Author Topic: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle  (Read 1898 times)

Offline SignoftheStar

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Phillippians 4:8
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • My YouTube Page
Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« on: December 16, 2013, 02:06:33 AM »
0
Ok, so a few posts ago it was definitively determined that Glory of the Lord DOES NOT protect the Covenants in Book of the Covenant in Solomon's Temple because it clearly states "Solomon's Temple and the Artifact in it."

HOWEVER, The Tabernacle, on the other hand, distinctly reads "Glory of the Lord protects this card and its contents." Furthermore, Book of the Covenant is, in fact, a Tabernacle Artifact.

So now I raise the question once again: does Glory of the Lord protect Covenants in Book of the Covenant in The Tabernacle, or is it the same situation?
The core of all life is a limitless chest of tales.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2013, 10:18:58 AM »
0
Since Tabernacle actually specifies the word "contents", and since its whole point is to alter the protection given by Glory, I believe that all Artifacts in The Tabernacle would be protected.

However, given the responses last time, I'd hold out for further confirmation as I may be wholly wrong again. :P

Offline Praeceps

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2013, 11:56:41 AM »
0
The Tabernacle - Glory of the Lord protects this card and its contents. If you have Solomon’s Temple in play, discard this card (regardless of protection) and transfer its contents to Solomon’s Temple.

I would have to agree with browarod on this one. It says that Glory protects it and it's contents, not its artifact. that distinction would extend the coverage to anything inside the tabernacle, I believe.
Just one more thing...

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2013, 12:17:52 PM »
+1
Based on the conversation in the previous thread and this one, I would agree that there is a different situation affecting this ruling.  I am not sure, however, that it is a different result, so let's discuss an issue I do not believe is overall addressed by the rules.

Goshen  protects contents, so does it protect placed cards, placed enhancements, or weapons on the characters?  By rule, those cards are being "held" by the characters, not by the fortress, just like The Tabernacle "holds" Book of the Covenant, and that in turn "holds" the covenants.

The ruling regarding Solomon's Temple is different, because it specifies the exact contents that are protected ("the artifact"), in the same way that Kingdoms of the World or Kerith Ravine protect "characters" held there.  Anything held by a protected card in those fortresses are not specifically protected by the ability, and so they may be targeted.

The ruling here requires that we define "contents".  There are two potential definitions, which are below along with the outcome of the ruling depending on the one chosen:

1. "Contents" references any card that is specified as being able to be held by the card through its own ability, through weapon-class rules, or through another card's place ability that directly targets the holding card.
  • Result: Same ruling as with Solomon's Temple, as the targets of the protection would be clearly defined, and not be able to refer to cards held by held cards.

2. "Contents" references any card held by the card or any card held by these held cards (and so on).
  • Result: The covenants would be protected, as they would be included as targets for protection.


Admittedly, these are not good definitions to be added to the rules, that would need to be cleaned up.  However, one of these needs to be chosen, so that these special fortress cases can have a consistent ruling.  Personally, I like the second definition just for simplicity's sake (Is it inside that fortress somehow?  Protected.), but that'd be an Elder call.

Thoughts?

Offline SignoftheStar

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Phillippians 4:8
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • My YouTube Page
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2013, 01:23:02 PM »
0
I have to go with Redoubter's second definition- not only because of convenience (or because I really want it to) but also because of logic. If a Box C is in Box B, and Box B is in Box A, then Box C is in Box A and is among its contents. It just makes sense to me.
The core of all life is a limitless chest of tales.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2013, 01:24:53 PM »
0
I agree with Dayne that we need to clearly define "contents." While I also lean towards the second definition, it would be best to examine all cards that use the "contents" wording before deciding.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2013, 01:35:52 PM »
0
...it would be best to examine all cards that use the "contents" wording before deciding.

I agree with this completely.  I cannot look it up now, but will make a comprehensive list when I get home in a few hours, and lay out how each case would be affected by each definition.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2013, 02:35:57 PM »
+1
According to a Visualizer search for the word "contents" here is the list of cards in ABC order:
-Burst of Light - Shuffles The Darkness and its contents.
-Destroying the Stronghold - Discards Demonic Stronghold and underdecks its contents.
-Dust and Ashes - When Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent, he goes here. Each upkeep returns contents to hand.
-Goshen (promo) - Protects contents from all effects.
-Hormah - Underdecks itself and its contents.
-House in Bethany - Protects contents from evil cards.
-Obadiah's Caves - Green prophets being removed are placed here instead. Each upkeep shuffles contents into deck.
-Prince of the Air - Underdecks Chamber of Angels and its contents.
-Stronghold in the Desert - Protects contents from opponents' cards.
-Table of Showbread - If deactivated, returns contents to hand. Contents are OT good enhancements.
-The Tabernacle - "Glory of the Lord protects this card and its contents."
-Threatened Lives - Underdecks a Site and its contents.
-Tower of Thebez - Protects contents from opponents.


Side note: "Contents" no longer looks like a real word to me, haha.

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2013, 02:56:50 PM »
0
Side note: "Contents" no longer looks like a real word to me, haha.

Ha, good work though!

Most of those won't feel any impact from defining contents, as doing something to a card makes all placed/held cards follow by rule anyway.

However, we need to consider how to treat certain 'harm' cards.  For example: Is Destructive Sin protected while placed on a hero in Goshen?  Is Siegeworks protected while placed on Tower of Thebez?

I would actually amend my proposed second definition to:

"Contents" refers to any target that meets any of the following:
     1.  The card's ability or identifier allows the card to hold the target
     2.  The card's ability or identifier allows the card to place the target on the card
     3.  Any card held or placed, directly or indirectly, on any contents of the card

This is going to be convoluted, regardless, but thoughts?

Offline SignoftheStar

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Phillippians 4:8
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • My YouTube Page
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2013, 03:44:57 PM »
0
I still agree with Definition #2.
The core of all life is a limitless chest of tales.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2013, 03:49:40 PM »
0
Per the Solomon's Temple thread, it was confirmed for me that weapons are held in the same way that fortresses hold cards, but are placed cards really also treated that way? I thought place was a completely different ability than holds.

Offline SignoftheStar

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Phillippians 4:8
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • My YouTube Page
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2013, 04:01:39 PM »
0
Even so, a card placed on another card is still ON the card, so I would agree in saying that the same rule applies. If Card A is on Card B, and Card A is in Card C, then Card B is in Card C. That still makes the most sense to me.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 04:05:37 PM by Luxumbra »
The core of all life is a limitless chest of tales.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2013, 04:40:50 PM »
0
Even so, a card placed on another card is still ON the card, so I would agree in saying that the same rule applies. If Card A is on Card B, and Card A is in Card C, then Card B is in Card C. That still makes the most sense to me.
Well yes I agree with that, but the difference would be a card placed on the thing doing the holding (like Image of Jealousy on a Holds fortress). I don't think that the placed card should be considered contents in that specific case.

Offline SignoftheStar

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Phillippians 4:8
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • My YouTube Page
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2013, 04:45:19 PM »
0
Oh, yeah, no, I agree. A card placed on the actual Fortress itself as per its own play ability should not be considered the contents of the Fortress.
The core of all life is a limitless chest of tales.

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2013, 04:57:55 PM »
0
Well yes I agree with that, but the difference would be a card placed on the thing doing the holding (like Image of Jealousy on a Holds fortress). I don't think that the placed card should be considered contents in that specific case.

Which is why I changed my proposed second definition, to clarify that those placed cards wouldn't count as contents.  However, I would like to point out that placed cards on characters that are part of the "contents" would also count by that definition.

The issue is that if we have this idea that contents extends to the other cards, we'd have to differentiate between alignments to resolve that 'problem', if it is one.


browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2013, 05:06:52 PM »
0
I'm of the opinion that placed cards should never be "held" by the card that they are placed on regardless of alignment because Place and Holds are different and separate abilities (and if placed cards are "held" then place doesn't really need to exist as an ability).

Opinions aside, it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to word it in such a way that opposing alignment placed cards are excluded (something to the effect of "Contents are defined as cards held by a Holds ability/identifier or by game rule (Sites) as well as cards of the same alignment held by those cards.")

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2013, 05:10:13 PM »
0
On the last part, remember that we are talking about good fortresses holding neutral artifacts holding good Covenants...alignment is more complicated than it appears.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2013, 05:25:58 PM »
0
"Contents are defined as cards held by a Holds ability/identifier or by game rule (Sites) as well as cards not of an opposing alignment held by those cards."

Maybe? I don't remember if neutral would be considered an opposing alignment (I know neutral can count as "harm", not sure in this case).

I feel like this is a good reason for what I was saying earlier about Place being considered different than Holds, lol. If Placed cards are not Held then it could be as simple as "Contents are defined as cards held by a Holds ability/identifier or by game rule (Sites) as well as any cards held by those cards."
« Last Edit: December 16, 2013, 05:28:30 PM by browarod »

Offline SignoftheStar

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
  • Phillippians 4:8
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • My YouTube Page
Re: Glory of the Lord: The Tabernacle
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2013, 07:42:07 PM »
0
As quirky as it might sound, I think I'd have to concede that a card placed on another card that is in a Fortress would still be included among its contents, regardless of alignment or owner. I can think of no actual reason why alignment or owner would in fact merit an exception.
The core of all life is a limitless chest of tales.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal