is a dynamic, ongoing state.  And because banding is an instant ability, the "block" switch doesn't actually turn on until the SA completes. 

Women as Snares works whether she begins the block or is banded in later in the battle.

Thorn in the Flesh has always been misinterpreted from the very beginning anyway.  An enhancement can only be played on one EC.  If it is played on a demon, THAT demon is the only demon that will trip the triggered ability on TitF regardless of how many demons are blocking.

Furthermore, as it relates to "ignore".  If a hero is ignoring all ECs in battle then it is not being blocked at that time.  But just as a battle challenge could have been a rescue attempt at one time, an ignored EC that is no longer blocking may have blocked at one time.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 06, 2010, 02:48:13 PM
Thorn in the Flesh has always been misinterpreted from the very beginning anyway.  An enhancement can only be played on one EC.  If it is played on a demon, THAT demon is the only demon that will trip the triggered ability on TitF regardless of how many demons are blocking.

MWAHAHAHAH! I have found the fatal flaw in your argument good sir!

Place this card on a Hero. It cannot be removed by a Healing card.  Each time holder’s demon blocks that Hero, holder discards a card at random from opponent’s hand.

Shazam!
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: ChristianSoldier on May 06, 2010, 02:57:18 PM
There is a major difference between Thorn in the Flesh and Gates of Jerusalem

Thorn in the Flesh says "Each TIME your demon blocks..."

Gates of Jerusalem says "if one blocks..."

Gates says if one blocks that's something like how gifts of the Magi works for each card that your opponent draws

but Thorn in the Flesh says each time your demon blocks, something like Abomination of Desolation where it only works each time they draw rather than for each card

You are only blocking once, but each character is blocking, does that make sense?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Master KChief on May 06, 2010, 03:28:32 PM
agreed, i believe they have different context. the way gates is worded should blanket all kings/queens.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Bryon on May 06, 2010, 04:00:22 PM
When Tim Maly posted on that thread that Thorn in the Flesh only triggered once, it was news to me.

I've always assumed that Thorn in the Flesh and Gates of Jerusalem work for every EC as it enters battle.  I assumed that an EC entering battle against a hero was called a "block" even if it was not the first EC into battle.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 06, 2010, 04:02:35 PM
I completely agree with Bryon.

EC enters battle against a hero? It has blocked. That would make life so much easier if all we had to worry about was this one rule.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 06, 2010, 05:04:08 PM
Thorn in the Flesh has always been misinterpreted from the very beginning anyway.  An enhancement can only be played on one EC.  If it is played on a demon, THAT demon is the only demon that will trip the triggered ability on TitF regardless of how many demons are blocking.

MWAHAHAHAH! I have found the fatal flaw in your argument good sir!

Place this card on a Hero. It cannot be removed by a Healing card.  Each time holder’s demon blocks that Hero, holder discards a card at random from opponent’s hand.

Shazam!

There's no flaw in my argument.  There IS a flaw in the wording, but this is an old card so we'll just have to make do.  Once placed, the holder of TitF is the owner of the hero to begin with, but be that as it may, the holder refers to the player who has played TitF.  "holder's demon" is singular and as worded targets the demon that TitF is played on.  Any other demons that may be in battle at the time cannot be targeted.  If TitF is placed on the hero in battle then holder discards a card from hand at that time.  Because TitF actually targets the card it is originally played on, that demon can leave and enter play and still cause TitF to trigger each time it blocks.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 06, 2010, 05:12:07 PM
There was a rather large flaw.  :P

An enhancement can only be played on one EC.  If it is played on a demon...

Quote
Place this card on a Hero.

Unless you meant the original EC you have to play it on so you can place it, in which case... what happens if you use a human since it doesnt specify a demon has to originally play it. ;)

The character you initially use to place TitF on a hero has nothing to do with the ability on the card.

Also, Wandering Spirit says "Your demon" but was ruled to put all discarded demons under the draw pile, not just one.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on May 06, 2010, 06:27:49 PM
what if TinF isn't played on a demon.  There is nothing in it's special ability that says it has to be played on a demon right?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Master KChief on May 06, 2010, 06:29:35 PM
There was a rather large flaw.  :P

An enhancement can only be played on one EC.  If it is played on a demon...

Quote
Place this card on a Hero.

Unless you meant the original EC you have to play it on so you can place it, in which case... what happens if you use a human since it doesnt specify a demon has to originally play it. ;)

The character you initially use to place TitF on a hero has nothing to do with the ability on the card.

Also, Wandering Spirit says "Your demon" but was ruled to put all discarded demons under the draw pile, not just one.

true. the language on ttif does not refer to the demon it was played on. lambo also brings up a valid point...what if it is played off a human ec? ttif would still work, as it must refer to any demon that the ttif owner uses to block.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: lightningninja on May 06, 2010, 07:06:03 PM
When Tim Maly posted on that thread that Thorn in the Flesh only triggered once, it was news to me.

I've always assumed that Thorn in the Flesh and Gates of Jerusalem work for every EC as it enters battle.  I assumed that an EC entering battle against a hero was called a "block" even if it was not the first EC into battle.
Awesome, this is how I always thought as well. However, what if you play siege during battle to band more demons against a thorned hero? That doesn't constitute as blocking, right?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 06, 2010, 07:27:08 PM
When an enhancement refers to a singular character and does not use an article or qualifier, e.g. "hero", "evil character", "human", etc., as opposed to one that does, e.g. "a hero", "an evil character", "all humans", etc., then it targets the character on which the enhancement is being played/activated.

TitF states "holder's demon" so thus it targets the evil character on which it is played.  If it is NOT played on a demon then it does nothing.

I'm just surprised the whole Thorn in the Flesh has gone on so long.  It's all so very simple and uses rules that have been in place forever.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 06, 2010, 10:19:19 PM
... or "Holder's Demon" could refer to any demon that belongs to the holder.

If it said THIS demon, I would agree with you.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 06, 2010, 10:29:29 PM
... or "Holder's Demon" could refer to any demon that belongs to the holder.

If it said THIS demon, I would agree with you.

If it said THIS demon, we'd have a huge thread in the Rulings Section on what happens when played on a human.   ;)
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Bryon on May 07, 2010, 02:26:54 AM
On character abilities, a plain "hero" is usually short for "this hero."  For example, "Hero is immune to demons."

On enhancements, "hero" or "your hero" can often refer to any one of your heroes.  See "Set your hero aside" or "Set hero aside."  On the enhancement Thorn in the Flesh, it means "Each time one of your demons blocks..."

SPOILER WARNING:










In The Disciples, we are shortening "(This) Hero is immune to demons." to the shorter "Immune to demons" (like the recent ECs who got "Immune to lone heroes.")

Similarly, the characters with first strike just say "First strike." rather than "This character has first strike."

Also, characters that protect only themselves from some effect say "Protected from capture." rather than "Protect this character from capture."

We like to shorten/streamline wording, as long as it remains perfectly clear who gets the effect.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 07, 2010, 10:09:25 AM
And, according to what you said earlier, "each time X Blocks" means each time X type of character enters battle against a hero right?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Bryon on May 07, 2010, 10:13:56 AM
And, according to what you said earlier, "each time X Blocks" means each time X type of character enters battle against a hero right?
That is what I think.  It seems to me that trying to differentiate between "block" and "blocking" is not the direction we should go if we want this game accessible to new players.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 07, 2010, 10:15:09 AM
Agreed. As I was saying earlier, is there even a legit reason to seperate the two, or is it just because people dont want to lose 7 cards to Thorn in the Flesh (which is very easy to avoid)?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Minister Polarius on May 07, 2010, 10:27:16 AM
Potential issue: if blocking can happen mid-battle, you RA, I block low, play TitF on your Hero in battle, then play Lurking or Rage or whatever to bring in a bunch of PD's or OM's. I know that wouldn't be OP in T1, but in T2 it'd be a good way to have 5 CBN blocks that also empty hand for SitC...
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Bryon on May 07, 2010, 10:28:14 AM
I'm sure that this had very little to do with Thorn in the Flesh.  Rather, it was based on a narrow definition of "block," which was different from "band."

I just don't have a problem with a banded character ALSO being considered to be blocking.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Minister Polarius on May 07, 2010, 10:32:44 AM
Well that's what I'm saying. I agree too, but my question is whether that play would be borken in T2 where two cards can win a battle CBI and also empty the opponent's hand.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 07, 2010, 10:36:38 AM
Which play? and wouldnt it require at least 8 if you want to discard 7 cards from their hand?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Professoralstad on May 07, 2010, 12:07:36 PM
Potential issue: if blocking can happen mid-battle, you RA, I block low, play TitF on your Hero in battle, then play Lurking or Rage or whatever to bring in a bunch of PD's or OM's. I know that wouldn't be OP in T1, but in T2 it'd be a good way to have 5 CBN blocks that also empty hand for SitC...

I think that's why the ruling that RDT mentioned was made. I know I had heard of it before this thread.

I agree that this would be a fairly devastating play. What would make it even more powerful is if you had 5 copies of the PG PD, so that you can place them on the rest of your opponent's heroes. Some T2 decks would be able to come back from that, but it sure wouldn't be easy.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: RTSmaniac on May 07, 2010, 12:11:10 PM
me likey!
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 07, 2010, 12:39:57 PM
On character abilities, a plain "hero" is usually short for "this hero."  For example, "Hero is immune to demons."

On enhancements, "hero" or "your hero" can often refer to any one of your heroes.  See "Set your hero aside" or "Set hero aside."  On the enhancement Thorn in the Flesh, it means "Each time one of your demons blocks..."

In The Disciples, we are shortening "(This) Hero is immune to demons." to the shorter "Immune to demons" (like the recent ECs who got "Immune to lone heroes.")

Similarly, the characters with first strike just say "First strike." rather than "This character has first strike."

Also, characters that protect only themselves from some effect say "Protected from capture." rather than "Protect this character from capture."

We like to shorten/streamline wording, as long as it remains perfectly clear who gets the effect.

Okay, so let me get this straight:

If I play Cherubim banded to ET and play Spiritual Warfare, who's ignoring all human evil characters?

If I have a gold hero and Thomas in battle, have initiative and play Gideon's Call, does Thomas get to play enhancements of any brigade?

If I have Armorbearer band to a gold wc hero that's holding Spear of Joshua, who has access to any site?

If I band Claudia to ET and play God's Provision, are both of my heroes 0/0?
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on May 07, 2010, 12:42:48 PM
No, They're 5/5 and 5/4 respectively, God's Provision doesn't change abilities, its a gain til you're not dying ability. :)

The answer to the other three, is Cherubim, Gold Hero, and Gold Hero. (I think)
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 07, 2010, 12:54:59 PM
Potential issue: if blocking can happen mid-battle, you RA, I block low, play TitF on your Hero in battle, then play Lurking or Rage or whatever to bring in a bunch of PD's or OM's. I know that wouldn't be OP in T1, but in T2 it'd be a good way to have 5 CBN blocks that also empty hand for SitC...

I think that's why the ruling that RDT mentioned was made. I know I had heard of it before this thread.

I agree that this would be a fairly devastating play. What would make it even more powerful is if you had 5 copies of the PG PD, so that you can place them on the rest of your opponent's heroes. Some T2 decks would be able to come back from that, but it sure wouldn't be easy.

Oh, whats this card that I found? Possibly one that stops that combo cold?

(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FStanding%2520in%2520the%2520Gap%2520%28FF%29.gif&hash=7fc8b1a5f78814a30f1bac7c014ff03937e98806)

If that combo you talk about comes up, who knows, people may actually start using this card!
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on May 07, 2010, 01:16:21 PM
Potential issue: if blocking can happen mid-battle, you RA, I block low, play TitF on your Hero in battle, then play Lurking or Rage or whatever to bring in a bunch of PD's or OM's. I know that wouldn't be OP in T1, but in T2 it'd be a good way to have 5 CBN blocks that also empty hand for SitC...
Just realized you said "Rage" as a viable card. I am really failing to see how this is a BAD thing.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 07, 2010, 01:46:42 PM
No, They're 5/5 and 5/4 respectively, God's Provision doesn't change abilities, its a gain til you're not dying ability. :)

The answer to the other three, is Cherubim, Gold Hero, and Gold Hero. (I think)

Since the advent of Samson's Sacrifice I would argue that we can have negative abilities.  In my example the abilities of the EC is 0/0.  So either just ET would be 0/0 or both heroes would be 0/0.  But that's neither here nor there because my main point is this part of Bryon's post:

On enhancements, "hero" or "your hero" can often refer to any one of your heroes.  See "Set your hero aside" or "Set hero aside."  On the enhancement Thorn in the Flesh, it means "Each time one of your demons blocks..."

Based on the interpretation, and to keep it consistent with all cards, here is how each of my examples would work:

1) Each hero gains the ignore.

2) Each hero gains the ability to play enhancements of any brigade.

3) Each hero gains access to any site.

Just doesn't seem right, does it?  That's why I have always ruled TitF that it is only applied to the demon on which it is played.
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: BubbleBoy on May 07, 2010, 01:51:36 PM
Based on the interpretation, and to keep it consistent with all cards, here is how each of my examples would work:

1) Each hero gains the ignore.

2) Each hero gains the ability to play enhancements of any brigade.

3) Each hero gains access to any site.

On enhancements, "hero" or "your hero" can often refer to any one of your heroes.  See "Set your hero aside" or "Set hero aside."  On the enhancement Thorn in the Flesh, it means "Each time one of your demons blocks..."
Emphasis mine. You are forgetting a very important word here...
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on May 07, 2010, 02:03:49 PM
No, They're 5/5 and 5/4 respectively, God's Provision doesn't change abilities, its a gain til you're not dying ability. :)

The answer to the other three, is Cherubim, Gold Hero, and Gold Hero. (I think)

Since the advent of Samson's Sacrifice I would argue that we can have negative abilities.  In my example the abilities of the EC is 0/0.  So either just ET would be 0/0 or both heroes would be 0/0.  But that's neither here nor there because my main point is this part of Bryon's post:

On enhancements, "hero" or "your hero" can often refer to any one of your heroes.  See "Set your hero aside" or "Set hero aside."  On the enhancement Thorn in the Flesh, it means "Each time one of your demons blocks..."

Based on the interpretation, and to keep it consistent with all cards, here is how each of my examples would work:

1) Each hero gains the ignore.

2) Each hero gains the ability to play enhancements of any brigade.

3) Each hero gains access to any site.

Just doesn't seem right, does it?  That's why I have always ruled TitF that it is only applied to the demon on which it is played.

Every example you gave is a "hero gains" situation. What does the demon gain from TitF? Nothing. TitF simply says, if this hero is blocked by a demon that belongs to the owner of this card, do this.

The abilities you listed are all simply commands, TitF is more of a reactive ability, as it reacts to specific actions. I really don't get how the those abilities and TitF are similar in any way.


Emphasis mine. You are forgetting a very important word here...

How about if it was rephrased to say "Each time a demon that belongs to the holder of this card blocks"? Its the same thing.

Also, "Each Time" means that its NOT a one shot deal. First demon enters battle, thats the first time a demon entered the battle. Another one enters, thats the second time a demon has entered the battle, another one enters and that would be the third time a demon enters battle...
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 07, 2010, 02:26:50 PM
Whatever. (http://ca.hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-the_worst_words_to_say_at_work-1250)  I guess I'll get back to you and try to see your point of view.  Maybe.  I don't know.



;)
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: BubbleBoy on May 07, 2010, 03:14:19 PM
Whatever. (http://ca.hotjobs.yahoo.com/career-articles-the_worst_words_to_say_at_work-1250)  I guess I'll get back to you and try to see your point of view.  Maybe.  I don't know.
Yes, but I guess we'll see whether you really understand, if you even try. :P
Title: Re: Gates of Jerusalem
Post by: STAMP on May 07, 2010, 04:59:17 PM
Well, this is one of those very rare instances where understanding is irrelevent.  It's an "I'm right and you all are wrong" occurrence.   :P








 ;D
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal