Author Topic: Set Fire (Read 8336 times)

Sean · « **on:** October 26, 2009, 08:08:09 PM »

I was playing a game with Gabe and found out that I've been reading Set Fire "wrong." I don't see how this card only works on the holder's upkeep. Could somebody please explain why the discard only happens on the holder's turn? It seems very clear to me that a discard should happen on each players' turn. There is no mention of what upkeep is which, it just says "Each upkeep."

Professoralstad · « **Reply #1 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:17:07 PM »

Interesting question. It seems like one of those "obvious" things that will probably merit clarification/play as because of nitpicky people like yourself...

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #2 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:18:58 PM »

"Each upkeep" is followed directly by "that player." That player can only perform an "upkeep ability" on his own upkeep.

Sean · « **Reply #3 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:26:13 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 26, 2009, 08:18:58 PM

"Each upkeep" is followed directly by "that player." That player can only perform an "upkeep ability" on his own upkeep.

That makes no sense because a comma separates "Each upkeep" from the rest of the sentence. It seems to me that the punctuation would lead to a discard during all players' upkeep phases. Also, Gabe said that the discard took place on the upkeep of the holder of Set Fire, not the player who has it in their territory.

Another question:
Who does "player" refer to? Am I the one who discards the Fortress or does the player with Set Fire in his territory choose what to discard?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #4 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:31:13 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 26, 2009, 08:26:13 PM

That makes no sense because a comma separates "Each upkeep" from the rest of the sentence.

I would disagree. I think the whole sentence is meant to be read as a single unit.

Quote from: Sean on October 26, 2009, 08:26:13 PM

Also, Gabe said that the discard took place on the upkeep of the holder of Set Fire, not the player who has it in their territory.

I would disagree with Gabe also.

Quote from: Sean on October 26, 2009, 08:26:13 PM

Another question:
Who does "player" refer to? Am I the one who discards the Fortress or does the player with Set Fire in his territory choose what to discard?

The SA sspecifies that the player with Set Fire in his territory does the discarding, and therefore it has to be in his own Upkeep Phase.

Gabe · « **Reply #5 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:38:04 PM »

I may have messed up the turn on which Set Fire discards. When Priests was released I originally assumed that it discarded on each person's upkeep, just like Sean. There was a thread a long time ago about this and it was explained why it only works on one players turn. YMT is probably correct. I can't recall the logic behind the ruling.

Sean · « **Reply #6 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:30:47 PM »

Quote

I think the whole sentence is meant to be read as a single unit.

And yet, there is a comma which divides the sentence...

I still don't see how the current wording supports just one upkeep.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #7 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:54:48 PM »

I don't think a comma supports using it in anyone else's upkeep.

As a random example, take the following sentences.

The bridge is on fire. Under the circumstances, I think we should jump off the bridge.

Jumping off the bridge is contingent upon the circumstances. The comma does not separate the two ideas. They are linked. I would argue that the same is true in the Set Fire example.

Sean · « **Reply #8 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:00:55 PM »

You still have to somehow explain how "each upkeep" actually means "each upkeep of the player with Set Fire in territory." A player can easily discard something during another player's upkeep phase.

Master KChief · « **Reply #9 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:05:14 PM »

i agree the card does need clarification. you can read the card as it happening during the targeted players upkeep, but i believe most could easily read it as it happening during each players upkeep.

edit: upon further inspection, it is rather bad grammar towards its true intent. by wording, the comma and clause does refer back to 'each upkeep', and not the players territory it was placed in.

Ironica · « **Reply #10 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:13:41 PM »

English...another skill learned while playing Redemption

.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #11 on:** October 26, 2009, 11:07:53 PM »

Chemosh and Doctrine like Leaven are worded the same as set fire, saying "Each upkeep, ..." how do these ones work?

browarod · « **Reply #12 on:** October 26, 2009, 11:17:18 PM »

If my opponent plays Set Fire, where does it get put? In my territory. When do I update cards in my territory or set aside? During my upkeep phase. I don't decrease my heroes from poisons during other people's upkeeps, I don't mark my set asides during other people's upkeeps, why would I discard during other people's upkeeps?

Sean · « **Reply #13 on:** October 26, 2009, 11:29:01 PM »

Set Fire is not a set aside card so maintenance of it is not the same. It is more similar to Abomination of Desolation. The trigger for Set Fire is "each upkeep" just as the trigger for Abom is "each time opponent draws cards." If anything, this means that Chemosh and DlL need clarification as well because of poor wording.

browarod · « **Reply #14 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:09:07 AM »

It just seems to me that anything with upkeep would default to the player doing it's upkeep unless otherwise specified.

Master KChief · « **Reply #15 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:56:20 AM »

set fire is an exemption because it happens during your opponents upkeep. it does not have a normal upkeep maintenance as normal upkeep cards (ie. set asides), therefore it does not 'default' to the holders upkeep.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #16 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:51:08 PM »

also i think this is a very important ruling to look at because of future interaction of other cards.
Will there ever be other cards targeting other players upkeep phases?

ex. place in a players territory, while there that player skips thier upkeep phase
(although i would rather see it as an artifact)

in any case i think that we need to pay close attention to these details.

SirNobody · « **Reply #17 on:** October 28, 2009, 12:22:58 PM »

Hey,

"That player" refers to the player previously mentioned, the player whose territory the card is put in. Only the player whose turn it is can perform actions during their upkeep phase. So if Set Fire is in my territory, on my opponent's upkeep phase I am not allowed to discard a OT Fortress or Single Color site to Set Fire whether I want to or not.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Sean · « **Reply #18 on:** October 28, 2009, 04:40:07 PM »

Quote

Only the player whose turn it is can perform actions during their upkeep phase.

Where is this stated?

More importantly though, special abilities always override game rule. If the game rule is "you can only do stuff during your upkeep" then Set Fire provides an avenue to "break" that rule because of its special ability when it says, "each upkeep."

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #19 on:** October 28, 2009, 04:47:39 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 04:40:07 PM

More importantly though, special abilities always override game rule.

Well that's not true, otherwise Wrath would discard protected characters because "it says all."

Sean · « **Reply #20 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:00:38 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 28, 2009, 04:47:39 PM

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 04:40:07 PM
More importantly though, special abilities always override game rule.

Well that's not true, otherwise Wrath would discard protected characters because "it says all."

What game rule is protecting them?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #21 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:16:45 PM »

So I can choose to rescue my own lost souls with Jacob's Ladder?

Sean · « **Reply #22 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:20:12 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 28, 2009, 05:16:45 PM

So I can choose to rescue my own lost souls with Jacob's Ladder?

You don't have access to your own Lost Souls; therefore, no you cannot use Jacob's Ladder to rescue your own Lost Soul.

I answered your question. Your turn to answer mine.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #23 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:21:47 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 05:20:12 PM

You don't have access to your own Lost Souls; therefore, no you cannot use Jacob's Ladder to rescue your own Lost Soul.

What special ability is preventing me from rescuing my own lost souls?

Sean · « **Reply #24 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:26:33 PM »

The one on Jacob's Ladder.

Please, it is annoying and frustrating that you are answering questions with questions. Just get to the point.

News:

Author Topic: Set Fire (Read 8336 times)

Ironica

browarod

browarod