Author Topic: Samuel (Read 6207 times)

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #25 on:** December 19, 2011, 04:33:56 PM »

I would argue that the first one cannot be put in play regardless of the special ability of a card, and should instead be placed in hand.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #26 on:** December 19, 2011, 05:27:33 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 19, 2011, 04:33:56 PM

I would argue that the first one cannot be put in play regardless of the special ability of a card, and should instead be placed in hand.

I'm OK with having a set default, but either way it needs to be consistent and clear in the REG.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #27 on:** December 19, 2011, 05:47:08 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 19, 2011, 05:27:33 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 19, 2011, 04:33:56 PM
I would argue that the first one cannot be put in play regardless of the special ability of a card, and should instead be placed in hand.

I'm OK with having a set default, but either way it needs to be consistent and clear in the REG.

Good luck with that one. It seems my understanding of how unique characters work is way off...

Professoralstad · « **Reply #28 on:** December 19, 2011, 08:25:33 PM »

I think the ruling in both situations has more to do with the way its been rather than a clear cut ruling. You have always been able to force yourself to control duplicates via SA (e.g. I capture your TSA with one in my territory) except in cases of adding a character to battle, and you have never been able to control duplicates by putting them in play (I.e. you cannot put another David from hand in your territory from hand if you have a captured David).

Whether or not those two ideas are consistent is a matter of opinion and probably needs clarification, but those principles have been around the game at least as long as I have.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #29 on:** December 21, 2011, 12:59:46 AM »

So what exactly are we saying?

adotson85 · « **Reply #30 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:07:05 AM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on December 21, 2011, 12:59:46 AM

So what exactly are we saying?

1. That a SA can force you to control duplicates, except in battle. If the dulicates are unique, you must discard one of them.

2. That you can not control duplicates due to you putting them in play, such as from hand.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #31 on:** December 21, 2011, 08:13:01 AM »

That it is the status quo, but there has been no justification for such a ruling other than "that's the way we've aways done it." We have to move past such things. Those types of rulings are only known by those who attend Nationals. People like me are unaware of such rulings, so I rule them differently. If this is the "official" ruling, then it needs to be in the REG.

And you wonder why the Florida meta is so weird.....

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #32 on:** December 21, 2011, 09:40:18 AM »

agreed, but sam is not forcing anything. It's a may condition. As such you can only complete the task of putting something into play IF it is legal..but another copy is already in play so you cannot use the SA to force another out...that's my issue...If may wasn't in the ability I would concur that SA overrides gamerule...but not in this case...

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #33 on:** December 21, 2011, 11:39:33 AM »

Quote from: adotson85 on December 21, 2011, 01:07:05 AM

1. That a SA can force you to control duplicates, except in battle. If the dulicates are unique, you must discard one of them.

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on December 21, 2011, 09:40:18 AM

agreed, but sam is not forcing anything. It's a may condition. As such you can only complete the task of putting something into play IF it is legal..but another copy is already in play so you cannot use the SA to force another out...that's my issue...If may wasn't in the ability I would concur that SA overrides gamerule...but not in this case...

I agree with both of the above.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #34 on:** December 21, 2011, 12:38:37 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on December 21, 2011, 09:40:18 AM

agreed, but sam is not forcing anything. It's a may condition. As such you can only complete the task of putting something into play IF it is legal..but another copy is already in play so you cannot use the SA to force another out...that's my issue...If may wasn't in the ability I would concur that SA overrides gamerule...but not in this case...

Since when does gamerule only override "may?"

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #35 on:** December 21, 2011, 12:54:33 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 21, 2011, 12:38:37 PM

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on December 21, 2011, 09:40:18 AM
agreed, but sam is not forcing anything. It's a may condition. As such you can only complete the task of putting something into play IF it is legal..but another copy is already in play so you cannot use the SA to force another out...that's my issue...If may wasn't in the ability I would concur that SA overrides gamerule...but not in this case...
Since when does gamerule only override "may?"

Since handlimit.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #36 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:06:36 PM »

But cards can override other game rules (like end of turn limit + Death of Hades). Why is this one special?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #37 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:32:03 PM »

From my point of view, Death and Hades and Tables of the Law are the exceptions. They specify that they are changing things though. Also, you still haven't solved why you can't continue drawing even after you hit handlimit, so long as you discard.

If a card said "Discard a card in opponent's territory", then you still couldn't discard a face down card because it is a gamerule that facedown cards cannot be targeted.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #38 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:40:03 PM »

Ok, so my question is more this: why do some cards get to override and others don't?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #39 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:43:02 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 21, 2011, 01:40:03 PM

Ok, so my question is more this: why do some cards get to override and others don't?

That was explained a while ago in this thread.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #40 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:44:24 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 21, 2011, 01:40:03 PM

Ok, so my question is more this: why do some cards get to override and others don't?

Because they specify it.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #41 on:** December 21, 2011, 02:27:29 PM »

I would argue that, even though it's been played this way for a while now (since the game's conception, apparently), that it's overly complicated. I fully expect to be overruled and yelled at for this suggestion, but would it not be much simpler to just say that a player cannot have more than one unique character in play/set-aside, and if a special ability specifies a search, it defaults to hand instead?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #42 on:** December 22, 2011, 09:52:47 PM »

As much as I would like to see Sam's wings clipped, allowing control of multiples and forcing discard (except in the case of banding or playing from hand) isn't complicated at all. Bringing a character under your control directly (by putting him into your territory or adding him to your side of the battle) is obviously different than having a character brought under your control indirectly (a search-and-play ability, capture, exchange, etc.).

The other thing to look at is capture. Capture is the most punished, protected-from, and usually-negatable ability in the game. It doesn't need to take another hit when you can't Head of Gold your opponent because you have most of the same characters in play. It would also lead to plays such as using Flax to give your opponent characters which then become protected from capture on your end.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #43 on:** December 23, 2011, 06:27:18 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 22, 2011, 09:52:47 PM

As much as I would like to see Sam's wings clipped, allowing control of multiples and forcing discard (except in the case of banding or playing from hand) isn't complicated at all. Bringing a character under your control directly (by putting him into your territory or adding him to your side of the battle) is obviously different than having a character brought under your control indirectly (a search-and-play ability, capture, exchange, etc.).

Saying, "you cannot have more than one unique character in play/set-aside at a time" is a lot less complicated than circumstances that allow it, but force a discard right away.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #44 on:** December 25, 2011, 10:49:38 AM »

Saying "you can have more than one unique character at a time, but have to discard one" is more complicated, but not a lot more complicated. Oversimplification of rules at the expense of gameplay is not a good thing.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #45 on:** December 25, 2011, 11:00:15 PM »

I'd argue that it is a lot more complicated. Saying "this can't happen, and if something tries to make it happen, it just goes to hand" is much easier than, "well it can, but only under this circumstance, and then you have to discard it or something else." This claim of mine is evidenced by the fact that intelligent people that have been playing the game for years, such as Brad, don't fully understand why it works the way it does. In the meantime, while I agree that oversimplification of the rules at the expense of gameplay is bad, this is a pretty logical way to rule it, and if Sam gets a minor hit in the meantime, then all the more reason to consider it.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #46 on:** December 25, 2011, 11:01:17 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on December 25, 2011, 11:00:15 PM

I'd argue that it is a lot more complicated. Saying "this can't happen, and if something tries to make it happen, it just goes to hand" is much easier than, "well it can, but only under this circumstance, and then you have to discard it or something else." This claim of mine is evidenced by the fact that intelligent people that have been playing the game for years, such as Brad, don't fully understand why it works the way it does. In the meantime, while I agree that oversimplification of the rules at the expense of gameplay is bad, this is a pretty logical way to rule it, and if Sam gets a minor hit in the meantime, then all the more reason to consider it.

I've actually been under the impression that Chris' idea is how its always been.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #47 on:** December 25, 2011, 11:02:22 PM »

Up until reading Chris' posts, I had no idea it was played that way.

/And we live in the same region. Yeesh.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #48 on:** December 25, 2011, 11:15:05 PM »

I didn't know it was played that way until the advent of Sam decks, and I started seeing people (including several Elders) playing it that way with the duplicate Davids. Brad outright didn't believe me when I told him that was how it was played.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #49 on:** December 26, 2011, 08:26:47 AM »

Exactly. I wasn't understanding how Sam decks could be so strong without causing hand clog...unless I wanted to discard those extra duplicates of heroes and then get them back via Chariot of Fire I suppose...It just doesn't make sense why we are almost midway into the season and that at a random district this discussion is brought up...and three weeks later and we have no consensus or CLEAR answer on why if it the ruling is contrary to my logic why it is...I will reserve further comments until a true decision has been made with what I hope will be very clear points of reasoning and not just because we wanted to make a card combo work so that's the way we play it...

News:

Author Topic: Samuel (Read 6207 times)

Chronic Apathy

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy