Cactus Game Design Message Boards

That's specifically limited by Ithamar MJB. The artifact is not.

[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)

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.

Banning is better. Oh wait, nvm, I'll go back in my corner now...

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 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)?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.