Author Topic: Ithamar (Read 26383 times)

Ironica · « **Reply #125 on:** March 11, 2010, 11:09:38 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 11, 2010, 11:54:47 AM

The dam is already starting to show cracks and leaks.

Quote from: Treebeard

Break the dam. Release the river

Couldn't resist

.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #126 on:** March 17, 2010, 10:23:07 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 11, 2010, 11:54:47 AM

I predicted this debate would happen. Suddenly we are forced to determine whether certain combos of artifacts and covenants and curses are "broken" or not. The dam is already starting to show cracks and leaks. Let's just errata Ithamar and avoid the mess.

Battle Prayer (wa) is way more broken then Ithamar can possibly be due to the way they are both poorly worded. Therefore, that argument does not hold water.

I don't think it is good to issue errata just because a card doesn't seem Biblical or that it might lead to a broken combo unless Redemption issues errata for ALL of the cards that fall into those two categories. It is a great injustice, otherwise.

Kirk

Bryon · « **Reply #127 on:** March 17, 2010, 10:31:47 AM »

Ithamar already DOES lead to broken combos if not played as he has historically been played. So, he's getting a play as so that he stays that way. Rob already singed off on it. According to Rob, Ithamar cannot activate a non-Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle.

If you think Battle Prayer (wa) is broken, start a thread about it and ask for errata or something. I'll watch as people throw things at you.

Master KChief · « **Reply #128 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:13:22 PM »

everyone knows no one uses battle prayer anymore.

Gabe · « **Reply #129 on:** August 25, 2010, 10:03:46 PM »

I don't think the official conclusion to this discussion was announced. At least not that I see here. This is Rob's decision.

Quote from: CactusRob on March 12, 2010, 08:27:37 AM

The identifier on The Tabernacle Reads: Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact. That gives us our answer. Ithamar can't force The Tabernacle to do something it can't do.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #130 on:** August 25, 2010, 10:30:51 PM »

thank you. that makes sense.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #131 on:** August 26, 2010, 08:15:35 AM »

I don't think it makes sense, but at least I'm glad we have an answer.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #132 on:** August 26, 2010, 05:36:47 PM »

makes since to me- why was this such a difficult ruling?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #133 on:** August 27, 2010, 01:27:57 PM »

That's a load of bull. I guess we'll never see an EC that puts Asherah Pole in Solomon's Temple.

I agree that Ithamar shouldn't do what he says he does, but I disagree with the reasoning of why it shouldn't work. SA's override other SA's and Identifiers all the time.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #134 on:** August 27, 2010, 01:51:09 PM »

To me it makes just as much sense to say that Gathering of Angels doesn't work on heroes with banding abilities, because their banding abilities restrict them from banding to anybody else.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #135 on:** August 27, 2010, 03:43:48 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 27, 2010, 01:27:57 PM

SA's override...Identifiers all the time.

such as?

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 27, 2010, 01:51:09 PM

To me it makes just as much sense to say that Gathering of Angels doesn't work on heroes with banding abilities, because their banding abilities restrict them from banding to anybody else.

Gathering is a gained ability. it would not be able to band to somebody who has an identifier of "this character may not brought into battle if holder has a hero in battle already." except better wording.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #136 on:** August 28, 2010, 11:58:43 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 27, 2010, 01:51:09 PM

To me it makes just as much sense to say that Gathering of Angels doesn't work on heroes with banding abilities, because their banding abilities restrict them from banding to anybody else.

My thoughts exactly, just expressed better.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #137 on:** August 29, 2010, 03:55:17 PM »

I RA with ET and play Reach of Desperation. Can I then play the buckler? Reach says "may play the next enhancement".

At least how I see it. Just because you're allowed to activate an artifact doesn't mean you get to bypass the identifier (or brigade in my ET scenario)

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #138 on:** August 29, 2010, 06:42:47 PM »

Brigades are defined as restrictive. "Holds" is not.

Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?

browarod · « **Reply #139 on:** August 29, 2010, 11:05:09 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 29, 2010, 06:42:47 PM

Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?

I didn't think characters had/could have Holds abilities....

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #140 on:** August 29, 2010, 11:06:03 PM »

Quote from: browarod on August 29, 2010, 11:05:09 PM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 29, 2010, 06:42:47 PM
Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?
I didn't think characters had/could have Holds abilities....

Where does it say that? And even if that's true, does it really affect the argument?

browarod · « **Reply #141 on:** August 29, 2010, 11:53:56 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 29, 2010, 11:06:03 PM

Quote from: browarod on August 29, 2010, 11:05:09 PM
Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 29, 2010, 06:42:47 PM
Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?
I didn't think characters had/could have Holds abilities....
Where does it say that? And even if that's true, does it really affect the argument?

Well, none have it so far that I know of. And, yes, it negates your comparison.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #142 on:** August 30, 2010, 09:58:55 AM »

No, what would "negate my comparison" is whether or not the rules say it is impossible for a hero to have a "holds" identifier, not whether one already does. Besides, have you seen Simon of Cyrene?

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #143 on:** August 30, 2010, 10:46:06 AM »

This is bordering on insanity...let it go man...no matter how much you want this to work the PTB have spoken...(coming from someone who can relate)

TheJaylor · « **Reply #144 on:** August 30, 2010, 11:23:00 AM »

we should just have a vote by the Elders to determine a ruling. Elders please vote for...
1. Ithamar can place an artifact that is not a Tabernacle artifact in The Tabernacle for one turn.

2. Ithamar can only place Tabernacle artifacts in The Tabernacle for game purposes.

3. Other.(post your other)

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #145 on:** August 30, 2010, 12:31:56 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 17, 2010, 10:31:47 AM

Ithamar already DOES lead to broken combos if not played as he has historically been played. So, he's getting a play as so that he stays that way. Rob already singed off on it. According to Rob, Ithamar cannot activate a non-Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle.

If you think Battle Prayer (wa) is broken, start a thread about it and ask for errata or something. I'll watch as people throw things at you.

No vote is needed since Rob's decision has been handed down by an Elder...and in my opinion the thread should be locked once a definite answer has been rendered by an elder so as to not bury the answer in and amongst people discussing and then beating a dead horse.

DDiceRC · « **Reply #146 on:** August 30, 2010, 03:31:08 PM »

Besides, if Rob speaks, I doubt even the unanimous dissent of the elders matters. (I'm sure he takes their input into account, but this is his game, so when he makes a ruling its WoG.)

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #147 on:** August 30, 2010, 03:32:18 PM »

Can we at least see the reasoning as to why the ruling decision was made as it was?

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #148 on:** August 30, 2010, 03:59:51 PM »

I cannot seem to find the original post that quoted an e-mail from Rob that said that Ithamar cannot force the fortress to do something it cannot do...it only holds a certain list of artifacts for the purposes of game play...not biblically...there is a difference...

DDiceRC · « **Reply #149 on:** August 30, 2010, 04:20:51 PM »

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18243.msg362360#msg362360

News:

Author Topic: Ithamar (Read 26383 times)

Ironica

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

browarod

browarod