Author Topic: Practice for Newer Tournament Judges... (Read 5644 times)

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #25 on:** February 16, 2012, 10:05:59 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 09:50:14 AM

Except that the Play-As actually changes what DoN does, therefore it's disguised as errata, therefore it is disregarded.

I'm a bit tired of all the "disregard play-as" talk here on the forum, and this is definitely a case where it doesn't belong. The Play-As for Destruction of Nehustan IS the correct way to interpret the card. It emphasizes that the discard happens first, which is exactly why Lampstand protects from DoN.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #26 on:** February 16, 2012, 10:41:25 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 16, 2012, 10:05:59 AM

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 09:50:14 AM
Except that the Play-As actually changes what DoN does, therefore it's disguised as errata, therefore it is disregarded.
I'm a bit tired of all the "disregard play-as" talk here on the forum, and this is definitely a case where it doesn't belong. The Play-As for Destruction of Nehustan IS the correct way to interpret the card. It emphasizes that the discard happens first, which is exactly why Lampstand protects from DoN.

That's true, however, that's still not what the card actually does. It's a great way to explain it, and I agree that it puts emphasis in all the right places to make the Lampstand v. DoN ruling easier to understand, but DoN does still have two separate abilities, and thus the play-as is, technically, wrong, if only by the letter of the law.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #27 on:** February 16, 2012, 02:37:18 PM »

The first case of having multiple abilities came in Kings. I don't see how it's two abilities any more than Angry Mob is actually two abilities (which it isn't).

TimMierz · « **Reply #28 on:** February 16, 2012, 02:56:41 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on February 16, 2012, 02:37:18 PM

The first case of having multiple abilities came in Kings.

Four Horns and Lion Dwelling with the Calf say hi.

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #29 on:** February 16, 2012, 03:34:27 PM »

I don't see what is being questioned here anymore. DoN's errata is just a more precise way of saying what the card does. It discards the artifact in order to negate it. The errata: Play As: Discard one Artifact to negate its special ability.
DoN does not say this: Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.
In actuality, it translates, in Redemption language, to this: Discard one Artifact to negate its special ability.
The play as is right, play it as such. DoN came out in Patriarchs! Which is a huge reason as to why errata came into play. Cards made from a decade ago still being vastly played. Rules change, it's not like it's going to mess with them, because you tell them what it does.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #30 on:** February 16, 2012, 03:41:18 PM »

The important thing to note here is that it's not an errata.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #31 on:** February 16, 2012, 03:55:00 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 03:41:18 PM

The important thing to note here is that it's not an errata.

Exactly. It may seem to be the same thing, but it's not. There are slight differences, in that the original wording still negates the art.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #32 on:** February 16, 2012, 04:02:53 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 03:55:00 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 03:41:18 PM
The important thing to note here is that it's not an errata.
Exactly. It may seem to be the same thing, but it's not. There are slight differences, in that the original wording still negates the art.

Wait, what? It is the same thing. DoN does not negate the artifact if it does not discard it. The negate is contingent on the discard, since it says "That artifact's", meaning the artifact you discarded. Thus,

Quote from: Mr.Hiatus on February 16, 2012, 03:34:27 PM

Discard one Artifact to negate its special ability.

Maybe I'm just confused at what you're saying Skittens, but it doesn't seem to be the same thing as Mr. Hiatus, so trying to clarify.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #33 on:** February 16, 2012, 04:33:35 PM »

I've always been told that the negate still works, despite the lack of discard.

lp670sv · « **Reply #34 on:** February 16, 2012, 04:35:16 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 04:33:35 PM

I've always been told that the negate still works, despite the lack of discard.

if that were the case, DoN could hit lampy.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #35 on:** February 16, 2012, 04:36:48 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 04:33:35 PM

I've always been told that the negate still works, despite the lack of discard.

That would not be true based on the original wording and the Play As.

browarod · « **Reply #36 on:** February 16, 2012, 05:08:16 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 04:35:16 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 04:33:35 PM
I've always been told that the negate still works, despite the lack of discard.

if that were the case, DoN could hit lampy.

Actually, no it wouldn't. The discard happens before the negate regardless, so if Kittens was correct (which he isn't), DoN could negate Lampy, just not discard it.

However, I'm pretty sure it was ruled that "Artifact's" is referring back to the artifact you discarded and so if you don't discard anything you also can't negate anything.

lp670sv · « **Reply #37 on:** February 16, 2012, 05:10:07 PM »

I count negating lampy as hitting it.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #38 on:** February 16, 2012, 05:17:03 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 05:10:07 PM

I count negating lampy as hitting it.

Except DoN doesn't negate it. In the second sentence, when DoN says, "artifact is negated," it's referring to the artifact that was just discarded. Lampstand keeps DoN from targeting any cards with the discard, and since no artifact can be targeted with the discard, the negate doesn't target anything either (since the negate specifically targets whatever was just discarded).

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #39 on:** February 16, 2012, 05:45:07 PM »

I do not see the confusion here Skittens!!??!?!? You discard an artifact. The artifact that you discarded is now negated. That's it.

STAMP · « **Reply #40 on:** February 16, 2012, 06:28:40 PM »

It's like laser targeting in the military. If an object can't be targeted with the laser, it can't be targeted by the missile.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #41 on:** February 16, 2012, 06:35:33 PM »

Alright, looks like I was wrong. Fortunately, I've never had to rule on that.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #42 on:** February 16, 2012, 07:58:45 PM »

yeah but i know korunks has wink

lp670sv · « **Reply #43 on:** February 16, 2012, 08:13:54 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 16, 2012, 05:17:03 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on February 16, 2012, 05:10:07 PM
I count negating lampy as hitting it.

Except DoN doesn't negate it. In the second sentence, when DoN says, "artifact is negated," it's referring to the artifact that was just discarded. Lampstand keeps DoN from targeting any cards with the discard, and since no artifact can be targeted with the discard, the negate doesn't target anything either (since the negate specifically targets whatever was just discarded).

that was an explanation of me responding to randall saying that the negate still takes effect

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #44 on:** February 16, 2012, 09:16:27 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on February 16, 2012, 06:35:33 PM

Alright, looks like I was wrong. Fortunately, I've never had to rule on that.

You wouldn't be the first. This is why we have a "Play As" and a "clarification page." DoN has been misinterpreted ever since it came out.

I concur with your second sentence, since I have been lucky to also not have to rule on the majority of message board rulings that I got wrong... too many to count...

News:

Author Topic: Practice for Newer Tournament Judges... (Read 5644 times)

Chronic Apathy

Warrior_Monk

Chronic Apathy

Warrior_Monk

browarod

Chronic Apathy