Author Topic: Ithamar  (Read 26357 times)

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #50 on: March 04, 2010, 07:12:09 PM »
0
I'm going to use Ithamar to activate an artifact on my opponent's Tabernacle.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2010, 07:39:22 PM »
0
That's specifically limited by Ithamar MJB. The artifact is not.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #52 on: March 04, 2010, 08:42:59 PM »
0
That's specifically limited by Ithamar MJB. The artifact is not.

Really? Please tell me where in Ithamar's SA it it specifies I must activate the artifact on the same exact copy of The Tabernacle I searched for, because I really don't see it.

Ithamar  SA  Search draw pile for The Tabernacle and put it in play. You may activate an Artifact on The Tabernacle.

Offline frisian9

  • Official Playtester
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • So let it be written, so let it be done.
    • Pittsbugh Playgroup
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #53 on: March 04, 2010, 08:58:49 PM »
0
[Activate an Artifact] targets must be “in holder's artifact pile or hand.” (part of REG draft)

Ithamar has a general target (an Artifact). However, The Tabernacle has an identifier that is more specific. Who is to say we don't create another "The Tabernacle" in the future that does not contain the identifier?

In general, it is better to create cards independent of one another. We can't load every card with every exception. That requires a specific situation and limits future considerations.

In short, (1) you search for The Tabernacle, (2) you read what it says and understand its limitations, (3) you activate an artifact based on what you have learned.

Mike


Ithamar, son of Aaron
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Teal • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search draw pile for The Tabernacle and put it in play. You may activate an Artifact on The Tabernacle. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Tabernacle Priest (House of Ithamar) • Verse: Exodus 38:21 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Uncommon)

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 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Rare)
----------------------------------------------------------
Keeper of the REG (www.redemptionreg.com

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2010, 03:02:36 AM »
0
So then The Tabernacle's "hold" is a exclusive identifier and not an SA, correct? That's the only way this will work based on the rules. Ithmar clearly lets you activate an Artifact on The Tabernacle and has no restrictions on what can be activated. SA's overrule other SA's all the time, otherwise I Am Redemption would not get Captured Heroes out of Raider's Camp, since Raider's Camp says they are released when you lose a battle. So with the whole "holds is not an Identifier" argument, Ithmar will have to work.

And to counter the argument you just made, intent is not looked at, only what the card actually says. For example, take Split Altar. Ithmar actually says to activate an(y) artifact on Tabernacle. The only way it can't work, as I mentioned before, is if the "holds" part of Tabernacle is an identifier (or abilifier) that is exclusive in nature.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2010, 07:01:13 AM »
0
Redemption has come a long way in the past few years to transition to a completely top down rules system instead of a system that uses some top down rules but also has/had many rulings based on individual cards.  The former is desireable and much more scaleable.  The later creates huge messes over time and as more cards are introduced.

I appreciate Mike's (frisian9) position based on what Ithamar should do.  I have to respectfully disagree because I believe this type of ruling to be a step backwards, away from top down rules.

There were many people in the Bible who brought Artifacts into the Temple/Tabernacle.  Many of those Artifacts were not Temple/Tabernacle Artifacts.  The REG even agrees with this fact.

It's not very far outside of the box to think that some day Cactus could release a Ahaz or Urijah the High Priest that activates Altar of Ahaz on Solomon's Temple.  Or a Manasseh that activates Ashera Pole on Solomon's Temple.

The bad part is that it's not Biblically accurate for Ithamar to activate any Artifact on the Tabernacle.    In retrospect I'm sure that "Tabernacle" would have been added to let us know what kind of Artifact he can activate.  Unfortunately it is not there so his ability has a much broader, often times unbiblical, use.

Assuming that the card does what it says, how "broken" is this?  Artifacts are only active for one turn, at which time they have to be reactivated.  So 2/2 Ithamar enters battle, activates an Artifact and then has to survive the battle before he can do it again.  The following turn, the Artifact that Ithamar placed on The Tabernacle is deactivated.  The "brokeness" lasts for one round and there are countless ways to stop Ithamar or The Tabernacle.

Apart from being Biblically inaccurate I don't see the problem with Ithamar's ability doing exactly what it says.  If TPTB feel it's a problem then we need to consider errata to make the card to what it was intended.  Making a ruling based on what the card should do is not a sound solution.

Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2010, 07:53:08 AM »
0
I agree with Gabe, if a card is causing an issue or a potential one, then errata it.  Making a rules change to try and cover the situation just and another headache for all hosts and players who try to keep up with the rules.  Errata is good.
In AMERICA!!

Offline Red Dragon Thorn

  • Covenant Games
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Covenant Games
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2010, 12:10:56 PM »
0
Banning is better. Oh wait, nvm, I'll go back in my corner now...
www.covenantgames.com

Offline frisian9

  • Official Playtester
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • So let it be written, so let it be done.
    • Pittsbugh Playgroup
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #58 on: March 06, 2010, 03:47:12 PM »
0
Ithamar activates and the following must happen: (1) search for The Tabernacle, (2) activate The Tabernacle (The Tabernacle establishes what it can hold), and (3) you can activate an artifact in The Tabernacle. I see it is a logical procession that results in activating an artifact that conforms with the established restrictions on The Tabernacle. In short, my way of seeing the logical progression is based on (2) coming before (3) and establishing a condition through the "holds" that is now activated. However, I am not opposed to going with the more simple and literal text on Ithamar without consideration of all the steps that will follow as his ability is being carried out. Is that the desired end?


Mike
----------------------------------------------------------
Keeper of the REG (www.redemptionreg.com

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #59 on: March 07, 2010, 01:28:31 AM »
0
That's not the question. The question is, is "holds" an ability, an identifier, or an abilifier, and if one of the latter, are "holds" abilities exclusive or inclusive.

In other words, if "holds" is an ability, NOTHING stops Ithmar from placing any Artifact on The Tabernacle unless he gets errata. Special Abilities get overruled by other special abilities all the time.

If "holds" is an identifier or abilifier, we have to establish whether it is exclusive or inclusive. An inclusive interpretation would mean that the "holds" tells you what you can put in it under normal circumstances. An exclusive interpretation would mean that the "holds" not only tells you what can go in it, but that ONLY the things on that list can go in it.

So basically, we're not asking on a bottom-up ruling on Ithmar. His SA is very straightforward. We are asking for a top-down ruling about "holds" abilities/identifiers/abilifiers, which will then automatically make the specific Ithmar ruling along with many others.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline BubbleBoy

  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #60 on: March 07, 2010, 09:17:54 AM »
0
From what I recall after listening to previous arguments concerning "holds" and abilifiers and such, I believe Tim was arguing that "holds" is like a "place" ability, meaning it is instant. If this is the case, then Ithamar can definitely place any artifact he wants in there at any time. However, if "holds" turns out to be an abilifier when it's in the identifier line...well, we haven't really established the precedence for that, so I suppose we will have to do that. In other words, I agree with Pol. :)
Use the Mad Bomber to rescue his Province.

Offline TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15781
  • Currently undead
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #61 on: March 07, 2010, 03:32:58 PM »
0
+1
Not quite a ghost...but not quite not.

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #62 on: March 08, 2010, 10:33:20 AM »
0
After reading this whole thread, I notice a few things:

1) according to the current rules, it seems to me that this should work.
2) according to precident and intent, it feels like it should not work.
3) this has already been a source of disagreement and I expect hosts could rule this differently if no clear ruling is given.
4) rather than trying some ruling gymnastics, I think it is better to just issue errata for Ithamar.

How about this:
Search deck for The Tabernacle and put it in play.  If your The Tabernacle does not have an artifact on it, you may activate a Tabernacle Artifact on it.

"If your The Tabernacle" sounds funny, but I think the point is clear enough.  Is there anything I am missing?

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+69)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10675
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #63 on: March 08, 2010, 10:43:45 AM »
0
I agree with everything Bryon said assuming the answer to the following question is "yes".

Does Ithamar really need errata just because he doesn't work as intended?

Also, if the answer to that question is yes, then can we get an errata for Split Altar (also gets Artifact piles) and Seeker of the Lost (give her the correct Luke verse instead of the one meant for Soldier of God)?
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2010, 12:00:15 PM »
0
Does Ithamar really need errata just because he doesn't work as intended?

My silver brigade Ithamar does.   ;)

Bah! Nevermind.   :-\

{knocks on forehead, McFly!  silver...angel...not always equal...hmmm...maybe angel "until" "not in battle"?... ::) }
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 02:04:57 PM by STAMP »
Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2010, 12:56:40 PM »
0
While I wish Seeker of the Lost had a Luke reference, her existing reference really does not cause confusion, so errata isn't needed.  If she ever gets a solid gold reprint, though... :)

Split Altar might cause a little confusion, but no where near the amount generated by Ithamar.  When we make the prophet who prophesied about the Split Altar, though, I'm sure we will make that card worth including somehow.  :)

Ithamar creates confusion, and has him putting things into the Tabernacle that God did not allow.  For those reasons, I vote for errata.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2010, 01:07:26 PM »
0
Search deck for The Tabernacle and put it in play.  If your The Tabernacle does not have an artifact on it, you may activate a Tabernacle Artifact on it.
Quick aside. Since the search portion is non-optional, can Ithamar even enter battle if his user already has The Tabernacle in play? Wouldn't that be a direct violation of the no-duplicates-of-uniques play restriction?

Quote
"If your The Tabernacle" sounds funny, but I think the point is clear enough.
Yeah!  When I am long gone, my descendants will be able to point to an awkwardly worded errata as my contribution to the game.  ;)

Does Ithamar really need errata just because he doesn't work as intended?
As a follow up on Gabe's thought, I would like to see some criteria put forward for when a card's not-working-as-intended-ness is sufficient to warrant an errata prior to issuing an errata for Ithamar. I don't see that Ithamar's brokeness raising to the level of the pre-errata'ed Holy Grail, for example. In fact, I don't think Ithamar is more fundamentally broken than Split Altar--but I acknowledge I may be wrong about this.

Ithamar creates confusion, and has him putting things into the Tabernacle that God did not allow.  For those reasons, I vote for errata.
Would Ithamar really create confusion if the ruling was simply to play the card as written (meaning "yes any artifact and yes any available The Tabernacle")?

We know people brought all manner of illicit items into the various tabernacle/temples. Asherah Pole and Altar of Ahaz for example.

Offline BubbleBoy

  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2010, 02:10:48 PM »
0
In regards to the proposed errata, I don't like it. We have agreed that this combo works and that it is not incredibly OP, so I really don't see a problem with it besides the fact that it is Biblically inaccurate. Don't you think it's strange that the Warriors Battle Prayer can search for an evil Gold enhancement? Yet it was ruled that way because that is the way it was worded, despite it being an odd effect for a good card. Besides, Tabernacle priests is a theme that currently needs all the help it can get.
Use the Mad Bomber to rescue his Province.

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2010, 02:17:45 PM »
0
Ithamar creates confusion, and has him putting things into the Tabernacle that God did not allow.  For those reasons, I vote for errata.
Would Ithamar really create confusion if the ruling was simply to play the card as written (meaning "yes any artifact and yes any available The Tabernacle")?

We know people brought all manner of illicit items into the various tabernacle/temples. Asherah Pole and Altar of Ahaz for example.
"Would Ithamar really create confusion?" he asks on the 5th page of a thread.  :)

I know evil people brought all manner of illicit items into the Tabernacle, but I don't think we should have a hero do it.  If that was Ithamar's only issue, then I might be OK with letting it slide.  Maybe.  But since he also has the confusion issue, and the differing views among playtesters (Mike and Kevin seem opposed to the idea of letting this happen, though Tim and I seem to think it would work with the current rule set), and since top players differ, too, I think there is value in giving him errata.

I'm looking at 3 cards on the list that will likely cause Ithamar to see more play next year, so there is little reason to give Ithamar this controversial, counter-Biblical ability just so that Tabernacle priests get more help.  :)
« Last Edit: March 08, 2010, 02:21:57 PM by Bryon »

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2010, 03:28:11 PM »
0
I would vote strongly against eratta. Right now the only cards we have errata'd were insanely OP or FAR more confusing than Ithamar. You point to the length of this thread as proof that he is confusing, but actually most of this thread has been "we know how he works, but is it going to get ruled that way?" and yet more begging for the issue of "holds" to be addressed. There's no confusion about what Ithamar actually does.

Mike and Kevin don't really offer anything from the rules to show why it wouldn't work, they just don't like it. But this isn't the first card with an odd SA. And you say
Quote
there is little reason to give Ithamar this controversial, counter-Biblical ability just so that Tabernacle priests get more help.
But he already has the ability. There has been no substantial debate about this fact for the entire thread. The question is, whether Ithamar deserves to be added to the tiny list of errata'd cards just because his SA as printed is different than what was intended. And then if so, we ask why a Priests (un?)common with a different SA than intended is more worth an errata to fix than a Nationals promo that's basically worthless or a Salvation Army promo that has the wrong verse.

In other words, don't just screw the players both ways. Either let cards work as printed, or fix all of the major offenders of SA's (verses) that don't say what they were meant to say. But whatever you do, don't take away our cake and feed it to the Communists too.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2010, 04:05:57 PM »
0
IMO, we've gotten too comfortable with erratas. no errata please.

Offline frisian9

  • Official Playtester
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1225
  • So let it be written, so let it be done.
    • Pittsbugh Playgroup
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #71 on: March 08, 2010, 09:38:11 PM »
0
Perhaps banning the card is a better solution. That doesn't require errata or misunderstanding. Reprint it.

Seriously, I don't care what the final ruling is as long as we all move on and end this thread. This one gives me a headache.  ???

Mike
----------------------------------------------------------
Keeper of the REG (www.redemptionreg.com

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #72 on: March 08, 2010, 10:09:21 PM »
0
No banning please, not over something as small as Ithamar.
In AMERICA!!

Warrior_Monk

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #73 on: March 08, 2010, 10:14:35 PM »
0
Perhaps banning the card is a better solution. That doesn't require errata or misunderstanding. Reprint it.

Seriously, I don't care what the final ruling is as long as we all move on and end this thread. This one gives me a headache.  ???

Mike
no Banning, but if it ain't broken, don't fix it. and Ithamar isn't broken. ANB was. hence the very sad errata.

Offline RTSmaniac

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4289
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
    • ROOT Online
Re: Ithamar
« Reply #74 on: March 10, 2010, 08:30:01 AM »
0
ban it! or let it be. What happened to Lord of the Rings ccg? to much errata killed the game. While were at it ban NJ too.
plug: and i still want to see EC be able to attack Land of Redemption! even if its some kind of new ability!

Armageddon
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: During your battle phase, you may attack opponents Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul. May be used once per turn • Identifiers: None • Verse: Revelation 16:16 • Availability: Promotional cards (2011 National Tournament)
This is the way Lackey gave it to me. All hail the power of Lackey!

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal