Please move and discuss this thread on playtesters board

[The Schaef]

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.

[Rawrlolsauce!]

"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.

[The Schaef]

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

[RTSmaniac]

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...

BTW I think ANB should stay green and we should create a new Noah to go with it.

[The Schaef]

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.

[RTSmaniac]

any word on this yet?

[Gabe]

Nothing is being discussed anywhere but here.

[Minister Polarius]

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?

[Prof Underwood]

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.

[Minister Polarius]

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.

[Prof Underwood]

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.

[Minister Polarius]

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.

[The Schaef]

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?

[The Guardian]

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.

[Lamborghini_diablo]

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?

[STAMP]

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?

[SomeKittens]

Changing the location of a card in a deck is not "harm".

[Rawrlolsauce!]

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 .

[STAMP]

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.

[Minister Polarius]

#5 is very much an issue and very much controversial. Have you seen the Goliath thread?

[The Schaef]

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.

[Minister Polarius]

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.

[The Guardian]

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.

[Minister Polarius]

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.

[Master KChief]

agreed, i believe that would be harm as well.