Please move and discuss this thread on playtesters board

[SomeKittens]

Hmm.  I could have sworn that the errata started with "you may".  Still seems like it should.

[The Schaef]

"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.

[Lamborghini_diablo]

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.

[The Schaef]

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?

[Lamborghini_diablo]

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.

[STAMP]

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.

[Lamborghini_diablo]

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.

[STAMP]

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?

[Lamborghini_diablo]

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.

[The Schaef]

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?

[Lamborghini_diablo]

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.

[The Schaef]

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.

[Lamborghini_diablo]

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.

[The Schaef]

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?

[Lamborghini_diablo]

Polarus already did on page 2:

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.

[The Schaef]

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.

[Lamborghini_diablo]

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.

[Master KChief]

so are we supposed to disregard an elders input on a ruling question if they have not cited a source?

[The Schaef]

"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?

[The Guardian]

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.
 

[Master KChief]

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.

[The Schaef]

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.

[Master KChief]

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.

[The Schaef]

That does not coincide with this statement by Rob:
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.

[Master KChief]

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?