Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: LordZardeck on February 15, 2012, 09:34:25 PM

Title: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: LordZardeck on February 15, 2012, 09:34:25 PM
Like the subject says, does lampstand protect your LoR like Guardian? And does it protect itself??
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Red Wing on February 15, 2012, 09:39:48 PM
1. Yes
2. From Evil Doms, Yes.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 15, 2012, 09:45:07 PM
Yes.  It cannot be discarded by DoN, either.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: ChristianSoldier on February 15, 2012, 10:54:09 PM
Like the subject says, does lampstand protect your LoR like Guardian?

I don't think it should, but I'm not the one making the rules.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 15, 2012, 11:28:57 PM
Like the subject says, does lampstand protect your LoR like Guardian?

I don't think it should, but I'm not the one making the rules.

"Not in Battle" is considered to be every card face up on the table aside from the discard pile. Cards in hand, deck, artifact piles, and discard piles don't count.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: ChristianSoldier on February 15, 2012, 11:56:34 PM
Like the subject says, does lampstand protect your LoR like Guardian?

I don't think it should, but I'm not the one making the rules.

"Not in Battle" is considered to be every card face up on the table aside from the discard pile. Cards in hand, deck, artifact piles, and discard piles don't count.

I know what it means, I just don't agree with it, I still think that it should default to play like every other ability, as in "[cards in play that are] not in battle", rather than "[cards in play or not that are not in deck, hand, discard pile or removed from game that are] not in battle".

Since the first one is already the default rule, why should it be different for the handful of cards that say "not in battle" as well
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 12:04:34 AM
Because the "default to in play" rule only applies to cards that do not specify a location. Lampstand does specify a location - not in battle - and the Elders decided that what that entailed.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Praeceps on February 16, 2012, 12:05:18 AM
Like the subject says, does lampstand protect your LoR like Guardian?

I don't think it should, but I'm not the one making the rules.

"Not in Battle" is considered to be every card face up on the table aside from the discard pile. Cards in hand, deck, artifact piles, and discard piles don't count.

I know what it means, I just don't agree with it, I still think that it should default to play like every other ability, as in "[cards in play that are] not in battle", rather than "[cards in play or not that are not in deck, hand, discard pile or removed from game that are] not in battle".

Since the first one is already the default rule, why should it be different for the handful of cards that say "not in battle" as well

Because they are modifying their target list the same as a card that says "In play or a set-aside area". The protected area is specifically expanded beyond just play.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: YourMathTeacher on February 16, 2012, 12:07:21 AM
I agree with CS. If "not in battle" means what it says, then it should include face-down cards as well. Limiting it to face-up cards is not sufficient, since the top card of the discard pile is face up.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 12:11:31 AM
I agree with CS. If "not in battle" means what it says, then it should include face-down cards as well. Limiting it to face-up cards is not sufficient, since the top card of the discard pile is face up.

That logic would mean it would include cards in decks, hands, and discard piles, as well as cards from other games, or cards not currently in games. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and frankly, it's a pretty logical line to draw it at. I had problems with it when I first heard about the ruling immediately after Nats, but I've since understood why the line was drawn there, and it really does make sense.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Warrior_Monk on February 16, 2012, 12:17:08 AM
Face down cards are untargetable except by specification. That's always been a rule.

Also, Angry Mob would be unbelievably broken, and no "clarification" could fix that.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 12:17:55 AM
Face down cards are untargetable except by specification. That's always been a rule.

But "Not in Battle" is a specification!
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Warrior_Monk on February 16, 2012, 12:20:15 AM
Face down cards are untargetable except by specification. That's always been a rule.

But "Not in Battle" is a specification!
No, it's not. It doesn't specify face down cards. Ambushed characters cannot be Christian Martyr'd, for example.

I know what you were getting at though, CA.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 12:24:20 AM
The only real question this brings up for me is (and I know that I am going to be poisoned in .2 seconds for this) is why Lampy's specification is good enough to mean something but Split Altar's is not. Why does split altar default to in play when it specifically says all artifacts in the pile? (goodbye cruel world!)
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 12:25:40 AM
The only real question this brings up for me is (and I know that I am going to be poisoned in .2 seconds for this) is why Lampy's specification is good enough to mean something but Split Altar's is not. Why does split altar default to in play when it specifically says all artifacts in the pile? (goodbye cruel world!)

Because it doesn't specify pile.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 12:27:46 AM
Why did I think it did  :scratch: what a waste of one of the last posts of my life
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: ChristianSoldier on February 16, 2012, 12:45:50 AM
The whole thing about Lampstand protecting play, set aside area and land of redemption is arbitrary, why not just play and set aside? I really think the logical choice would be to default in play, this would be simpler (being that there is a blanket rule for all abilities) and "Not in battle" does not to me make any sense to add targets to a card, only restricting it more. If there were no defaults then I wouldn't have a problem, but I really think "not in battle" (by itself) should follow default rules.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Wings of Music on February 16, 2012, 01:08:49 AM
Well thing is this.  If the creators of the card had wanted it to be restricted to 'in play' they would have worded it as in play.  Instead they worded it as 'not in battle,' indicating that it's supposed to protect more that just 'in play.'
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: ChristianSoldier on February 16, 2012, 01:21:51 AM
Well thing is this.  If the creators of the card had wanted it to be restricted to 'in play' they would have worded it as in play.  Instead they worded it as 'not in battle,' indicating that it's supposed to protect more that just 'in play.'

I've learned a long time ago that what the creators intended and what the cards do are often fairly different. (see Split Altar)

Keep in mind that this is one of the few rules that seriously bugs me, I do love the game and I think that for the most part the card designers/playtesters do a fairly good job (considering that they are all volunteers doing it on their own time). This is just one thing that has bugged me ever since I learned of the rule (and I am very glad that it did get more specific as of the last major rules update) but I would still like to see it default to in play.

I also think that cards shouldn't need defaults (like every card say what and where it targets things) so rather than have a card say "discard a hero" it would say "discard a hero in play" however this does add to the total number of words, which they are trying to keep to a minimum, so we really have a problem between being clear and being brief, and I think clarity should be more important.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Wings of Music on February 16, 2012, 01:45:05 AM
I just knew you would bring up *REDACTED*   ;D

I think defaults are what strike a balance between clarity and economy.  For example:  A great example would be capture abilities, when clarity was most important they read something like: capture a character and place in your land of bondage, character is treated as a lost soul. -  Instead it just reads, 'capture a character.'  It's hard to dispute that the new wording is similar and yet still is at least almost as understandable.  The one disadvantage is having to research the definition of capture, and I think a little bit of simple research is a healthy thing.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 09:45:14 AM
The ruling wasn't only made for Lampy, but rather any card that says "not in battle."  If we chose all the cards on the table that weren't in battle, Great Image would be insanely OP.  This ruling was to make "not in battle" less arbitrary per card.  Last year, Lampy protected hand, but Great Image couldn't target heroes in hand.  This way, it's less of a headache for hosts, and the rules are better as a whole.

Great Image (Pr)

Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Crimson • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: All opponents' Heroes in play that are not in the Field of Battle at end of this battle must be discarded. • Play As: Discard all opponents' Heroes in play that are not in the field of battle at the end of this battle. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Daniel 2:31 • Availability: Prophets booster packs (Rare)
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Professoralstad on February 16, 2012, 10:32:32 AM
Quote from: SomeKittens link=topic=29588.msg463417#msg463417
Great Image would be insanely OP.  This ruling was to make "not in battle" less arbitrary per card.  Last year, Lampy protected hand, but Great Image couldn't target heroes in hand.  This way, it's less of a headache for hosts, and the rules are better as a whole.

Great Image (Pr)

Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Crimson • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: All opponents' Heroes in playthat are not in the Field of Battle at end of this battle must be discarded. • Play As: Discard all opponents' Heroes in play that are not in the field of battle at the end of this battle. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Daniel 2:31 • Availability: Prophets booster packs (Rare)

Well to be fair, Great Image wouldn't be affected, but Angry Mob might be.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 10:39:05 AM
Great Image clearly says "in play," so that's not a good example.

As to the subject of cards defaulting to play, that's a necessary rule and a good one. If you don't like it, then I'm sorry, but that's not going to change. It's a simple rule that reduces wording on many cards and makes the game as a whole simpler, since if you didn't have that rule, you'd still have draw the line of what's effected and what's not somewhere, which becomes exactly as complicated as the current system.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 10:45:56 AM
I lifted the Great Image example straight from Maly.  Guess it helps if I read my own post....

Still, these are well-thought-out rulings.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: TimMierz on February 16, 2012, 10:53:07 AM
Sort of off-topic but not really. I know it's been the case for a while, but I can't find where in the REG that face-down cards are not "in play", but I can't find that anywhere in the REG.

Also, The REG definition for "not in battle" is:
"Several Redemption® cards contain special abilities that refer to cards that are “not in battle”.  Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption."

Is a face-down card "in" a territory still in that territory? If so, I don't see why Lampstand wouldn't protect a face-down Hero in a territory, or why Angry Mob wouldn't target an already face-down Hero.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2012, 11:32:06 AM
Sort of off-topic but not really. I know it's been the case for a while, but I can't find where in the REG that face-down cards are not "in play", but I can't find that anywhere in the REG.

Also, The REG definition for "not in battle" is:
"Several Redemption® cards contain special abilities that refer to cards that are “not in battle”.  Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption."

Is a face-down card "in" a territory still in that territory? If so, I don't see why Lampstand wouldn't protect a face-down Hero in a territory, or why Angry Mob wouldn't target an already face-down Hero.

Considering that LotS says "all" rather than "ALL", I would rule that LotS does not protect face-down cards.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 11:34:16 AM
Sort of off-topic but not really. I know it's been the case for a while, but I can't find where in the REG that face-down cards are not "in play", but I can't find that anywhere in the REG.

Also, The REG definition for "not in battle" is:
"Several Redemption® cards contain special abilities that refer to cards that are “not in battle”.  Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption."

Is a face-down card "in" a territory still in that territory? If so, I don't see why Lampstand wouldn't protect a face-down Hero in a territory, or why Angry Mob wouldn't target an already face-down Hero.

Face down cards are not considered "in play" and are therefore not part of the territory.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 12:38:09 PM
I agree with Alec.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Praeceps on February 16, 2012, 01:00:30 PM
But as has been pointed out, LotS isn't restricted to "in play", it protects set aside areas as well. You're saying that on one hand it protects only the cards in play, but it also protects cards that are in set-aside areas and thus, not in play.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 01:07:44 PM
Quote from: REG
Also, The REG definition for "not in battle" is:
"Several Redemption® cards contain special abilities that refer to cards that are “not in battle”.  Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption."

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that facedown cards aren't protected because they are not part of any of the areas listed above. They are not in territory, because all cards in territory must be in play, they aren't in set aside, and they aren't in LOR. Therefore facedown cards are not protected.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2012, 01:14:21 PM
What about face-down cards in set-aside?   ::)
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: megamanlan on February 16, 2012, 01:15:32 PM
So let me get this straight... Lampstand is even more OP then I thought? Causing FA to be useless?
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Minister Polarius on February 16, 2012, 01:16:01 PM
Lampstand has always stopped FA.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 01:17:36 PM
What about face-down cards in set-aside?   ::)

That does get a little confusing since set aside is already not in play, so face down cards in it are...not-not in play? So they are in play? Inception?

All kidding aside if there is even a card that does that I would say that since set aside is already not in play you can't exclude the face down cards in it for being "not in play" when they already weren't in play in the first place so they're protected to. Is there actually a card that puts cards facedown in set aside or are you just trying to give me a headache  ;) (Mission accomplished by the way)
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: browarod on February 16, 2012, 01:19:52 PM
Ambush (Pa)
Special Ability: Set aside a male Hero (face down) from your hand for one turn. Hero returns to territory face down. Hero enters battle face down with access to any site. When opponent presents an Evil Character in battle, Hero is flipped face up.

You can probably just pull the "old wording" card for this, but this card seems to suggest that both territory and set aside (and battle, but that doesn't matter for this discussion) CAN include face-down cards.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 01:22:14 PM
Quote
Territory is an area within the Field of Play. The player’s territory includes his Lost Souls, Evil Characters, Heroes, artifacts, fortresses and sites. See Player’s Card Arrangement.

Face down cards aren't in play.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 01:23:08 PM
Ambush (Pa)
Special Ability: Set aside a male Hero (face down) from your hand for one turn. Hero returns to territory face down. Hero enters battle face down with access to any site. When opponent presents an Evil Character in battle, Hero is flipped face up.

You can probably just pull the "old wording" card for this, but this card seems to suggest that both territory and set aside (and battle, but that doesn't matter for this discussion) CAN include face-down cards.

*mumble* Old Wording *mumble*  ;D
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Praeceps on February 16, 2012, 01:24:07 PM
Ambush (Pa)
Special Ability: Set aside a male Hero (face down) from your hand for one turn. Hero returns to territory face down. Hero enters battle face down with access to any site. When opponent presents an Evil Character in battle, Hero is flipped face up.

You can probably just pull the "old wording" card for this, but this card seems to suggest that both territory and set aside (and battle, but that doesn't matter for this discussion) CAN include face-down cards.

Then if face down cards are listed as being in territory, set aside, and battle, why aren't they protected again? You guys are using contradictory arguments to make your points.

"Lampstand protects anything face up on the table"
That includes set aside which is out of play?
"Yes"
Then why doesn't it protect your deck?
"It's not in Play"
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2012, 01:24:59 PM
There have many a discussion on face-down cards.  I can't remember all of the results.  Makes me wonder about other scenarios, such as discarding The Darkness that has a face-down card in it.  Normally cards follow the fortress, but can the face-down card be targeted?  I just don't recall, and rules have changed a bunch so i don't know what I remember still applies.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: browarod on February 16, 2012, 01:25:22 PM
Quote
Territory is an area within the Field of Play. The player’s territory includes his Lost Souls, Evil Characters, Heroes, artifacts, fortresses and sites. See Player’s Card Arrangement.

Face down cards aren't in play.
So? Nowhere on Lampy does it specify "in play" is a restriction.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 01:26:28 PM
"Lampstand protects anything face up on the table"
That includes set aside which is out of play?
"Yes"
Then why doesn't it protect your deck?
"It's not in Play"

That's not the argument at all. Lampstand protects set-aside because "not in battle" includes set-aside. It's that easy.

Quote
Territory is an area within the Field of Play. The player’s territory includes his Lost Souls, Evil Characters, Heroes, artifacts, fortresses and sites. See Player’s Card Arrangement.

Face down cards aren't in play.
So? Nowhere on Lampy does it specify "in play" is a restriction.

No, but the specification is "in territory," and territory is within the field of play. That means that face down cards, which are not in play, cannot be in territory.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 01:26:37 PM
There have many a discussion on face-down cards.  I can't remember all of the results.  Makes me wonder about other scenarios, such as discarding The Darkness that has a face-down card in it.  Normally cards follow the fortress, but can the face-down card be targeted?  I just don't recall, and rules have changed a bunch so i don't know what I remember still applies.
The face-down card is not being targeted by any card.  It's discarded by game rule.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 01:27:48 PM
Quote
Territory is an area within the Field of Play. The player’s territory includes his Lost Souls, Evil Characters, Heroes, artifacts, fortresses and sites. See Player’s Card Arrangement.

Face down cards aren't in play.
So? Nowhere on Lampy does it specify "in play" is a restriction.
The definition of not in battle does.

Ambush (Pa)
Special Ability: Set aside a male Hero (face down) from your hand for one turn. Hero returns to territory face down. Hero enters battle face down with access to any site. When opponent presents an Evil Character in battle, Hero is flipped face up.

You can probably just pull the "old wording" card for this, but this card seems to suggest that both territory and set aside (and battle, but that doesn't matter for this discussion) CAN include face-down cards.

Then if face down cards are listed as being in territory, set aside, and battle, why aren't they protected again? You guys are using contradictory arguments to make your points.

"Lampstand protects anything face up on the table"
That includes set aside which is out of play?
"Yes"
Then why doesn't it protect your deck?
"It's not in Play"
Face down cards are not part of territory. Territory only includes cards that are in play, and face down cards are not in play. Your deck is facedown, unless you are cheating. Artifact piles are facedown, except for the active artifact which is protected. The only thing I'm not 100% sure on is face down cards in set aside, because set aside is out of play already so it already includes out of play cards.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Praeceps on February 16, 2012, 01:32:31 PM
There you guys go again. It protects Set-Aside because the definition of "not in battle" includes it. Set-Aside is inherently Out of Play. You can not say that Lampstand protects cards in play and out of play but only if they are in play. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
There you guys go again. It protects Set-Aside because the definition of "not in battle" includes it. Set-Aside is inherently Out of Play. You can not say that Lampstand protects cards in play and out of play but only if they are in play. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

So just because Lampstand targets one specific point that is out of play, it should target every point that's out of play? Lampstand specifically targets Set-Aside; it does NOT target face down cards, because face down cards are not in territory.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 01:34:45 PM
There you guys go again. It protects Set-Aside because the definition of "not in battle" includes it. Set-Aside is inherently Out of Play. You can not say that Lampstand protects cards in play and out of play but only if they are in play. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Not in battle is set aside, territory, and LOR. Cards in set aside are protected. Cards in territory are protected, but the definition of territory specifics that only cards that are in play can be in your territory, and facedown cards are not in play. So facedown cards are not in territory, they are not in set aside unless specificed, and they are not in LOR. They are simply out of play and not a part of the definition of Not in Battle, therefore not protected by Lampy. Got it?
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 01:36:51 PM
Lampy targets cards that aren't in battle.  "Not in battle" is defined as "all cards face up on the table"
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: browarod on February 16, 2012, 01:37:53 PM
Ambush specifically says a face-down card returns to territory. Are you saying that it returns to the territory yet somehow is not in the territory?

Quote from: REG
"Several Redemption® cards contain special abilities that refer to cards that are “not in battle”.  Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption."
Again, I don't see "in play", or even "face up" anywhere in this definition.

The distinction about face-downs in set aside is easily resolved if you allow that face-down cards in territory are just that: in territory. If they're not in your territory, where are they? Limbo? Every card on the table is in a specific zone. You can't just have cards hanging out nowhere.

"Territory is an area within the Field of Play. The player’s territory includes his Lost Souls, Evil Characters, Heroes, artifacts, fortresses and sites. See Player’s Card Arrangement."

Nope, still no "in play" or "face up" in this definition either.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 01:39:22 PM
Ambush specifically says a face-down card returns to territory. Are you saying that it returns to the territory yet somehow is not in the territory?

Quote from: REG
"Several Redemption® cards contain special abilities that refer to cards that are “not in battle”.  Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption."
Again, I don't see "in play", or even "face up" anywhere in this definition.

The distinction about face-downs in set aside is easily resolved if you allow that face-down cards in territory are just that: in territory. If they're not in your territory, where are they? Limbo? Every card on the table is in a specific zone. You can't just have cards hanging out nowhere.

Face down cards in territory ARE NOT in territory because the definition of territory specifics that cards must be IN PLAY to be in territory, and face down cards ARE NOT in play.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Praeceps on February 16, 2012, 01:40:02 PM
Ambush specifically says a face-down card returns to territory. Are you saying that it returns to the territory yet somehow is not in the territory?

Quote from: REG
"Several Redemption® cards contain special abilities that refer to cards that are “not in battle”.  Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption."
Again, I don't see "in play", or even "face up" anywhere in this definition.

The distinction about face-downs in set aside is easily resolved if you allow that face-down cards in territory are just that: in territory. If they're not in your territory, where are they? Limbo? Every card on the table is in a specific zone. You can't just have cards hanging out nowhere.

Territory is an area within the Field of Play. The player’s territory includes his Lost Souls, Evil Characters, Heroes, artifacts, fortresses and sites. See Player’s Card Arrangement.
Nope, still no "in play" or "face up" in this definition either.


:amen:
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 01:40:32 PM

"Territory is an area within the Field of Play. The player’s territory includes his Lost Souls, Evil Characters, Heroes, artifacts, fortresses and sites. See Player’s Card Arrangement."

Nope, still no "in play" or "face up" in this definition either.


Really?

Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 01:40:57 PM
This is from the new rulings for this season:

Quote from: Gabe
Consistency Given to Not In Battle
Not in battle is defined as cards face up on the table that are not in battle (this includes territory, set-aside area and Land of Redemption).  It does not include hand, draw pile, discard pile, and cards face down in play. This changes the previous ruling that Lampstand of the Sanctuary stops Mayhem.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 01:41:25 PM
Ambush specifically says a face-down card returns to territory. Are you saying that it returns to the territory yet somehow is not in the territory?

I'm saying that Ambush is a card from Patriarchs, and everything that implies about the wording. Game rule dictates that face down cards are not in play, and territories are in play. You have to redefine one of those for what you're suggesting to work. Regardless of how it should be in your mind, the way it is now, there's no way that face-down cards are in a territory.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 01:44:30 PM
That part of Ambush is clarifying text, explaining how set-asides work.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: browarod on February 16, 2012, 01:52:01 PM
If it doesn't return to territory, then where exactly is it? Nobody has answered this. Kittens actually posted something legitimate in that Gabe updated the definition to specify face-up, but that still doesn't answer my question. Also, there's nothing in that quote that says face-down cards are not in territory, just that Lampstand doesn't protect them. "Field of Play" is a location, "in play" is a state. I would argue that they aren't entirely synonymous.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 01:53:56 PM
Yup, face down arts are in territory.

Quote from: REG:ArtifactPile
Artifact Pile

An artifact pile contains a player’s grail icon cards. This pile is located in the player’s territory within the Field of Play. See Player’s Card Arrangement .
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: browarod on February 16, 2012, 01:57:03 PM
Were you trying to suddenly turn around and agree with me? Because you did, so now I'm confused haha.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 01:58:55 PM
Nope, just quoting the REG.  I'm still wondering why you're trying to argue that Lampy protects a card that can't be targeted by evil doms anyway.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: browarod on February 16, 2012, 02:05:54 PM
I'm not arguing that anymore, since your Gabe quote proved me wrong, I'm just trying to show that face-down cards ARE actually in territory though not "in play."
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 02:52:05 PM
So the REG, in essence, proved both of us wrong? That pesky REG, always doing things like this. I hope you know, browarod, that I don't have any ill will towards you just because we disagreed here; we usually fall on the same side of these debates, and I have a lot of respect for you as a player and a judge.
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: browarod on February 16, 2012, 02:57:53 PM
Well thanks! *blush*

I rarely take anything on the internet personally anymore (given that I've had bad experiences with doing such in the past), so no offense was taken. People disagree, it happens. The important thing is remaining civil (which everyone here did) and keeping it in this thread.

Yeah, that pesky REG foiled us again!!! :P
Title: Re: Lampstand protect LoR?
Post by: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 03:53:48 PM
Darn that rulebook.  I've had more than one scheme to break the game foiled by ...the rules...
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal