Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: STAMP on November 10, 2010, 06:30:18 PM
-
Rob and Playtesters, please reconsider the following ruling for placed cards that I recently heard about:
"Placed cards are read from their owner's perspective."
I have made some explanations why the ruling should be reconsidered in another thread here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24305.0). The primary reason is that the cards placed by Agur et al differ greatly from most other placed cards. A card placed by Agur is not activated until later, whereas other placed cards are already active, i.e. the place ability is initiated by activating the placed card.
If it is preferable to have a top-down rule, I believe the rule would be better if worded as such:
"Placed cards are read from the perspective of the player who activates the placed card."
Consider the impact if the current rule stands:
- If I select my hero when choosing the rescuer for my opponent, he gets to use the hero's special ability. If I choose a hero with a weapon, he gets to use the hero and weapon's special abilities. But if I choose a hero with placed enhancement, he only gets to use the hero's special ability. This is not very consistent.
- The Darkness no longer works as intended. The blocking player would not be able to use the evil character's special ability.
The Darkness (AW)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: 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. • Play As: Place an Evil Character from hand face down here. At the beginning of battle, if an opponent begins a rescue attempt and chooses a blocker (or is unblocked), you may reveal this Evil Character. Blocking player may add to battle the Evil Character else return it face down. The Darkness may hold one Evil Character. • Identifiers: Play to territory. • Verse: John 3:19
Impact if current rule repealed and/or my proposed rule implemented:
- If I select my hero when choosing the rescuer for my opponent, he gets to use the hero's special ability. If I choose a hero with a weapon, he gets to use the hero and weapon's special abilities. AND if I choose a hero with placed enhancement, he gets to use the hero and enhancement's special abilities. This IS consistent.
- The Darkness works as intended.
Between the fact that there is a character limit on posts and I haven't finished my regression analysis, I'll stop here. But I just wanted to get the playtesters to start taking a look a this. Thanks.
-
Darkness still works because Add to Battle is a simple ability.
The only reason it does not work with Elishama and Co. is because of the triggered ability.
Weapons are placed on a character by game rule, and are included in the order of abilities for characters. Cards placed on heroes by ABILITIES such as Agur are not. The ability belongs to one player, and therefore only works for that player. In the other thread, you gave the example of Gathering of Angels... gained abilities work VERY differently from placed cards. It doesn't matter who plays Gathering of Angels because the ability BECOMES part of the card. (See Windows of Narrow Light vs Gained Abilities).
Case in point, if I use my special ability to place a card on a character, it only activates from my perspective.
-
Wwwwwwwwhy would the blocking player not get to use the card when the ability specifically says "blocking player may add the character to battle"?
Also, how does a placed card not work the next time, for example, the Hero enters battle, when all that needs to happen is the Hero enters battle?
-
Wwwwwwwwhy would the blocking player not get to use the card when the ability specifically says "blocking player may add the character to battle"?
Also, how does a placed card not work the next time, for example, the Hero enters battle, when all that needs to happen is the Hero enters battle?
The character he is adding to battle is a placed card. It is read from the owner's perspective according to the current ruling.
I don't quite understand the second question.
-
Wwwwwwwwhy would the blocking player not get to use the card when the ability specifically says "blocking player may add the character to battle"?
Also, how does a placed card not work the next time, for example, the Hero enters battle, when all that needs to happen is the Hero enters battle?
The character he is adding to battle is a placed card. It is read from the owner's perspective according to the current ruling.
Darkness still has nothing to do with this. There is no triggered ability that specifies when it activates. When a character enters battle, its ability is used by the player who controls it at that point. Simple.
Triggered abilities are very different creatures.
-
The character he is adding to battle is a placed card. It is read from the owner's perspective according to the current ruling.
Yes, and from the owner's perspective, he can reveal the card if he chooses, and the blocking player can add it to battle if they choose. I do not see how the perspective makes this not work.
The second question is: what, for example, Enhancement placed by Agur would not work when read from the owner's perspective?
-
The character he is adding to battle is a placed card. It is read from the owner's perspective according to the current ruling.
Darkness still has nothing to do with this. There is no triggered ability that specifies when it activates. When a character enters battle, its ability is used by the player who controls it at that point. Simple.
Triggered abilities are very different creatures.
This is pretty much the logic I used in the other thread to explain the Agur example.
The character he is adding to battle is a placed card. It is read from the owner's perspective according to the current ruling.
Yes, and from the owner's perspective, he can reveal the card if he chooses, and the blocking player can add it to battle if they choose. I do not see how the perspective makes this not work.
The second question is: what, for example, Enhancement placed by Agur would not work when read from the owner's perspective?
Based on the ruling, the placed card, which is the evil character, is read from the owner's perspective. The Darkness is read from the owner's perspective but not due to the place rule but rather by game rule for activating fortresses.
As to the second question, according to the discussion I had with Polarius, pretty much all of them if I force my opponent to fight with the hero that is holding the placed enhancement.
-
Based on the ruling, the placed card, which is the evil character, is read from the owner's perspective.
The ruling refers to cards that have a "place" ability on them, and addresses cards that place themselves somewhere other than your territory. The Darkness is not impacted the way you claim.
As to the second question, according to the discussion I had with Polarius, pretty much all of them if I force my opponent to fight with the hero that is holding the placed enhancement.
The place ability says that when the Hero enters battle, the card takes effect. If it's my Hero and I read from my perspective, the Hero enters battle and the card takes effect. If it's your Hero and I read the card from your perspective, the Hero enters battle and the card takes effect. The wording of the place ability is the same from both perspectives.
-
The second question is: what, for example, Enhancement placed by Agur would not work when read from the owner's perspective?
Since it doesn't work, and I thought of it on my own as well (you can ask Rawrlolsauce), and it's been posted on here before... I believe he is trying trying to place ANB on one of his heroes while he has Nazareth out, and then choose the rescuer to clear the opponents side of the field. That's really the only combo I can think of that relies on forced placing.
-
I'm not sure why that would not work.
-
Because, ANB is read from the perspective of the player who placed it.
Nazareth protects you from abilities used by the opponent. In this case, ANB is triggered by the player who has Nazareth, and therefore shuffles in his cards as well.
-
Because, ANB is read from the perspective of the player who placed it.
This does not make sense. Can anyone point me to the location of this ruling and its exact wording? Cause I can't find it anywhere in the rules or REG or official ruling threads, I can only find references to it by other players.
-
Oh good. STAMP and I have moral support from somebody with sway. Woo-hoo! ;D
-
Because, ANB is read from the perspective of the player who placed it.
This does not make sense. Can anyone point me to the location of this ruling and its exact wording? Cause I can't find it anywhere in the rules or REG or official ruling threads, I can only find references to it by other players.
Oh good. STAMP and I have moral support from somebody with sway. Woo-hoo! ;D
Agreed. :) GO SCHAEF!!
-
Well, I think the root of this problem is a misunderstanding of what's supposed to happen. Without the actual rule in question, I can't make a proper assessment, but right now it's a coin flip about whether someone telephoned the rule into something different, or if the rule was worded with self-placing cards in mind and has been applied outside its original scope.
Bottom line, I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty Darkness et al are not supposed to be played the way they are presented here, and this just got taken down a rabbit hole somehow.
-
The second question is: what, for example, Enhancement placed by Agur would not work when read from the owner's perspective?
Since it doesn't work, and I thought of it on my own as well (you can ask Rawrlolsauce), and it's been posted on here before... I believe he is trying trying to place ANB on one of his heroes while he has Nazareth out, and then choose the rescuer to clear the opponents side of the field. That's really the only combo I can think of that relies on forced placing.
Don't forget having Rain Becomes Dust active
-
Well, I think the root of this problem is a misunderstanding of what's supposed to happen. Without the actual rule in question, I can't make a proper assessment, but right now it's a coin flip about whether someone telephoned the rule into something different, or if the rule was worded with self-placing cards in mind and has been applied outside its original scope.
Bottom line, I can tell you with a fair degree of certainty Darkness et al are not supposed to be played the way they are presented here, and this just got taken down a rabbit hole somehow.
The way I presented was based on what I heard. I thought the way the ruling was being applied carte blanche to all place-type cards was wrong, and so I used the misinterpretation to show how ridiculous it was by showing what would happen to The Darkness.
Schaef, I think I've passed the baton to exactly the right person. Thanks! :)
-
I know for a fact I've heard from several people that said the ANB placed combo doesn't work. So... I guess now we just wait on some other officials to come in and make a final ruling on this.
-
What is the reason for this? I know you say it doesn't work; what I said was that I didn't see the reason why.
-
The reason I heard was that since the triggered ability belongs to you, the card activates as YOUR card. Theres no game rule that allows the card to stay there. It's being held there by your card, and it's activation is triggered by your card. Therefore, there is no reason for it ever to go into your opponents control. Its not part of the hero, its just following it.
If I band to your hero with D Sin placed on it, does D Sin automatically negate my forts until the end of the phase? no. Its still YOUR card, being held there by YOUR ability.
Weapons are placed by game rule. There is no special ability holding them there, so they just become part of the character. This is why opponents can use weapons on your characters.
-
The reason I heard was that since the triggered ability belongs to you, the card activates as YOUR card.
Yeah, but what triggered ability, the one associated with the place ability, or the one on a completely different card? I'll expand on this below.
Theres no game rule that allows the card to stay there. It's being held there by your card, and it's activation is triggered by your card.
If this was the case, then the Enhancement just wouldn't activate at all, for two reasons: 1). you can only play cards that match your character, and you can't match a good Enhancement if you are blocking, and 2). you can only play cards on your side of a battle. So an Enhancement of yours that activates on the other side is complete nonsense anyway.
I am still of the mindset that this was meant to apply to how the effect of the placement is carried out.
-
I'll go try to dig up the thread where at least one elder shot the combo down. I cringe to think it may have just been SirNobody, but I can't help remembering Alstad confirmed it.
*EDIT* Here's SirNobody: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=23304.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=23304.0) Still trying to find the earlier thread.
-
I definitely need more than that.
I went back into the discussion archives and found an instance of Tim asking about this but a). there wasn't a detailed discussion with a consensus reached and b). all of the examples given were (exactly as I supposed) cards with an ability that place THEMSELVES somewhere and have a continuing effect.
I am still waiting to see any kind of an official, confirmed ruling on this for analysis.
-
Hopefully this was just one big misunderstanding. ;D
-
Agur: You may place an O.T. Enhancement from hand (or discard pile if Book of the Law is active) on a human Hero of matching brigade in your territory. The next time that Hero enters battle, that Enhancement activates and is discarded immediately.
If this was the case, then the Enhancement just wouldn't activate at all, for two reasons: 1). you can only play cards that match your character, and you can't match a good Enhancement if you are blocking
"You may place an OT Enh... on a human Hero of matching brigade in your territory." That clears up the brigade issue
2). you can only play cards on your side of a battle. So an Enhancement of yours that activates on the other side is complete nonsense anyway.
"The next time that Hero enters battle, that Enhancement activates and is discarded immediately." That clears up the activation issue.
I am controlling the card that TELLS the enhancement to activate. The opponent has NO control over Agur in this situation, so the trigger is always going to be read from MY perspective.
I'm not PLAYING any good enhancements while blocking, but rather, my good enhancement is activated by a trigger I set on a previous turn.
-
Hmm. I could have sworn that the errata started with "you may". Still seems like it should.
-
"You may place an OT Enh... on a human Hero of matching brigade in your territory." That clears up the brigade issue
No, it doesn't. If you're blocking, you're not using a good Enhancement on a good Hero. Placing on a prior turn doesn't relate to what I said about activating on the current turn. You're still breaking the brigade match rule for Enhancements played in battle if you're the blocker. For example, just because a card says I can band to an apostle does not mean I can add an evil Judas to a group of rescuing Heroes.
"The next time that Hero enters battle, that Enhancement activates and is discarded immediately." That clears up the activation issue.
No, it doesn't, because the issue is activating on the OTHER SIDE of the battle, which you cannot do. That is not addressed by the mere fact that the ability is instructed to activate. If an opponent bands my character into battle, I don't get the activation just by owning the card, and if I play Siege, I don't get to use the effects of all the characters that get banded in on the opposing side.
I'm not PLAYING any good enhancements while blocking, but rather, my good enhancement is activated by a trigger I set on a previous turn.
If that is your argument, then there is nothing saying the good Enhancement is also read from your perspective, because you have reduced it to just the trigger.
-
I play Sowing the Seed on my opponents evil character, then band to that character. My opponent plays Plague of Flies which results in their evil character going under */0. Am I now not allowed to use the rest of MY Sowing The Seed's ability, because I'm controlling evil characters in battle, so therefore I'm NEVER allowed to use good enhancements in any way shape or form?
Both are delayed triggers. I'm not PLAYING either, but both are still considered my cards, and therefore work from my perspective.
Name me any example of a card placed on a character by SPECIAL ABILITY (meaning, no WC enhs) that activates from the opponents point of view when they control said character in battle.
-
Am I now not allowed to use the rest of MY Sowing The Seed's ability, because I'm controlling evil characters in battle, so therefore I'm NEVER allowed to use good enhancements in any way shape or form?
Are you doing a new activation of Sowing the Seed on a character in battle? Or are you simply applying a continuing effect that is already active?
Name me any example of a card placed on a character by SPECIAL ABILITY (meaning, no WC enhs) that activates from the opponents point of view when they control said character in battle.
An Agur'd Enhancement banded in on the other side. Your disagreement with this is probably going to be based on that "placed cards are read from owner's perspective" "rule". Which brings me back to the only thing I have specifically and repeatedly asked for in this thread: WHERE is that rule, WHO made it, and WHAT is the wording and context?
By contrast, can you name an Enhancement you're supposed to read from your perspective, that is not a continuing effect that you already activated on your own side first?
-
Are you doing a new activation of Sowing the Seed on a character in battle? Or are you simply applying a continuing effect that is already active?
In both cases, I am doing the latter.
Sowing the Seed has already activated, and now has a continuing effect that I get to apply when the condition is met.
Agur has already activated, and now has a continuing effect that I get to apply when the condition is met.
Name me any example of a card placed on a character by SPECIAL ABILITY (meaning, no WC enhs) that activates from the opponents point of view when they control said character in battle.
An Agur'd Enhancement banded in on the other side.
Using the current example that is being argued over doesn't work.
-
Agur has already activated, and now has a continuing effect that I get to apply when the condition is met.
So what if Agur is taken out of play? What happens in the next phase?
There are many holes in the logic of the mysterious rule.
-
I'll agree that ability is strange in how it works, but regardless, it was MY ability that placed the card there, and MY ability that lets the enhancement activate.
-
I'll agree that ability is strange in how it works, but regardless, it was MY ability that placed the card there, and MY ability that lets the enhancement activate.
It's MY ability that a set-aside puts on a character. Why does my opponent get to use it if they use that character?
-
Because gained abilities are PART of a character until they are removed from play. They are added to characters by game rule.
My enhancement thats chilling on my dude is NOT part of the character. Its latched on to the character by my ability. There is no game rule that allows the enhancement to be there in the first place.
-
I'll agree that ability is strange in how it works, but regardless, it was MY ability that placed the card there, and MY ability that lets the enhancement activate.
I agree. Your ability placed the card. Your ability activated the Enhancement. But the effect of the Enhancement (which is not the same thing as the effect of the place ability) is based on the way it is played. Or are you arguing that you get to use all the effects on both sides of a side battle? Or that you get to use all the effects of your opponent's banded Heroes with Siege?
-
I'll agree that ability is strange in how it works, but regardless, it was MY ability that placed the card there, and MY ability that lets the enhancement activate.
I agree. Your ability placed the card. Your ability activated the Enhancement. But the effect of the Enhancement (which is not the same thing as the effect of the placed card) is based on the way it is played. Or are you arguing that you get to use all the effects on both sides of a side battle? Or that you get to use all the effects of your opponent's banded Heroes with Siege?
Not at all. Seige is a band ability, and banding has VERY specific rules regarding opponents heroes. There is no delayed trigger for abilities in Siege. I just say, Okay, you can add all your guys to battle.
I'm simply arguing that I get to complete my delayed trigger when the condition is met. Heres a related question for you. If I use Agur to place an enhancement on my dude, and then my opponent uses Gold Shield to change that hero's brigade. When I make a Rescue Attempt with that hero, does the placed enhancement still get to activate?
I say yes. It's not being played on the character, so therefore it does not need to follow the rules of initiative or brigade. It simply requires a brigade match for Agur to place it there, but once its there, its free to activate as soon as that trigger is met, REGARDLESS of other factors such as who controls the hero and what brigade he is.
Your argument is like saying Melchazedek's Blessing placed on a non-teal hero would fizzle once that hero it's placed on enters battle, because there is a brigade mismatch:
Place on any O.T. human Hero in a territory or set-aside area. While this card remains, Hero is protected from discard abilities, and each time that Hero enters battle, holder may draw a card.
-
Not at all. Seige is a band ability, and banding has VERY specific rules regarding opponents heroes. There is no delayed trigger for abilities in Siege. I just say, Okay, you can add all your guys to battle.
The delay should not matter: it is MY ABILITY that brings your character into battle, so I should get to use the effect.
If I use Agur to place an enhancement on my dude, and then my opponent uses Gold Shield to change that hero's brigade. When I make a Rescue Attempt with that hero, does the placed enhancement still get to activate?
No. Being unable to activate on a matching character, it fizzles and does nothing. This is no different than doing an interrupt-the-battle and convert to stop a battle winner.
Your argument is like saying Melchazedek's Blessing placed on a non-teal hero would fizzle once that hero it's placed on enters battle, because there is a brigade mismatch:
That is not a new activation of a card. That is a triggered, continuing effect of a card already activated. So no, my argument is nothing like that at all.
-
Well, I now understand your point of view, though I disagree with it. Arguing continuously will be pointless now, since we would just be going in circles. I'll step back and see what others say. If I end up being completely outnumbered, cool, we get a fun combo back. If others agree with me, then let the argument resume.
-
Well, I now understand your point of view, though I disagree with it.
Can you give me reasons that you think my reasoning is incorrect? The evidence I've provided shows all of the problems that arise from adopting the alternative, so what would make that reasoning correct and mine incorrect?
And yet again, can ANYONE tell me where this ruling exists? Or has everyone just heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy?
-
Polarus already did on page 2:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=23304.msg366214#msg366214 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=23304.msg366214#msg366214)
And I disagree with it because I do not see the enhancement activating under any typical game rules. Its activating via special ability. My reason for this view is the fact that Agur and Co. all SPECIFY that it has to be an enhancement of matching brigade. If they are indeed just a "triggered playing of an enhancement" that follow game rules, that clarification wouldn't even need to be there, since only matching brigade enhancements would work at all.
-
Polarus already did on page 2:
If we're discussing already's, can you look at my post immediately after that in which I "already" said that there is no reference to a rule in that post, and no corroboration of that post by any other official document or elder?
And I disagree with it because I do not see the enhancement activating under any typical game rules. Its activating via special ability.
All the counter-examples I gave you are activating via special ability.
If they are indeed just a "triggered playing of an enhancement" that follow game rules, that clarification wouldn't even need to be there, since only matching brigade enhancements would work at all.
If you accept this logic, then you have to accept that the match is because it is being played on a character controlled by your opponent, therefore your opponent gets the effect. The effect is tied to the activation, the activation is tied to the brigade match, and the brigade match establishes the opponent is playing the card, because you cannot play cards onto an opposing side of the battle.
-
The effect is tied to the activation, the activation is tied to the brigade match, and the brigade match establishes the opponent is playing the card, because you cannot play cards onto an opposing side of the battle.
This is where we disagree. I see it as the following:
The effect is tied to the activation, the activation is tied to the Trigger on Agur, and the trigger on Agur establishes that the enhancement is played from my perspective, because I'm not "playing" a good enhancement.
I guess this boils down the the whole "Playce" issue again. Place vs Play.
Now, off to class I go.
-
so are we supposed to disregard an elders input on a ruling question if they have not cited a source?
-
"The effect is tied to the activation, the activation is tied to the Trigger on Agur, and the trigger on Agur establishes that the enhancement is played from my perspective, because I'm not "playing" a good enhancement."
Agur's place ability is played from your perspective. The fact that the Enhancement activates happens regardless. There is nothing there that says you control the effect of the Enhancement once it activates. Just like all the examples I gave where you can cause something to activate but the opponent gets the effect.
so are we supposed to disregard an elders input on a ruling question if they have not cited a source?
Is this question supposed to be some kind of logic trap? Or is there something here with which you specifically disagree and you do not think I can support with the facts?
-
so are we supposed to disregard an elders input on a ruling question if they have not cited a source?
Never. Our word is law.
;)
-
Is this question supposed to be some kind of logic trap? Or is there something here with which you specifically disagree and you do not think I can support with the facts?
so touchy. no, i was wondering if you thought sirnobodys input in that thread was not considered a ruling because he did not provide a reference to an actual existing rule or document, nor had backup from another elder.
-
so touchy. no, i was wondering if you thought sirnobodys input in that thread was not considered a ruling because he did not provide a reference to an actual existing rule or document, nor had backup from another elder.
I have posted exactly what I have found regarding this rule, which is nothing. I cannot find a reference to it in the rules, I cannot find a posting of an official ruling, I cannot find corroboration from other elders, and the only thing I found "in the back" was a discussion begun but never expanded, and which only addressed the continuing effects of cards that place themselves, e.g. pale green Panic Demon.
I am not saying to utterly disregard a post by someone if they don't have a citation included. But I have always said to corroborate my rulings with the rules or with other elders to confirm. And I think you see the wisdom in establishing corroboration, lest I go back in the forums, grab every post I ever made about something on which a). I corrected myself, b). someone else corrected me, or c). the rule changed after the fact, and then start telling people they should rule (incorrectly) based on that post, because an elder said it.
What I have said, clearly and repeatedly, is that I believe this rule is intended to apply to the effects coinciding with the place ability itself, and not the effects of other cards that activate later as a consequence of the placement. In order to get to the truth of this, I have been trying to find the origins of this rule, who said it, what the exact wording was, and why it was made. I'm sure you will also agree that having more and better information will give us better solutions. But since that information is still lacking, I can only say I think this idea is being applied outside its intended scope, but I have no ability to determine what that scope IS so we can get the right answer.
-
im pretty sure most people on the boards are under the impression that input provided by an elder regarding a ruling question is an official ruling unless a different elder chimes in and disagrees. so because of that thread, i think thats why everyone believes its an official ruling.
-
That does not coincide with this statement by Rob:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=21428.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=21428.0)
To help resolve ruling issues, the following people have authority to making rulings in the game. If at least two people on the list rule on an issue it can be read with a higher degree of confidence. Also, if one of these Elders post a ruling and states that the ruling was reached by consensus it can be understood to settle an issue.
There is no citing of an official rule apart from his statement, there is no second, concurring opinion, and there is no statement of consensus. It could be interpreted on its face as a ruling made official by his title and left at that, but it meets none of the criteria for "high degree of confidence" and it now has the one thing you said would cause people to question it: a dissenting opinion from an elder.
I don't even know if I can call it a dissent, because it might just be a ruling that was initially correct but is now being applied incorrectly. The point is, without that history, I CAN'T KNOW. And without any corroboration, we cannot assign it a high degree of confidence and call it a settled issue. And therefore, it is more difficult for me to provide you with correct information.
-
so how are we supposed to treat elder input of this fashion? if an elder answers a rulings question with no citing of an official rule, no 2nd concurring elder, and no statement of consensus, are we supposed to treat it as a ruling or not?
-
You're welcome to treat it as it suits you. I think it's clear that at least one additional source is at least encouraged, and on a personal level I have always strongly recommended it. But I don't consider myself in a position to state the official level to which a ruling should be discounted for lack of evidence.
-
i think thats what most of us are confused about. i initially also had put more merit towards an elder's input that also provided one of the 3 criterias listed by rob, but there has lately been a common mindset that it is considered an official ruling even if an elder gives input without any of the 3. a clearly defined level between what is considered an official elder ruling and what is not would be nice.
-
don't those criteria give you that clearly defined level, and the issue here is that weight is just being given to stuff that falls outside that level?
-
I would say that there are several levels of confidence in a forum ruling really. I would say that you should assume that all of these are correct, unless there is another thread with a different ruling that is either of equal weight and is more recent, or is of higher weight.
Level 1 - you find a thread where there are several posts, including rulings from some REPs ("real experienced players") that agree, but no elder input.
Level 2 - you find a thread where there is 1 elder alone who supports a ruling with no dissension from other elders.
Level 3 - you find a thread where there are 2 or more elders who agree.
Level 4 - you find a thread where Rob posts a ruling.
-
don't those criteria give you that clearly defined level, and the issue here is that weight is just being given to stuff that falls outside that level?
thats what i've been asking...is an elder input with at least one of the 3 an official ruling, and elder input without at least one of the 3 an unofficial ruling?
Level 2 - you find a thread where there is 1 elder alone who supports a ruling with no dissension from other elders.
so would sirnobodys input in that thread fall under level 2 then?
-
Level 5- God Himself makes a ruling.
-
That was my impression but I can't speak to a "common mindset" and I can't run the boards trying to divine all the right answers. I'm really only looking for one thing in this thread and I don't want to get too far down a rabbit hole from this: is there some kind of history or other input on this issue, so that I'm not forced to assume this entire thing is just based on one post in the wild?
If there is nothing else, then that unto itself is a significant issue with this ruling that needs to be addressed, but either way, I think there is something clearly wrong with either the logic underpinning the ruling, or in the way it is being applied in certain situations. Again, I'm in the dark as to which.
-
When finally ruled upon, I believe the ruling will once again fall under- Works, but we can't allow it due to going against Fun/Fellowship rule. "Giving" your opponents hero's the ability to discard all evil cards in thier hand or beginning a new turn with no hand will be frowned upon. So now some new rule or an interpretation thereof, will be implemented- im sure. If not, (angel sings) HALLELUJAH! I will try to remake my version from teal/purple to teal/green with less uniques than before.
-
Level 2 - you find a thread where there is 1 elder alone who supports a ruling with no dissension from other elders
so would sirnobodys input in that thread fall under level 2 then?
Yes, and this thread is both more current, and also has more elder input, so I would say that whatever the outcome of this thread ends up being, that it will supersede that older thread.
-
I'm not clear on how either ANB or Nazareth requires people to discard evil cards in their hand or render them unable to draw cards.
-
You force them to play ANB while you have nazereth and Rain Becomes Dust out. Since Nazareth protects your RBD from being shuffled, it reveals and discards the 8 cards your opponent draws. So they now have no hand, and no territory.
-
Also giving you nothing to do on your turn. And they draw three when they begin the new turn.
-
Also giving you nothing to do on your turn.
How's that? When my turn comes around, after their ANB turn, I have a full territory and hand with which to do something.
And they draw three when they begin the new turn.
Which leaves their three cards vs. my fully armed and operational territory and hand. Odds are weighted pretty heavily in my favor.
-
They should just reprint ANB to blue (it's Genesis, after all) and fix the ability so they won't have to errata it anymore....
-
How's that? When my turn comes around, after their ANB turn, I have a full territory and hand with which to do something.
Like what? I have no characters to attack, no Lost Souls to rescue, no Artifacts to burn... what do you do against an empty territory but discard and pass your turn? Not a whole lot.
Which leaves their three cards vs. my fully armed and operational territory and hand. Odds are weighted pretty heavily in my favor.
I have a two-card combo that would essentially waste your efforts, using a card many people here have said is useless.
-
What if you add thorns to it? :O! Not to mention something like Hoppers, HTs, ....
It will also take you several turns to become un-crippled, several turns where you might draw souls.
-
Gathered Strengthening Angel, band to his character when he Agur's it, you remove the card from the game, keep your hand, RBD does nothing, and under the old rules you would start your new turn with as much as 22 cards in hand. Now it's just whatever is the current hand limit.
-
Gathered Strengthening Angel, band to his character when he Agur's it, you remove the card from the game, keep your hand, RBD does nothing, and under the old rules you would start your new turn with as much as 22 cards in hand. Now it's just whatever is the current hand limit.
... how would strengthening angel give you a 22 card hand?
"Protect cards in your hand and deck from discard by opponent. Increase your human Heroes by 1/1. Cannot be prevented."
Also, you'd have to KNOW ahead of time that they were even using that deck. Strengthening Angel is not my first choice
Plus, your entire territory is still wiped, while i get to keep EVERYTHING in my territory by forcing you to use ANB.
-
My bad, I was looking at an earlier edit of the card that had more protection. Point is, there are cards out there that protect from one thing or the other. Plus, Agur telegraphs the play and the EC needs initiative (and in the current meta, even getting to block is not a sure thing.
And what people are neglecting here is that between Agur, ANB, Nazareth, a green Hero, a choose-rescuer card and an EC to play it on, you're talking about a six-card combo without even including RBD or some other card designed to punish you for the use of ANB. Six cards in a combo is six potential points of failure. Plenty of anti-Site stuff out there, anti-Artifact stuff, etc that can take out any one piece of this puzzle and you're done. Shoot, I could even take Nazareth AND the ANB'd Hero and turn your own plan against you.
If I'm going to line up a six-card combo, I'd take the one that allows me to block your rescue, destroy all your Evil Characters and deny you the Lost Soul, cannot be negated.
-
My bad, I was looking at an earlier edit of the card that had more protection. Point is, there are cards out there that protect from one thing or the other. Plus, Agur telegraphs the play and the EC needs initiative (and in the current meta, even getting to block is not a sure thing.
And what people are neglecting here is that between Agur, ANB, Nazareth, a green Hero, a choose-rescuer card and an EC to play it on, you're talking about a six-card combo without even including RBD or some other card designed to punish you for the use of ANB. Six cards in a combo is six potential points of failure. Plenty of anti-Site stuff out there, anti-Artifact stuff, etc that can take out any one piece of this puzzle and you're done. Shoot, I could even take Nazareth AND the ANB'd Hero and turn your own plan against you.
If I'm going to line up a six-card combo, I'd take the one that allows me to block your rescue, destroy all your Evil Characters and deny you the Lost Soul, cannot be negated.
I'll take that ridiculous 6-card combo if it can provide a Brut slap to my testes-less ANB Type 2 deck. :P
-
How's that? When my turn comes around, after their ANB turn, I have a full territory and hand with which to do something.
Like what? I have no characters to attack, no Lost Souls to rescue, no Artifacts to burn... what do you do against an empty territory but discard and pass your turn? Not a whole lot.
FWIW, there is a fairly high probability you'll have LS's to rescue. RBD doesn't stop you from getting LS's in your territory, so unless there are no LS's in your top 11 cards, then I can attack, and have an extremely good chance of rescuing, unless your three cards are especially helpful. The Thorns LS would also stop your LS from being shuffled in the first place, so adding that would almost assure me at least 1 successful rescue.
I am fairly certain that if someone were to pull off such a combo, their opponent would have a low chance of coming back from it.
Also, I don't see why CtR is necessary. Unless I'm missing something, Rehoboam would be far more effective, especially since Gates of Jerusalem allows him to be CBN and protected.
-
FWIW, there is a fairly high probability you'll have LS's to rescue.
I consider there to be a very high level of variance in the availability of Lost Souls because of the great number of factors that can affect that number.
The Thorns LS would also stop your LS from being shuffled in the first place, so adding that would almost assure me at least 1 successful rescue.
And only makes the combo one card larger. I'm sure I could come up with a dozen different combos that would be unstoppable by opponents if I were allowed to use ten cards to do it.
Also, I don't see why CtR is necessary. Unless I'm missing something, Rehoboam would be far more effective, especially since Gates of Jerusalem allows him to be CBN and protected.
Choose the rescuer is the scenario that was presented to me; don't hold me responsible for the parameters that were provided to me for this discussion, I am only abiding by them. Besides, Rehoboam plus Gates is the same number of cards as EC plus e.g. Lies, so if we include RBD and now Thorns LS, we're still looking at what is now a seven-card combo.
-
The thing is, it won't be that hard to get those 7 cards out by mid game. I'll have multiple copies of each, and the only ones that really need to stay in my hand would be the CtR and ANB.
-
ANB can't stay in your hand if it needs to be placed on the Hero. And a seven card combo is still a seven card combo. If I rescue or even bury your Thorns soul, you're done. If I DoN your RDB Artifact, you're done. If I play Land Grab and take your Nazareth, suddenly you're faced with the threat of me pulling your own trick against you by banding in your Hero on purpose. Again, aside from having to go and actually draw them, every card in a combo is a potential point of failure.
And all of this is only going to how likely this one specific combo is and how damaging it will or won't be. That really has nothing to do with how the cards work, or where the ruling in question came from.
-
I meant CtR and ANB are the only ones that need to take up hand space until I'm ready to pull off the combo. Also, keep in mind, this combo is more aimed for t2.
If you want to waste your Burial, or if you're able to rescue the both copies of thorns (or pigs if I want it instead of RBD), congrats. The combo is still going to work. If you want to waste your DoN, assuming I don't have lamp up, on one of my three RBDs, congrats. If you want to waste your Benedictus (assuming I get CP up) and Land Dispute, fantastic.
The thing is, you'll be "wasting" more cards countering this combo then I'll be trying to pull it off. Even if you do manage to stop it, it isn't like those card are totally a waste. Sure, ANB won't be doing what I want it to, but it is still a fantastic enhancement to use. I might be disappointed in Nazareth, but it is still protecting me. The only card that I would view as a "waste" at that point would be the CtR.
-
If you want to waste your Burial, or if you're able to rescue the both copies of thorns (or pigs if I want it instead of RBD), congrats. The combo is still going to work. If you want to waste your DoN, assuming I don't have lamp up, on one of my three RBDs, congrats. If you want to waste your Benedictus (assuming I get CP up) and Land Dispute, fantastic.
So now you have Lampstand up as well? I assume also a Temple to hold it. So now you have nine cards in your combo. Ten with CP. How many more cards you want to add so that somehow I magically can't do anything to stop you?
Now ponder this: I can spend a Burial to take one of my Lost Souls out of your reach, or I can use it to stop you from having free access to three or four or more that I have out right now. Are you telling me I'm making a poor tactical choice?
The thing is, you'll be "wasting" more cards countering this combo then I'll be trying to pull it off.
I don't see how this is the case. If all of these cards are required to decimate my deck, then I only need to stop one card to stop you from doing it. And I really don't know why stealing your Nazareth, the lynchpin of your ANB combo and something that can be used to devastate you instead of me, is such a meaningless defense that it deserves the kind of sarcasm you're delivering.
-
"So now you have Lampstand up as well? I assume also a Temple to hold it. So now you have nine cards in your combo. Ten with CP. How many more cards you want to add so that somehow I magically can't do anything to stop you?"
You're acting as if these cards are put in for the sole of pulling off the combo. How many of these cards would go in a typical ANB reset deck? Thorns, ANB, Heroes, and ECs would go in every one. Nazareth, CP, Lampy, and RBD go in many. Realistically, I'll only be changing a few cards in my deck so it has this combo.
"Now ponder this: I can spend a Burial to take one of my Lost Souls out of your reach, or I can use it to stop you from having free access to three or four or more that I have out right now. Are you telling me I'm making a poor tactical choice?"
No, but I'll have more than one copy of Thorns. Moreso, Thorns isn't needed. Sure, I might not have access to as many souls if I pull it off, but I'll still be several turns more advanced than you. I'll get to decide the pace of the game.
"I don't see how this is the case. If all of these cards are required to decimate my deck, then I only need to stop one card to stop you from doing it. "
If you stop Thorns, you're still in a massive hole you're going to struggle to get out of. If you want to steal all my copies of Nazareth, you just used half your hand and I very well could have a way to get them back. Sure, you stopped me, but by stopping me I'm at a card advantage.
"And I really don't know why stealing your Nazareth, the lynchpin of your ANB combo and something that can be used to devastate you instead of me, is such a meaningless defense that it deserves the kind of sarcasm you're delivering.""
How do you do this? You take my Nazareth (all copies). Are you going to choose the rescuer? That isn't exactly a card that would go in a typical deck. If I have a feeling you're playing Complainers or something, I'm not going to place ANB until I feel safe.
-
You're acting as if these cards are put in for the sole of pulling off the combo.
No, I'm not. I'm assuming that you need them in order to pull off this combo. Since the combo is the primary example regarding some nebulous quasi-ruling, is there some kind of reason I'm supposed to care about what else you might be using these cards for?
No, but I'll have more than one copy of Thorns. Moreso, Thorns isn't needed. Sure, I might not have access to as many souls if I pull it off, but I'll still be several turns more advanced than you. I'll get to decide the pace of the game.
There are a lot of ways to "decide the pace of the game". If I play a speed deck and get all the cards I need before you get half yours, then I'm deciding the pace of the game.
Sure, you stopped me, but by stopping me I'm at a card advantage.
So here's where I don't understand your logic: you accuse me of assuming that you'll be dedicating all your resources to pulling off just this one combo, and yet it doesn't occur to you that taking out some of these cards has additional benefits to me as well? Shouldn't that work both ways? So isn't that really just a wash?
You take my Nazareth (all copies). Are you going to choose the rescuer?
I don't need to choose the rescuer. If you use the card, you're toast. If you don't use the card, then you're not affecting me with it anyway, so why would I care?
And you're still staying away from the main point of where this ruling came from or whether it's being applied correctly. The viability of this one combo is not really all that related to whether this rule a). is legitimate, b). has a history, c). is applied in the way people are saying
-
OK, OK. Sheaf is correct. Its not a reliable combo. As a matter of fact, nothing to worry about. Everyone get on this side of the argument so we can get this ruling where it needs to be... ;D
BTW I think ANB should stay green and we should create a new Noah to go with it.
-
That's really not what I'm saying, but I'd like to at least get back to the ruling at some point and not be down this rabbit hole all weekend.
-
any word on this yet?
-
Nothing is being discussed anywhere but here.
-
We've got one Elder that says it works and one Elder that says it doesn't work, and it's not being discussed? Do you guys even care that there are like five huge game-affecting rulings that we have no word on how to play right now?
-
We've got one Elder that says it works and one Elder that says it doesn't work, and it's not being discussed? Do you guys even care that there are like five huge game-affecting rulings that we have no word on how to play right now?
I would like to know what these 5 HUGE rulings are. I've been trying to get resolution on important rulings and have felt like we've been doing a better job of that. As for this particular thread, I assumed that the elders discussing here would come up with their conclusion here.
-
They haven't and the discussion has stopped.
1. Whether placed cards are read from placers perspective or not.
2. The definition of "played/plays."
3. The definition of "defeats/defeated/blocks/is successful/etc."
4. Whether DNA can save a Job being Discarded from itself by DD.
5. Whether "opponent may/must" cards target cards or allow for conditions that the opponent may/must take.
-
1. Whether placed cards are read from placers perspective or not.
2. The definition of "played/plays."
3. The definition of "defeats/defeated/blocks/is successful/etc."
4. Whether DNA can save a Job being Discarded from itself by DD.
5. Whether "opponent may/must" cards target cards or allow for conditions that the opponent may/must take.
I'll have to get back on some of these, but I can tell you off the top of my head that the answer to #4 is "Yes". Dust & Ashes DOES protect Job even when he is set aside in Dust & Ashes.
-
No it doesn't, Job isn't in play and DNA does not specify "your Job in play or set-aside." So if it does work anyway, you're going to need to explain why.
-
I didn't realize #5 was an issue. Opponent gets to choose the target of the effect, and "may" gives him the option just like may always gives an option. Where does this become problematic or controversial?
And to the best of my knowledge, some 99% of questions regarding #3 are addressed in Battle Resolution rules.
First you determine the outcome: win/lose/stale/mutual
Then you determine success/failure: win/mutual (numbers) means Heroes surviving or being discarded defeat all ECs they faced in battle, and lose/stale/mutual (removal) means ECs surviving or being discarded defeat all Heroes they faced in battle.
If the Hero wins and has access, it's a successful rescue. If the Hero loses the battle or loses access, it's a failed rescue. If the Hero wins with no access, it's a successful battle challenge. If the Hero loses with no access, it's a failed battle challenge. Any situation where the ECs defeat the Heroes is a successful block.
I thought Battle Resolution tied all these up. Where is this ruling still coming up short?
-
No it doesn't, Job isn't in play and DNA does not specify "your Job in play or set-aside." So if it does work anyway, you're going to need to explain why.
This is being discussed and it does work. Just like Prince of the Air can target Chamber of Angels even though it is set aside. A clarifying rule will be forthcoming.
-
No it doesn't, Job isn't in play and DNA does not specify "your Job in play or set-aside." So if it does work anyway, you're going to need to explain why.
This is being discussed and it does work. Just like Prince of the Air can target Chamber of Angels even though it is set aside. A clarifying rule will be forthcoming.
Just a guess at the rule...
If a card specifies a specific card, it can target it both in play and set aside?
-
No it doesn't, Job isn't in play and DNA does not specify "your Job in play or set-aside." So if it does work anyway, you're going to need to explain why.
This is being discussed and it does work. Just like Prince of the Air can target Chamber of Angels even though it is set aside. A clarifying rule will be forthcoming.
Just a guess at the rule...
If a card specifies a specific card, it can target it both in play and set aside?
Why only go that far? If my opponent's revealer reveals a Job at the top of my deck, wouldn't it make sense to put him in Dust & Ashes?
-
Changing the location of a card in a deck is not "harm".
-
Yes it is. In fact, if there were an evil character that said "you may reveal opponent's deck", I'd consider that harm as well ;D.
-
Changing the location of a card in a deck is not "harm".
That's not what's happening. My opponent's card of different alignment is revealing a card in my deck and then placing it at the bottom of my deck. That's harm just as Sin in the Camp is harm.
-
#5 is very much an issue and very much controversial. Have you seen the Goliath thread?
-
Having now read that thread, it seems to me that you have made very much an issue of it and assigned a great deal of controversy to it. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of issue among the other players, and most of the "controversy" seems to be centered more around whether a player's protection disallows him to use "instead" options on a card.
I will have to do some research to find something concrete to support this, but I seem to recall something to the effect that an opponent can't be shut out from taking an option in that fashion.
-
So if protection does not apply when the opponent is the one having to do the action, can my specific questions on cards be addressed? Either Goliath can stop a RA cold if the rescuer has WoP, or the other cards I mentioned would become problematic. There could be an easy fix, but it's not been instituted yet, so don't act like there's no problem.
-
Changing the location of a card in a deck is not "harm".
That's not what's happening. My opponent's card of different alignment is revealing a card in my deck and then placing it at the bottom of my deck. That's harm just as Sin in the Camp is harm.
Not harm. Discarding Job with the deck discard LS would be harm, and he would go to D&A.
-
So...ok, when are you guys going to get your story straight on "harm?" Last I heard it was being affected by a card not of the same alignment.
-
agreed, i believe that would be harm as well.
-
So...ok, when are you guys going to get your story straight on "harm?" Last I heard it was being affected by a card not of the same alignment.
Are you saying that Job and the Deck Discard LS are of the same alignment? One is good. One is neutral.
-
There could be an easy fix, but it's not been instituted yet, so don't act like there's no problem.
I'm not acting like there's no problem. I was questioning the nature and depth of the problem, which I still consider to be of a scope limited enough that your confrontational stance towards the people looking to resolve this issue is not warranted.
I happen to think this particular issue also has a relatively simple solution, but I don't yet have the specific information I need to verify that, so I have not definitively stated anything I could not back up factually. I would think that is the appropriate way to minimize confusion both before and after that resolution is presented.
-
So...ok, when are you guys going to get your story straight on "harm?" Last I heard it was being affected by a card not of the same alignment.
My understanding is that "harm" is targeting a card of a different alignment. Therefore, targeting a card to move it to a different location in the deck would be considered harm if the card that was targeting was of a different alignment.
-
Mine as well, but another elder just said otherwise. And not "I think" or "I believe," but "Not harm." This exhibits an obvious confusion about what harm even means from the elders.
-
Well, since you have an official rule on the matter and numerous elders that are confirming that ruling, I would say there is no "obvious confusion" or need to "get the story straight" apart from one individual.
-
I'm not saying the story isn't straight, I'm saying there should be more cohesion among the elders, and that elders shouldn't state their opinion as fact unless they know they're making the right ruling.
-
And I'm just saying that a sports car might be in order.
-
Well played. I just wish Elders wouldn't post their opinion as if that's the actual ruling when A). a ruling hasn't been officially decided on yet or B). it's wrong.
-
We try Pol, but we are human, too. As for Guardian's last comment that you find so confusing, I went back and read it, and I think it is simply a mistype. He states that the deck discard LS would be "harming" and would send Job to D&A, which is the same thing that all the rest of us elders are saying. I think his first couple words "not harm" are simply a mistype. No reason to break out the pitchforks :)
-
No pitchforks, just a call to be careful what you say on the rulings boards when you're an elder.
-
I have a pitchfork.
-
Then I've got a flaming torch.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhwcdn.themoviedb.org%2Fbackdrops%2F03f%2F4bed9abe017a3c458d00003f%2Fshrek-forever-after-poster.jpg&hash=5fb38dd11e14f274d37b0a2cc156bf3c585c51fd)
-
DODGE THIS!
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FFiery%2520Darts%2520%28BL%29.gif&hash=575f881e985f9894dd8a4fe898b3fe6bbfc7798a)
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mustardmellon.org%2Fimg%2Fnerf%2520dart%2520dodge.jpg&hash=313685d2af6b2e9d89973919a436995484bce278)
-
I know this thread got a little derailed, but I have a few thoughts on the whole "who controls the placed enhancement" thing.
I think that the argument about which player controls the placed enhancement begs the question "why does the placed enhancement work at all?" If Agur's ability simply said "If (condition) then place a good enhancement on a hero" and that was his whole ability, would the enhancement activate when the hero enters battle, no matter who controls him? Is there a game rule that says it would activate? Weapons activate because they can be placed by game rule, but I can't think of anything that would allow the placed enhancement to work. I believe that it is the second part of Agur's ability which allows the enhancement to activate.
The best example to aid my train of thought is Sower. Suppose I attack with Sower and place a Gold enhancement on my opponent's Gomer. Then, because I am an idiot, I use my Holy Grail to convert my opponent's Gomer to Gold brigade. My opponent blocks with a 1/1 king, has inish, and plays an enhancement that causes two heroes to fight. He selects his own converted Gomer to fight another hero. At this point, there is a placed good Gold enhancement on his good Gold hero. Does it activate by game rule? Or does it remain there because Sower's ability says so?
Sower (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 1 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may place a good Enhancement from hand on a human Evil Character. After battle, discard that Enhancement to convert that character to a Hero.
-
From the REG:
Instant Special Abilities > Fortify or Place > Default Conditions
• Cards placed on a character do not reactivate in battle unless the card(s) that placed them specify that they are reactivated in battle.
Sower does not specify that the placed enhancement can activate during battle, whereas a card placed by Agur does. I know that the PtB have tried to be consistent with ruling based on what the rules do address vs. what they do not address. This is an example of both.
-
the enhancement placed by sower would still be discarded after battle because it is the cost (do as much as possible). The true question is if the hero can still be converted to gold...can heros be converted to other brigades? I vote yes.