Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
After reading the Heal entry again, because a character is healable if it's "about to be discarded", it seems to me that I should still be able to heal my FotS Hero with Peter, keeping the Hero from ever hitting the discard pile and resetting. However, if that same Hero hits the discard pile and I later activate a healing ability, then he doesn't keep the FotS.
Fourth, the Heal on someone like Luke or Peter is not an instead, it is an activated ability. As such, the character already had to be discarded, they would not be "being discarded." By the time you could activate the ability, the character is discarded, and it is healing them not replacing the discard effect. At that point, the placed cards are in discard pile, and thus are no longer 'placed' on their targets (having reset to face value). Thus, they do not return with them.
Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 10:41:56 AMFourth, the Heal on someone like Luke or Peter is not an instead, it is an activated ability. As such, the character already had to be discarded, they would not be "being discarded." By the time you could activate the ability, the character is discarded, and it is healing them not replacing the discard effect. At that point, the placed cards are in discard pile, and thus are no longer 'placed' on their targets (having reset to face value). Thus, they do not return with them.It sounds like that's something we need to discuss since Justin and I see it differently than you do.
First, giving my post a -1 doesn't change the rules Second, where are the characters supposed to go if they don't follow the target?Third, it is already very clear in the rules as Gabe pointed out. We have been making A LOT of changes to the REG to make things even more clear, but this one is not in doubt.
Since cards reset when they hit hand, deck, or discard, how can they retain the status of being discarded from hand or deck, or even being discarded during a certain turn, for the purpose of meeting heal's limitations and qualifications for targeting when everything is supposed to reset?
yeah if they always reset, like two liner, does that mean that paul is never a valid heal target by peter since he has to go to the discard pile first? i thought they could be healed before ever going to discard i thought it was like they get healed instead. not trying to argue, genuinely trying to understand the operations! thank you!
I'm telling you that what you are reading from the REG does support the current rule (which has also been in effect for YEARS without an issue) and there is no problem or change for this season.
Okay, maybe I'm reading it wrong. Where in the REG does it say that a card placed in another card follows it regardless of protection? Or maybe it doesn't say regardless of protection, maybe it says that it does this even though protection says it trumps game rules and this has been ruled to be true. Can you show where it says that?
Quote from: Praeceps on July 13, 2015, 02:29:17 PMOkay, maybe I'm reading it wrong. Where in the REG does it say that a card placed in another card follows it regardless of protection? Or maybe it doesn't say regardless of protection, maybe it says that it does this even though protection says it trumps game rules and this has been ruled to be true. Can you show where it says that?I've quoted that section of the REG for you already earlier in this thread. What it says is the placed cards follow. Then it says "these are the exceptions". Protection is not one of the exceptions.
Default Conditions If the toughness of a character is decreased to a value of zero or less, that character is discarded immediately.Clarifications The phrase "if result is */0 or less, discard Hero [or Evil Character]" on increase or decrease abilities cards is a clarificationreminding players of the game rule that discards such heroes, not a discard special ability.
This is an issue with the current REG, not an issue with how the situation actually works, is being interpreted, or is being ruled.
Right now I'm just seeing continued argument for the sake of argument.Gabe put it best, the question has been answered. It will be clarified even further in the new REG, but the rule is not changing. Since there is nothing else to be actually gained, there is no chance of causing a change to the ruling, and there will be improved wording in the new rules so that your concerns are addressed, what else is being argued about here? We are not going to continue to go around and around on this when the outcome is 100% clear just to fight. That's not what this board is for.
Quote from: Redoubter on July 13, 2015, 04:05:09 PMRight now I'm just seeing continued argument for the sake of argument.Gabe put it best, the question has been answered. It will be clarified even further in the new REG, but the rule is not changing. Since there is nothing else to be actually gained, there is no chance of causing a change to the ruling, and there will be improved wording in the new rules so that your concerns are addressed, what else is being argued about here? We are not going to continue to go around and around on this when the outcome is 100% clear just to fight. That's not what this board is for.Once again, you are focused on a detail and not what underpins the detail. The problem is not with a ruling on Goshen, which I highly doubt anyone is actually attempting to argue. The problem is not whether the outcome is clear. The problem is with where the rules are coming from. A new REG with greater attempts at clarity will not solve the issue as this thread is still further proof of dismissal, out-of-hand, of any perspectives that do not match with your own. The way the rules are actually written, where protection protects from game rules and there is a game rule that causes cards to follow a host if discarded, is 100% clear that they should not follow Goshen. Again, that they follow is a game rule and the rule for protection explicitly states it protects from game rules. We know this is a problem with how the rules are written versus how they are intended, but those were not the terms the argument was engaged on. I am suspicious of another new REG solving the issue of consistent treatment of errors that has been around since at least Patriarchs. What I just can't understand is why. Those who make the rules have the power to change them to reflect intent, but rather than doing so, there are all kinds of verbal games that attempt to explain away the problem without admitting there is a problem. We follow the spirit of the law sometimes (Goshen and I assume the new Job card will be the same), the letter others (old Priestly Breastplate and False Dreams), and often neither (when the various arbiters of the rules disagree but make rulings anyway, such as with Healing in this thread), with nothing other than pure arbitration guiding when which is applied. This is the last plea to look beyond the accident of each particular instance to the form of where the frustration is coming from, and to even be willing to consider that the other side is coming from a position more complex than that of clamorous children, that I will make.
Third, it is already very clear in the rules as Gabe pointed out. We have been making A LOT of changes to the REG to make things even more clear, but this one is not in doubt.
I'm telling you that what you are reading from the REG does support the current rule (which has also been in effect for YEARS without an issue) and there is no problem or change for this season.Cards follow what they are held/placed on wherever they go, with those few exceptions listed. There is nothing that indicates they are returned to a different location. Nothing quoted contradicts the ruling because the way Placed and Held work define what happens in those cases and there is nothing else that could happen. That some disagree does not change the ruling nor how it works. It will be clarified further, but the current wording was also sufficient so there is no question for this season.
I've quoted that section of the REG for you already earlier in this thread. What it says is the placed cards follow. Then it says "these are the exceptions". Protection is not one of the exceptions.I understand that wasn't clear to you. We've given you the long standing ruling. We've explained where to find it. We're going to make it clearer for you in the upcoming update. We're not going back on the ruling. What more do you want?
Pol, you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is just being stubborn instead of you being able to see that there are times where your position is actually wrong. It has been evident in many threads recently, and you continue to post complaining that people could disagree with you. We don't all have to agree, but once there is a ruling, it is time to move on. We're there now.Gabe and I explained, from the rules, how this currently works. There is no discrepancy. We showed that. That you don't agree doesn't change that, sorry that this is a problem for you but it is just the fact in this case.There are plenty of times where I am wrong, where Gabe is wrong, where everyone is wrong. I've made public reversals and changes to my positions many times, and so has Gabe, so to constantly be attacking us for refusing to see your side is not justified. I don't have a problem being wrong, but I am not in this case. Sorry that you don't see it that way, but it is evident from your post that it doesn't matter what I say, you seem to want to continue to fight for fighting's sake unless I agree with you. That's not something for this board, so as a mod I'll ask you to keep this thread on-topic and away from attacking others or just arguing for the sake of it.
