Author Topic: Ithamar (Read 26409 times)

thestrongangel · « **Reply #25 on:** October 13, 2009, 08:18:17 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on October 13, 2009, 05:10:21 PM

Hey,

Quote from: thestrongangel on October 13, 2009, 12:20:55 PM
Now, in order for that activation to be a legal play, the artifact must be a Tabernacle artifact, as noted by the fact that the Tabernacle says holds one active Tabernacle artifact in its attribute line.

The holds statement on the Tabernacle allows you to activate a Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle, it isn't limiting you to activating only Tabernacle artifacts on the Tabernacle.

I can activate Priestly Breastplate on Aaron even though he doesn't say he can hold priestly breastplate.

The Garden Tomb has the identifier "empty!" but that doesn't mean I can't put Image of Jealousy on it.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

This is so completely an apples to oranges arguement that it can't hold water.

Placing a card is different than holding a card. Priestly Breastplate allows it to be placed on a High Priest. Definition of Place:

Quote

Place

When a special ability instructs a player to place a card on a second card, the placed card remains with the second card until the second card is discarded, returned to the draw pile or hand, or until the placed card is removed by a special ability.

Aaron does not need to have an ability to allow PB to be placed on him because by definition the Place effect puts it on Aaron. However, activating a card into The Tabernacle still must follow the rules of the fortress to be activated. To quote the exact text of the Tabernacle:

Quote

The Tabernacle

Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: 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. • Identifiers: Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact • Verse: Exodus 40:34

Note the identifier line. Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact. That is a restriction, a limit if you will. If the Identifier line is not met by the artifact being activated, then the Tabernacle cannot hold the card. You could activate it, but the artifact would not be held by the fortress because it only holds Tabernacle Artifacts.

Now, if Ithamar said place an activated artifact on the Tabernacle, that would be a different story, but it does not, it says activate and artifact. Therefore, you cannot ignore the restrictions that are on the card in play.

In response to your ET comment, If a hero brigade is not represented in battle when you play the enhancement, you cannot play it. PNE lets you play an enhancement that is legal to play given normal rules of playing an enhancement.

Really the point I am trying to make here is that you don't get to ignore the effects of other cards in play just because Ithamar says activate an artifact. You still have to follow the rules of other cards in play when using card interactions, unless specifically told to, on a card such as Plague of Frogs, which allows you to disregard immunity when choosing a target.

Smokey · « **Reply #26 on:** October 13, 2009, 09:08:47 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on October 13, 2009, 05:10:21 PM

Hey,

Quote from: thestrongangel on October 13, 2009, 12:20:55 PM
Now, in order for that activation to be a legal play, the artifact must be a Tabernacle artifact, as noted by the fact that the Tabernacle says holds one active Tabernacle artifact in its attribute line.

The holds statement on the Tabernacle allows you to activate a Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle, it isn't limiting you to activating only Tabernacle artifacts on the Tabernacle.

I can activate Priestly Breastplate on Aaron even though he doesn't say he can hold priestly breastplate.

The Garden Tomb has the identifier "empty!" but that doesn't mean I can't put Image of Jealousy on it.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

No artifact says it can be active in The Tabernacle Either, This is Madness!

SirNobody · « **Reply #27 on:** October 13, 2009, 10:04:04 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: thestrongangel on October 13, 2009, 08:18:17 PM

This is so completely an apples to oranges arguement that it can't hold water.

Placing a card is different than holding a card.

The definition of a hold ability: "A hold abilities allows a player to place qualifying cards on the card with the hold ability when it is not at it's maximum capacity and allows a player to return cards from the card with the hold ability."

Placing a card isn't different than holding a card.

I realize the whole definition of hold isn't publicly available, but it exists, Mike, Bryon and I agree on it, and I wrote it. So I kinda know what I'm talking about here.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

thestrongangel · « **Reply #28 on:** October 13, 2009, 10:14:38 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on October 13, 2009, 10:04:04 PM

Hey,

Quote from: thestrongangel on October 13, 2009, 08:18:17 PM
This is so completely an apples to oranges arguement that it can't hold water.

Placing a card is different than holding a card.

The definition of a hold ability: "A hold abilities allows a player to place qualifying cards on the card with the hold ability when it is not at it's maximum capacity and allows a player to return cards from the card with the hold ability."

Placing a card isn't different than holding a card.

I realize the whole definition of hold isn't publicly available, but it exists, Mike, Bryon and I agree on it, and I wrote it. So I kinda know what I'm talking about here.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Well, then it needs to be public. You are trying to make arguements based on information that is not public knowledge.

Secondly, Place is different than holding, as your very definition says that a card can only be placed there if it is a qualifying card. Are we going to be consistant here or not?

SirNobody · « **Reply #29 on:** October 13, 2009, 10:19:55 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: thestrongangel on October 13, 2009, 10:14:38 PM

Well, then it needs to be public.

I agree, and I'm working on it.

Quote

Secondly, Place is different than holding, as your very definition says that a card can only be placed there if it is a qualifying card. Are we going to be consistant here or not?

Read my definition again. It says the holds ability can place a qualifying card, it says nothing about prohibiting other cards from placing non-qualifying cards.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

browarod · « **Reply #30 on:** October 13, 2009, 10:24:13 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on October 13, 2009, 10:19:55 PM

It says the holds ability can place a qualifying card, it says nothing about prohibiting other cards from placing non-qualifying cards.

It doesn't seem in the spirit of the game to allow other cards to put non-qualifying cards on a Hold ability card. Interrupt the battle, draw X cards, and play the next enhancement effects don't let you play an enhancement of a brigade not present in battle, so why should a character be able to place an artifact on a fortress that can't hold it?

lightningninja · « **Reply #31 on:** October 13, 2009, 10:28:53 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on October 13, 2009, 08:26:58 AM

Why has this game come down to people trying to twist the wording of cards to make them work the way they want them to, instead of the way they are designed and meant to work?

Ithamar is obviously activating a Tabernacle Artifact on the Tabernacle.

Yeah, this is what it really comes down to. My thoughts exactly.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #32 on:** October 14, 2009, 07:47:34 AM »

Quote from: browarod on October 13, 2009, 10:24:13 PM

Interrupt the battle, draw X cards, and play the next enhancement effects don't let you play an enhancement of a brigade not present in battle, so why should a character be able to place an artifact on a fortress that can't hold it?

Another good example.

The bottom line is that special abilities get to contradict standard game rules as long as they specifically state that they are doing so. Ithamar specifically states that he activates an artifact at a time during the turn when you would not be able to normally do so. But he does not specifically state that he can activate an art in a place where it cannot normally be. Therefore, his special ability overules the standard game rules of timing, but not the standard game rules of location.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #33 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:44:48 AM »

How is "Activate on your Magician..." different from "Activate an Artifact on your Tabernacle?" You cannot normally activate Artifacts on characters, and no Magician has an identifier allowing him to hold an artifact.

TimMierz · « **Reply #34 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:49:43 AM »

I think you just answered your own question. Magicians have no restrictions on what can be placed on them. The Tabernacle does.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #35 on:** October 14, 2009, 11:50:41 AM »

That's being debated.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #36 on:** October 14, 2009, 03:56:24 PM »

Especially if IoJ is on The Tabernacle...

Master KChief · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2009, 12:42:37 AM »

i was thinking, if it does work the way sirnobody is claiming, what is stopping a player from repeatedly stacking artifacts on the tabernacle?

lightningninja · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2009, 01:04:28 AM »

Well Tim Maly said that artifacts would only last a turn because they either re-activate or deactivate.

Master KChief · « **Reply #39 on:** October 15, 2009, 03:12:36 AM »

ah. well if ithamar allows any artifact to be placed on tabernacle, then 'solomon dedicates temple' would work the same way.

Kevin Shride · « **Reply #40 on:** October 15, 2009, 08:34:28 AM »

Tim, there's no way this works.

(With the REG down I can't come up with examples off the top of my head, so bear with me.)

A card that has a restriction about what kind of cards it holds can only have that changed by another card that SPECIFICALLY allows that change. For instance, some cards give you the ability to play a card regardless of brigade. Nothing on Ithamar indicates that you can override the restriction on Tabernacle. If Ithamar stated something like "...any artifact, regardless of being a temple artifact..." or words to that effect, then you would be correct. In the absence of those words, the Tabernacle can ONLY hold tabernacle artifacts.

Kevin Shride

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #41 on:** October 15, 2009, 08:55:40 AM »

Well, if The Tabernacle's identifier is going to be changed to a SA, then IoJ will negate its ability to hold an artifact altogether, which I do believe would mean that Ithamar could activate any artifact on it.

And if The Tabernacles's ability is still an identifier, then IoJ on it will allow you to have Solomon's Temple in play as well.

So which is it?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #42 on:** October 15, 2009, 04:48:59 PM »

I don't know... this sounds like it's going to make things more complicated (making identifiers = abilities). Hypothetically, what if IoJ is removed/negated - would the non-Temple artifact cease to take effect? be discarded? continue to end of phase? What if the artifact is CBN?

I sincerely hope that the plan to change identifiers into SAs was considered, but let go. Identifiers should simply stick and be static unless a SA specifically overrides it (as Kevin stated).

SirNobody · « **Reply #43 on:** October 28, 2009, 04:25:56 AM »

Hey,

Kevin, if Simon of Cyrene was a priest, could you put Priestly Breastplate on him?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #44 on:** March 03, 2010, 05:57:26 PM »

I would like to re-raise this question as I don't think I ever really got a definite answer.

I'm also not sure about the whole abilifier thing. Is "holds" definitely or definitely not going to be redefined as a SA?

EDIT:

Also, coming back to this old argument:

Quote from: thestrongangel on October 13, 2009, 12:20:55 PM

It's the exact same concept as Ethopian Tresurer letting you play the next enhancement.

It isn't the exact same, because the "restriction" on The Tabernacle is an abilifier...thing. The restriction that stops ET from playing on non-purple enhancement is a game rule. Completely different.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #45 on:** March 04, 2010, 12:59:04 AM »

How can the women's Great Faith search for an evil card?
b/c Rob thinks that abilities need to work as specifically stated on the card. I cant personally speak for Rob, but i would guess if he had to rule on this situation and he saw an IoJ on the Tabernacle- he would be quite amused that someone would stoop to such dasterdly levels and allow such a play with Ithmar.

bubbleboy

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #46 on:** March 04, 2010, 08:01:57 AM »

Honestly, I don't even see why this would work any better with IoJ in the mix. Ithamar's ability is independent of The Tabernacle's anyway.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #47 on:** March 04, 2010, 11:57:47 AM »

Frankly, there is no reason why this should not work. Ithamar states that he can add a Tabernacle to play and then place an artifact in it. The reason for the second sentence seems mostly to be directed towards clarifying that the Tabernacle that may have an artifact activated on it is the one just gotten from draw pile, not any random tabernacle.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #48 on:** March 04, 2010, 02:05:16 PM »

Ok, perhaps I am missing something...but what artifact would be so OPd if it were placed in the Tabernacle for one turn?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #49 on:** March 04, 2010, 05:43:17 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on March 04, 2010, 02:05:16 PM

Ok, perhaps I am missing something...but what artifact would be so OPd if it were placed in the Tabernacle for one turn?

Holy Grail? (not sure if it specifies in territory)

News:

Author Topic: Ithamar (Read 26409 times)

browarod

Warrior_Monk