Author Topic: Nebuchadnezzar a CTB Hero? (Read 9201 times)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #25 on:** November 03, 2009, 05:26:57 PM »

While the REG doesnt say it, it should be pretty obvious that the only abilities that can force opponents to block with certian characters must SAY "Choose opponents blah blah blah."

The whole REG section for CTB always says "choose opponent cards", while the banding section uses the term "add to battle" a lot... that should be enough of a distinction.

Arch Angel · « **Reply #26 on:** November 03, 2009, 06:05:18 PM »

No, What i'm saying is that if the ONLY way to add cards to the other side of battle is CtR/B cards then Siege, Seal, etc do not work.

browarod · « **Reply #27 on:** November 04, 2009, 09:54:43 AM »

GUYS!! The answer to this question is really, really, really, really, really, simple. I can't believe nobody noticed it before.

Nebuchadnezzar
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Crimson • Ability: 6 / 8 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: If no Daniel Hero is in play, search deck for an O.T. crimson card and add it to hand or battle. Cannot be negated. • Attributes: Babylonian King, Fought Earthly Battle • Identifiers: OT Male Human, King (Babylonia), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Daniel 4:30

Notice the bold

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #28 on:** November 04, 2009, 09:57:41 AM »

Hah! Epic win browarod, epic win.

Bryon · « **Reply #29 on:** November 04, 2009, 10:06:26 AM »

Wow. browarod wins the thread

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #30 on:** November 04, 2009, 10:09:02 AM »

Wow, epic win browarod. Epid fail all the rest of us.

browarod · « **Reply #31 on:** November 04, 2009, 10:21:53 AM »

Haha, yeah, it was kind of an accidental find on my part

. I was looking through my main deck this morning (Genesis and Bab's) as I randomly do sometimes. When I got to Nebby, I remembered this topic and sat there looking at him for awhile, and then all of a sudden it hit me and I was like *facepalm*

Gabe · « **Reply #32 on:** November 04, 2009, 10:50:39 AM »

Master KChief · « **Reply #33 on:** November 05, 2009, 05:04:49 AM »

yes, because im sure R&D put that clause in there to preempt this exact situation. /sarcasm

i still think this issue should be resolved as if neb was not a daniel character, as this situation may apply to other situations as well, present and future.

lightningninja · « **Reply #34 on:** November 05, 2009, 06:06:42 PM »

Hhahahah that's pretty great, although I do think the overall topic is still relevant.

It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.

adamfincher · « **Reply #35 on:** November 05, 2009, 06:18:55 PM »

wow broward wins the whole ruling questions board.

adamfincher · « **Reply #36 on:** November 05, 2009, 06:20:02 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on November 05, 2009, 06:06:42 PM

Hhahahah that's pretty great, although I do think the overall topic is still relevant.

It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.

what if you use something like spirit as a dove?

Master KChief · « **Reply #37 on:** November 05, 2009, 06:32:05 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on November 05, 2009, 06:06:42 PM

It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.

head honchos being...who exactly? bryan being one official person? tim showing hesitancy?

thats the problem with you and most of the people on this board; too many quick to say yes with no explanation. its the ones that 'argue' and think outside the box that evolve the game, not the yes-men.

and just for the record, i wasnt 'arguing'. i had no argument to even begin with, as i've been sitting on the fence the entire time. i just want to see clear and concise reasoning on both sides, rather than seeing people merely agree with 'head honchos' because you have no clear logical reasoning of your own.

SirNobody · « **Reply #38 on:** November 05, 2009, 06:59:19 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Master KChief on November 05, 2009, 06:32:05 PM

Quote from: lightningninja on November 05, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.

head honchos being...who exactly? bryan being one official person? tim showing hesitancy?

I am not just hesitant, I disagree entirely. The Darkness adds a character to battle and is not banding. Siege bands cards to the opposite site of battle.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #39 on:** November 05, 2009, 07:10:08 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on November 05, 2009, 06:59:19 PM

I am not just hesitant, I disagree entirely. The Darkness adds a character to battle and is not banding. Siege bands cards to the opposite site of battle.

Hmmm...

"Place an Evil Character from hand face down here. If an opponent begins a rescue attempt and chooses a blocker (or is unblocked), you may reveal this evil character. Blocking player may add it to the battle. Otherwise return it face down."

From the REG:

Quote

If a character is added to battle and joins another character already in battle, that action is considered banding. If it does not join another character already in battle, the action is not considered banding.

This means that Darkness CAN be considered banding, but only if the opponent CTB'd you first, and then you add the character into battle. If they are "unblocked," then it is not considered banding.

lightningninja · « **Reply #40 on:** November 05, 2009, 07:20:13 PM »

I believe that would fall under "specifically says so."

SirNobody · « **Reply #41 on:** November 05, 2009, 08:01:55 PM »

Hey,

The fact that The Darkness is sometimes banding really isn't relevant to this thread. Sometimes it is not banding, which is adequate to act as a counterexample of what lightning ninja asserted.

Quote from: lightningninja on November 05, 2009, 07:20:13 PM

I believe that would fall under "specifically says so."

What wouldn't fall under "specifically says so"? Isn't the point of any ability to say specifically what it does?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #42 on:** November 05, 2009, 10:01:52 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on November 05, 2009, 06:59:19 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on November 05, 2009, 06:32:05 PM
Quote from: lightningninja on November 05, 2009, 06:06:42 PM
It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.
head honchos being...who exactly? bryan being one official person? tim showing hesitancy?

I am not just hesitant, I disagree entirely. The Darkness adds a character to battle and is not banding. Siege bands cards to the opposite site of battle.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Well, that should make Master KChief feel better. Nobody agrees with him.

Master KChief · « **Reply #43 on:** November 05, 2009, 10:08:08 PM »

i know. im far too liberal for these boards.

SirNobody · « **Reply #44 on:** November 09, 2009, 04:43:39 PM »

Hey,

The non-rule-related part of this discussion has been moved to Open Discussion.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

News:

Author Topic: Nebuchadnezzar a CTB Hero? (Read 9201 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

browarod

browarod

Lamborghini_diablo