Author Topic: Leprosy (Read 8578 times)

STAMP · « **Reply #25 on:** January 11, 2010, 01:49:57 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on January 11, 2010, 01:19:09 PM

Quote from: STAMP on January 11, 2010, 12:43:15 PM
Although the card designers and playtesters are very thorough, things have slipped through that cause these type of problems. I think Belt of Truth (Ki) was designed to target every version of "lie" or "deceit" that were in existence at the time. But now we have Deceiving Spirit. I believe the general intent of Belt of Truth (Ki) would have been to be able to target Deceiving Spirit.

My feeling is that unless it breaks the game, all cards that reference words as targets should be able to reference any form of the word. That way, future cards like a "Judged Falsely" and "Wicked Liars" can be targeted.

By making the rule that you have to match a word exactly, the creativity of the card designers is unnecessarily "handcuffed".

I agree. I think it would be better if "placed" cards could be used with High Places (with the possible exception of Joseph's Brother's Scheme, which could be devastating if it could be used before battle in my opinion.

I believe game rules regarding the prep and discard phases prevent JBS from being played via HP.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 11, 2010, 01:51:39 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on January 11, 2010, 12:43:15 PM

My feeling is that unless it breaks the game, all cards that reference words as targets should be able to reference any form of the word. That way, future cards like a "Judged Falsely" and "Wicked Liars" can be targeted.

By making the rule that you have to match a word exactly, the creativity of the card designers is unnecessarily "handcuffed".

My understanding was that this sentiment was ruled against long ago in the infamous case of Leviathan versus any card whose title contained the word "worship" or "worshipped."

TimMierz · « **Reply #27 on:** January 11, 2010, 01:56:06 PM »

"Worship"/"Fellowship"/"Discipleship"/etc. has no morphological or even etymological relation to the boat "ship", and anyone playing the game knows that. "Ignore" and "ignored" clearly do have a relation, as do "place" and "placed". Why does common sense lose out?

STAMP · « **Reply #28 on:** January 11, 2010, 02:00:42 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on January 11, 2010, 01:56:06 PM

"Worship"/"Fellowship"/"Discipleship"/etc. has no morphological or even etymological relation to the boat "ship", and anyone playing the game knows that. "Ignore" and "ignored" clearly do have a relation, as do "place" and "placed". Why does common sense lose out?

What he said.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #29 on:** January 11, 2010, 02:14:50 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on January 11, 2010, 01:56:06 PM

"Worship"/"Fellowship"/"Discipleship"/etc. has no morphological or even etymological relation to the boat "ship", and anyone playing the game knows that. "Ignore" and "ignored" clearly do have a relation, as do "place" and "placed". Why does common sense lose out?

I'm not arguing against an expansive ruling of High Places. I am merely pointing out that such a ruling is contrary to existing precedent.

What about the words "placing," "placement," and "displace" (from easiest to hardest)? Would all of them be covered by an expansive ruling on High Places?

TimMierz · « **Reply #30 on:** January 11, 2010, 02:25:46 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 11, 2010, 02:14:50 PM

What about the words "placing," "placement," and "displace" (from easiest to hardest)? Would all of them be covered by an expansive ruling on High Places?

I would say that they're all okay. They're all related to the word "place", whereas "fellowship" is not related to the word "ship".

Crashfach2002 · « **Reply #31 on:** January 12, 2010, 11:46:21 AM »

Quote from: TimMierz on January 11, 2010, 02:25:46 PM

whereas "fellowship" is not related to the word "ship".

But what if we're on a boat?

Ryupeco11 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 12, 2010, 01:39:56 PM »

so can i use leprocy with high places or not?

-Nodnarb Dude

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 12, 2010, 02:06:25 PM »

As to whether merely having the word "place" in the Play As (as opposed to the SA) counts for High Places, I don't believe it does.

As to the questions of whether High Places works with a card that has "placed" or "places" in the SA, I think that is going to depend on the judge. Some (Tim & STAMP) would allow you to use it based on what they view the intent of High Places to be. Others (such as myself) wouldn't allow you to use it based on previous rulings that when a specific word is used as a SA trigger (as it is in High Places) the word is meant to be strictly adhered to. (Given the potential mayhem that might ensue from allowing Joseph's Brothers' Scheme to be played in territory, it seems completely plausible to me that limiting High Places specifically to "place" may have been an intentional choice on the part of the play testers.)

So you either need to ask the judge at an individual tournament or wait for one of the PtB to weigh in on the question.

Ryupeco11 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 12, 2010, 02:21:25 PM »

i guess i'll wait then because I'd like to have an offical ruleing rather than the inconsistency of different people saying different things. i would prefer to be able to use it based on the fact i think it was intended to be able to but i'm fine if the ruleing is to limit it to just the word "place" I just wanna know which way to play it. ^_^

-Nodnarb Dude

SirNobody · « **Reply #35 on:** January 12, 2010, 03:48:28 PM »

Hey,

Having place in the play as does not satisfy the ability, it must be physically on the card.

My opinion is that the ability should have to contain the character string "[space]place[space]" to satisfy the ability of High Places.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

TimMierz · « **Reply #36 on:** January 12, 2010, 04:57:05 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 12, 2010, 02:06:25 PM

As to the questions of whether High Places works with a card that has "placed" or "places" in the SA, I think that is going to depend on the judge. Some (Tim & STAMP) would allow you to use it based on what they view the intent of High Places to be. Others (such as myself) wouldn't allow you to use it based on previous rulings that when a specific word is used as a SA trigger (as it is in High Places) the word is meant to be strictly adhered to.

While the point is moot, I want to say that even though I think the ruling SHOULD be that "placed"/"places"/"placing" are okay, I wouldn't rule based on that, but on what was already agreed upon.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 13, 2010, 02:23:32 PM »

FWIW...

So no one misreads my statement about deciding based on what "they view the intent of High Places" to be as some sort of slam, I want to make clear I didn't intend that. If I were in a tournament and a judge ruled in the manner that Tim & STAMP were arguing for, I would have no difficulties with the decision. The point Tim made about the "place" in "placed" being a whole different kettle of fish from the "ship" in "worship" is spot on and would form a solid basis for ruling High Places differently from Leviathan.

Sean · « **Reply #38 on:** January 13, 2010, 07:55:58 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody

the ability should have to contain the character string "[space]place[space]" to satisfy the ability of High Places.

That means that a card that says, "...placed..." would not be able to be played via High Places?

Bryon · « **Reply #39 on:** January 14, 2010, 12:02:13 AM »

Quote from: Sean on January 13, 2010, 07:55:58 PM

Quote from: SirNobody
the ability should have to contain the character string "[space]place[space]" to satisfy the ability of High Places.
That means that a card that says, "...placed..." would not be able to be played via High Places?

Correct. The playtesters looked at the lsit and decided that "place" would be the best way to go. We didn't want some of the other cards played out of battle.

Sean · « **Reply #40 on:** January 14, 2010, 12:18:39 AM »

OK, but does that fall in line with how we play other cards that target specific words? I feel like there are some that are played like High Places and others that are not. Like Enoch, it is my understanding that Holy of Holies stops his ability. The latest printing of Holy of Holies doesn't target the specific words but the previous versions did target specific words and yet both versions were played the same in regards to Enoch. I can't think of any other situations or cards that are currently played contrary to how High Places is but I think we should definitely make sure that we're playing these kinds of cards the same across the board.

Bryon · « **Reply #41 on:** January 14, 2010, 01:01:42 AM »

Agreed. Let me know which conflicts you find, and we will address them. Thanks in advance for your help.

STAMP · « **Reply #42 on:** January 14, 2010, 10:23:12 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on January 14, 2010, 01:01:42 AM

Agreed. Let me know which conflicts you find, and we will address them. Thanks in advance for your help.

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on August 28, 2009, 02:04:59 AM

Other cards that "target" words:
Dart, Barnabas, Deadly Snare - "False" in title
Deliverance, Prison Guards - "Prison" in title
Epaphroditus - "Paul" in title
The Seventh Seal - "Trumpet" or "Censer" in title
Herodian - "Herod" in title
Belt of Truth - "False", "Lies", "Deceived", or "Deceit" in title
Que - "Mist" in title
Covenant Keepers - "Covenant" in title
Banner of Truth (Priests) - "False" or "Deceit" in title
Leviathan - "Ship" in title
Bartiamaeus - "Faith" in title
King's Sword (C Deck), Interceding for Battle - "Immune" in SA
Haman's Plot Exposed - "Discard" or "Capture" in SA
David - "David" in title
Shadow - "Snare" in SA
Priestly Breastplate (C Deck) - "Ignore" and "Repel" in SA
I Am Love - "Ignores" in SA
I Am Truth - "Ignore" in SA

With the exception of the last 3, I don't really see any problems by limiting it to the specific words, rather than including the various forms.

3-Liner And Bags Of Chips · « **Reply #43 on:** January 14, 2010, 12:16:09 PM »

Speaking of breastplate. I am a tiny bit confused on repel. Does that mean to push somebody out of battle

TimMierz · « **Reply #44 on:** January 14, 2010, 12:44:39 PM »

Repel is the same thing as ignore, except that it's used on evil cards.

3-Liner And Bags Of Chips · « **Reply #45 on:** January 14, 2010, 07:55:09 PM »

ah since the other hero is already in battle. Gotcha. Ignore for bad guys XD

hi123 · « **Reply #46 on:** January 14, 2010, 08:02:38 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 27, 2009, 06:36:21 PM

I know this was brought up before and there wasn't anything definitive, but I can't find the thread. HoH includes all word forms of the words it prevents. High Places should let you use Leprosy because of that precedent. "Placed" is just the passive form of "place."

Is that PG?

Isildur · « **Reply #47 on:** January 20, 2010, 09:45:24 AM »

Quote from: TimMierz on January 14, 2010, 12:44:39 PM

Repel is the same thing as ignore, except that it's used on evil cards.

Dont the Heroes actualy go back to Territory though? Unlike Ignore where the Ec's are put off to the side. Right?

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #48 on:** January 20, 2010, 09:52:48 AM »

Quote from: REG

Repel
Repel is the same as Ignore.

News:

Author Topic: Leprosy (Read 8578 times)