Author Topic: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement (Read 2107 times)

sepjazzwarrior · « **on:** November 11, 2010, 04:33:50 PM »

I believe it was ruled a while ago you could discard a covenant/curse to fufill a requirement on an ability (discard captured ark for zimri) so could you recurr a covenant/curse with an ability that recurrs an enhancement (such as get back peter's curse with pride of simeon)?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #1 on:** November 11, 2010, 04:44:45 PM »

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on November 11, 2010, 04:33:50 PM

could you recurr a covenant/curse with an ability that recurrs an enhancement

No. A cov/curse that is out of play (in deck, discard pile, or hand) is not an enhancement OR an artifact, but only a cov/curse. So it can't be targeted in those locations by cards that specify an enhancement.

The reason it can be discarded for Zimri, Uzzah, etc. is that when you use it (putting in art pile, or storehouse, or battle, or even discard it), then you can designate it as either an artifact or enhancement. However, only the owner of the card can make that designation.

Added part: Therefore, it would seem that contrary to precedent, you CAN search your own deck/discard pile for an enhancement, and designate a covenant/curse AS an enhancement to pull out. However you can NOT search your opponent's deck/discard pile in the same way because you can NOT choose what their card will be.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #2 on:** November 11, 2010, 05:10:56 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 11, 2010, 04:44:45 PM

The reason it can be discarded for Zimri, Uzzah, etc. is that when you use it (putting in art pile, or storehouse, or battle, or even discard it), then you can designate it as either an artifact or enhancement. However, only the owner of the card can make that designation.

That doesn't make sense. Discarding it to fulfill an ability is no more using it as searching for it to fulfill an ability. The owner of the card still makes the designation.

I've played it right, but it's inconsistent.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #3 on:** November 12, 2010, 11:41:36 AM »

I agree it's a bad, inconsistent rule, but there are bigger fish to fry.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #4 on:** November 12, 2010, 11:42:53 AM »

This is a simple fix. We might as well fry the fish now, even though it may be small.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:29:52 AM »

I edited my post above today and reversed my decision. I apologize for the confusion. My previous ruling continued the traditional way of doing things, but I now think that a change to the status quo is actually a more consistent ruling.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2012, 03:18:33 PM »

A reversal on this order cannot be made unilaterally. Is this your opinion or are you reporting a new elder consensus?

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2012, 03:20:45 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 13, 2012, 03:18:33 PM

A reversal on this order cannot be made unilaterally. Is this your opinion or are you reporting a new elder consensus?

Yeah, I was asking that in the other thread, but to add on to this can we make sure that if it is changed it gets added to the new REG and the Rulings Changes thread?

I know some people are going to miss this one.

Gabe · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:48:09 PM »

I don't believe this is a new rule, only a realization of a rule that has existed since prior to Boston Nationals when Rob decided Covenants/Curses could be used to pay a cost from hand. Most of us didn't realize the legality of it because one of the most common situations (opponent's Gabriel targeting a Cov/Curse in your deck) still doesn't work.

As I read the entry for Covenant and Curse in the REG I think it's fairly clear already. We could change one phase to make it more apparent though.

A Curse card has a serpent and a skull in the icon box. A Curse may be used either as an artifact or
as an enhancement. When you target your ~~use a~~ Curse, you decide which card type you wish to use it as. If you
want to use it as an artifact, disregard the skull icon and play the card as you would any other
artifact. If you want to use it as an enhancement, disregard the serpent icon and play the card as an
evil enhancement.

Redoubter · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2012, 04:57:57 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on October 13, 2012, 04:48:09 PM

I don't believe this is a new rule, only a realization of a rule that has existed since prior to Boston Nationals when Rob decided Covenants/Curses could be used to pay a cost from hand. Most of us didn't realize the legality of it because one of the most common situations (opponent's Gabriel targeting a Cov/Curse in your deck) still doesn't work.

There have been threads since then that have been ruled as I described, and even this thread (where the 'used from hand' was also ruled as currently stands) had that as the way it works. That's why Pol and I express concern. There has never been anything ruled beyond the 'used from hand' part, which I had not seen until this issue came up. Further, I've seen it ruled this way at high-level tournaments (Regionals and Nationals this year, even). So to us and everyone that has made the rulings, it has not been clear the way you describe.

That's where we're coming from with our comments, just for the reference.

Also, with your definition suggestion, I would propose wording it like this to encompass everything at once:

Quote from: Gabe on October 13, 2012, 04:48:09 PM

A Curse card has a serpent and a skull in the icon box. A Curse may be used either as an artifact or
as an enhancement. When you target or play your ~~use a~~ Curse, you decide which card type you wish to use it as. If you
want to use it as an artifact, disregard the skull icon and play the card as you would any other
artifact. If you want to use it as an enhancement, disregard the serpent icon and play the card as an
evil enhancement.

Although I now realize that even that will need to be defined in the context of Abe's Kid, as the curse you take to hand is not 'yours' and technically that could lead to an issue if not addressed in advance.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:10:29 PM »

The language for covenants/curses needs a complete overhaul. First of all, you do not disregard the skull/bible side of a c/c. Second, "use" needs to go, but what to replace it with? You can't have "target" because you're not targeting anything when you're playing it, "target or play" works fine but then it needs "your," which makes it illegal for you to ever do anything with a c/c in your hand that your opponent owns except discard it. Remove the "your" and you're now able to target c/c's in opponents' decks and hands as either/or. The only way to word it to mean exactly what you want it to mean is to say "When you play a c/c or target your c/c..." But even then, what if you're targeting a c/c already on the table? By that language, you'd be able to target it as either kind of card because it's still a c/c.

It would all be a lot cleaner if they were allowed to function like DAE's where they are both Enhancement and Artifact in hand, deck and discard, and become strictly one or the other when on the table depending on they're played?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2012, 05:38:51 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 13, 2012, 05:10:29 PM

It would all be a lot cleaner if they were allowed to function like DAE's where they are both Enhancement and Artifact in hand, deck and discard, and become strictly one or the other when on the table depending on they're played?

This would be much easier to teach new players, and would likely be easier for them to understand.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2012, 09:03:55 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on October 13, 2012, 04:48:09 PM

I don't believe this is a new rule, only a realization of a rule that has existed since prior to Boston Nationals when Rob decided Covenants/Curses could be used to pay a cost from hand. Most of us didn't realize the legality of it because one of the most common situations (opponent's Gabriel targeting a Cov/Curse in your deck) still doesn't work.

This is how I'm seeing it as well.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 13, 2012, 05:10:29 PM

It would all be a lot cleaner if they were allowed to function like DAE's where they are both Enhancement and Artifact in hand, deck and discard, and become strictly one or the other when on the table depending on they're played?

I agree that this would be cleaner. But it WOULD definitely be a new ruling to switch to that. At this point, I'm just trying to make accurate rulings based on our current rules. Perhaps, if other elders were also in favor our making the change we could switch to this simpler method that you propose in the future.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2012, 09:10:59 PM »

You're already seeming to be making a new rule (I can never really tell when there's a ruling being made and when an opinion is being proffered), so if you do that why not just make it the best rule?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2012, 08:53:51 PM »

For now I'm just trying to apply the rules as they currently stand.

However, I agree with you that since this does change the way a lot of people have been playing some cards, it does SEEM like a new rule. I also agree that it would be nice to have the best rule possible. We are discussing this on the other side, and hopefully when we return with an answer it will be the best rule possible. I just don't feel like I should make a change to the actual rules unilaterally.

Give us a bit of time, and we'll be back with an answer.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2012, 09:28:03 PM »

I understand where you're coming from, but what is being proposed in this thread is indeed a new interpretation of the rule. For years it has been interpreted a different way, and ruled accordingly in an official capacity. Rulings changes can involve a new interpretation of an existing rule just as much as writing or changing what is written, and nobody is served when the PTB try to insist that they are not making a new ruling when they change the interpretation of a rule.

To that end, I am glad there's a discussion being carried out.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement (Read 2107 times)

sepjazzwarrior

recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Prof Underwood

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Warrior_Monk

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Minister Polarius

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Warrior_Monk

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Prof Underwood

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Minister Polarius

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Redoubter

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Gabe

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Redoubter

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Minister Polarius

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

YourMathTeacher

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Prof Underwood

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Minister Polarius

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Prof Underwood

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement

Minister Polarius

Re: recurring a covenant/curse as a enhancement