Cactus Game Design Message Boards

My point is you made a hypothetical statement comparing treating Uzzah like an ability that doesn't exist when we are talking about treating set asides like an ability that does exist.

And, by the way, people have treated Uzzah like that. It has been asked several times on the message boards.

Spiritual Warfare (AW)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver/Green • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Hero ignores all human Evil Characters. • Identifiers: NT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Ephesians 6:12 • Availability: Angel Wars booster packs (Rare)

Uzzah (FF)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Brown • Ability: 3 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may discard Uzzah and an Artifact from your hand or artifact pile to protect all Lost Souls from rescue. • Identifiers: OT Male Human • Verse: II Samuel 6:7 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)

However, the rulebook references "Set a hero aside" for this exception, so the traditional ruling may have been incorrect. I think that is what RTSManiac was asking in the first place, I just didn't see what he was getting at.

I do not think that this is a correct interpretation of what the rulebook reference says. On its face the rulebook *defines* a set-aside enhancement as one whose SA includes the phrase "Set a (type of character) aside." Then it says how to play a set aside enhancement.  If the a is actually important in that, then any card that says "Set (type of character) aside" would not be a set-aside enhancement, by definition. So, in the case of Provisions, in addition to not being able set aside any hero with Provisions you also would not be allowed to play it outside of battle (because that is defined in the same place).

I agree that the traditional ruling may be incorrect, but I would note that changing this is going to effect a ton of players. Is there any judge other than Browarod who  has ruled this other than the traditional way?

I must admit, I generally default to a strict reading of cards, so that may be why I've treated Provisions the way I have.

Bump for Elder verification.

Bump for Elder verification.

YMT should gain access to the other side, for no other reason than to pester them.

Should I assume that there is discussion about this on the other side?

There isn't any discussion about this on the other side.  Considering people are traveling to Nats a week from today, I think it is unlikely that much will happen over there between now and then.  Hopefully we can finish up a couple of the discussions that were already going there.  But starting new ones will probably have to wait until after Nats

Quote from: SomeKittens on August 01, 2011, 11:57:51 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 01, 2011, 12:32:25 AM

Bump for Elder verification.

YMT should gain access to the other side, for no other reason than to pester them.

We could make him the official representative of hosts everywhere.

I nominate YMT as Captain of the Hosts.   

I guess I should get a sword tattoo put on my right ankle so people know that I am the old version.

Nah, once people see your Florida plates, they'll figure it out.

/Can you tell I'm a New Yorker?

The elder descends from his mountain

Mortals,

Allow me to inform you of the error of your ways! For I, the bold and brilliant Professoralstad, come to bring a light to this dark thread!

Alright, sorry about that. Sometimes I get a little over the top. We all do, though, right? 

Basically, here's how I see it: Provisions has been used such that you can use it for any Hero as long as you have a green Hero in your territory to play it. This has gone on since Provisions was released, and people would routinely set aside Ethiopian Treasurer with Provisions in T2 decks. Provsions, as well as the rule that you can play set asides on any Hero in your territory as long as you have at least one matching hero, does predate the most recent rulebook.

That said, like a lot of things, cards are not worded as they should be, and rules are not completely consistent. It is obvious that Provisions (and all cards that say Set Hero aside) are intended to be set aside enhancements, even though the rulebook says set-aside enhancements say "set a (something) aside". They should be treated like other set-aside enhancements in that way. As for the "Hero" on Provisions vs. the "Hero" on Spiritual Warfare, there are two reasons I can think of that they would be treated differently. One, set asides are really a unique type of enhancement, in that they are essentially territory class before territory class was cool (or even around). Two, Provisions is typically played outside of battle, while Spiritual Warfare is always played in battle, thus it might make sense (though I don't know if this is actually a rule) that an enhancement with "Hero does X" only must apply to the Hero who played the card when played in battle. Thus, if you use Provisions in battle, I would say that you have to set an attacking Hero that can play Provisions aside (though I'm not 100%, all I know is you CAN'T set aside anyone else's Heroes, per the rulebook).

Of those two reasons, I prefer the first one, since the second one seems a bit arbitrary (okay, the first one does too, but at least it only makes a different type of enhancement more different--and it doesn't apply different rules for different times to the same word). But either way, I am 99.6% confident that at least as of Nationals, and possibly until the new REG comes out, this is what the ruling will be, merely based on the fact that this is how its been for the last eight years at least:

During you prep/discard phases: You can play Provisions on a green Hero in your territory, to set-aside any Hero in your territory, regardless of brigade.

As for during battle, I'm less sure, but I think it might be that you can only set aside the Hero who played Provisions. I don't recall ever having that ruled on (since so few people play Provisions in battle).

Is there a better way to understand this for those of us who can't English?

Haha, it never fails. When the long form answer is given, people complain and ask for a dumbed-down version. When the simplified conclusion is given, people complain and demand a dissertation on why. Not saying I'm not guilty of either myself, just observing that, without fail, the answer people want is "whichever one wasn't given first."