New Redemption Grab Bag now includes an assortment of 500 cards from five (5) different expansion sets. Available at Cactus website.
He may be wrong as per the status quo, but it's entirely logical to think that way. DS doesn't say "you may treat this card as an evil character instead" so I'm actually of the opinion that it should be both because there's nothing in the special ability that says it loses EE status.
I didn't say he was illogical, just wrong.
Quote from: browarod on April 08, 2012, 10:32:36 AMHe may be wrong as per the status quo, but it's entirely logical to think that way. DS doesn't say "you may treat this card as an evil character instead" so I'm actually of the opinion that it should be both because there's nothing in the special ability that says it loses EE status.If a card is being treated as a character, then it is not being treated as an enhancement, because they both have different rules. There is no card (or precedent for a card) that is both a character and an enhancement.
There's nothing in the rules that says a card can't be both, though, and nothing in DS's special ability says it loses enhancement status. That's all I'm trying to point out.
Please don't patronize me, I know how rules work.
All I'm saying is there is already precedence with Covenants/Curses that cards can be multiple types, ...
... it seems like it should continue to be both. I realize that's not the case because of a ruling, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.
Covenants and curses are already defined as having multiple possibilities. However, once a covenant is treated as an artifact, it is no longer treated as an enhancement.
The most relevant precedent (to me) would be captured characters. They are treated as Lost Souls, which means they are no longer treated as characters. They can no longer be targetted as a hero or EC.
No, but it's still treated as a Covenant, that's what I was trying to point out.
Capture is a defined special ability, though, that says characters lose "character" type and gain "captured character" type. Other than this ruling, I know of no definition for "you may treat this as something else" abilities, which is why I was going based off precedence.
