Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
I would just say they both go to Chamber.
They cant both be under my control at the same time. One of them must be discarded, but chamber doesn't let them.
Wait a minute. Discarding a card from hand is not the same as discarding an angel.
Maybe I'm just confused, but Chamber of Angels is Set-Aside... right? So the Michael being discarded would not be in play, he would be in the Set-Aside area. How is this creating a situation where they are both in play at once?
From the REG:No player may control duplicates of a unique character or cause them to fight each other. This includes unique characters in play, in battle, in a side battle, face down, or in a set-aside area.
Since when? I am Holy + 3 Angels + Chamber has always been a common combo.
Im with ChristianSoldier, One Micheal should be sent to the Discard Regardless of protection ablities.
We're still talking about a special ability, though. The general rule is that you can not force something that is not allowed. Your card's SA may say "band a hero into battle," but if it is a duplicate then you cannot. Likewise, Chamber may want to keep both Michaels, but it simply cannot.
and T2 you can have 5 of any Character or Enhancement which is one reason it's better than T1.
Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 14, 2010, 09:54:46 PMWe're still talking about a special ability, though. The general rule is that you can not force something that is not allowed. Your card's SA may say "band a hero into battle," but if it is a duplicate then you cannot. Likewise, Chamber may want to keep both Michaels, but it simply cannot. I agree with this. If a card said "All purple heroes in must join the battle" and I played it on my ET, I couldn't band my opponent's ET into battle because of the no duplicates in battle rule. I view this similarly. The only conclusion I can see is one Michael goes to the discard pile in spite of Chamber. EDIT: I just saw that YMT included a banding example in his post too...I missed that the first time around. Anyway, I believe YMT is correct in ruling and reasoning.
I disagree, the situation seems more like a situation where I capture my opponents ET (I have one in my territory) and place him in my land of bondage . Then I have to discard one of them, but to my knowledge I can still capture ET.