Author Topic: Special abilities vs. game rules (Read 2604 times)

Josh · « **on:** April 18, 2013, 12:23:05 PM »

Why can't Ithamar son of Aaron activate a non-Tabernacle artifact on The Tabernacle? It's being done by special ability, not game rule. Special abilities override game rules all the time, especially with placed cards. Also, Chorazin allows you to activate a curse on Chorazin, which definitely overrides the game rules regarding both artifacts and sites.

Ithamar son of Aaron - "Search draw pile for The Tabernacle and put it in play. You may activate an Artifact on The Tabernacle."

Gabe · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2013, 01:07:58 PM »

The short answer is:

Quote from: CactusRob on March 12, 2010, 08:27:37 AM

The identifier on The Tabernacle Reads: Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact. That gives us our answer. Ithamar can't force The Tabernacle to do something it can't do.

If you'd like to read the whole lengthy discussion for yourself you can find it here.

Josh · « **Reply #2 on:** April 19, 2013, 08:36:14 AM »

Quote from: CactusRob on March 12, 2010, 08:27:37 AM

The identifier on The Tabernacle Reads: Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact. That gives us our answer. Ithamar can't force The Tabernacle to do something it can't do.

I do remember that discussion, and I don't want to unbury dead horses. I just had some thoughts on the subject that I wanted to share.

I think the only reason that a long discussion ever ensued about Ithamar is that the card he activates an artifact on has a natural "holds" ability to hold a smaller subset of artifacts. The focus ended up coming back to that, when in reality, special abilities are always doing things that override game rules.

Suppose, for example, there was a reprint of Nehemiah that said "You may activate a Nehemiah artifact on your Wall of Protection". No one would question what this does, even though Wall of Protection has no holds ability for Nehemiah artifacts. We would all think "Well, Wall of Protection doesn't hold Nehemiah artifacts; in fact, it doesn't hold any artifacts. But the artifact is placed and activated via Nehemiah's special ability, so I guess Wall of Protection's identifiers don't really matter."

I guess I'm wondering why the same logic wouldn't apply to Ithamar. Personally, I think "Well, The Tabernacle can't hold non-Tabernacle artifacts; but the artifact is being placed and activated by Ithamar's special ability, so I guess The Tabernacle's identifier's don't really matter."

Like I said, I don't want to unbury a dead horse; I just think there is a logical explanation for allowing Ithamar to activate any artifact on The Tabernacle. And I looked at a list of artifacts, curses, and covenants yesterday, and I didn't see any broken combos.

asrgimli · « **Reply #3 on:** April 19, 2013, 09:03:44 AM »

I feel like I would agree with jmhartz on this. Kind of like how Charms can be activated on a Magician when Characters can't normally hold an artifact. It is able to because Charms says it can be, not because the Magicians say they can. Or Iron Pan on Ezekiel. I feel like this limitation is mainly caused by the fact that this is how Ithamar was originally meant to be played. As such, I feel like this is more like an errata on Ithamar that makes it so that he may activate a Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle. Personally, I would love to be able to activate something different in a Temple or Tabernacle. It would make for some very interesting situations, I think.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #4 on:** April 19, 2013, 09:20:04 AM »

I agree with the above. Issue an errata on Ithmar.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #5 on:** April 19, 2013, 09:55:34 AM »

There is an unwritten hierarchy of special abilities and game rules. Some special abilities overrule some game rules. Some game rules overrule other game rules. Some special abilities overrule some special abilities. This is actually a lot more complicated than this one issue.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #6 on:** April 19, 2013, 10:02:50 AM »

I also agree with OP, and would like to point our one of the reasons it seemed bad was because you guys though Holy Grail would be broken with The Master's Table Active, hahahaha.

It's not.

Josh · « **Reply #7 on:** April 19, 2013, 10:43:24 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 19, 2013, 09:55:34 AM

There is an unwritten hierarchy of special abilities and game rules. Some special abilities overrule some game rules. Some game rules overrule other game rules. Some special abilities overrule some special abilities. This is actually a lot more complicated than this one issue.

This is something that has been spinning in my mind without resolution; why are some game rules "hard" and some game rules "soft"? We reduce our hands to 8 at the end of our turns by game rule; but if I activate Tables of the Law, its special ability overrides this game rule and now I only need to reduce to 10. I can also draw up to 16 cards in hand, but no special ability (drawing or otherwise) lets me penetrate the 16-card barrier.

How do I know which game rules are "hard" and which are "soft"?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #8 on:** April 19, 2013, 10:49:11 AM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 19, 2013, 10:43:24 AM

How do I know which game rules are "hard" and which are "soft"?

As I mentioned in the other thread. 95% of the time we all know intuitively whether a game rule or special ability takes precedence. The other 5% of the time, we know from asking questions here on the forum, or attending tournaments and seeing how people play it.

But to actually go through and specifically spell it out for all possible interactions of SAs and game rules would be a MASSIVE project.

browarod · « **Reply #9 on:** April 19, 2013, 11:22:56 AM »

The problem with comparing Ithamar to MC/IP is that those artifacts are active other places due to identifiers, not special abilities. So you can't really say "special abilities overrule identifiers" and then cite 2 identifiers as evidence, lol.

Josh · « **Reply #10 on:** April 19, 2013, 01:33:24 PM »

Quote from: browarod on April 19, 2013, 11:22:56 AM

The problem with comparing Ithamar to MC/IP is that those artifacts are active other places due to identifiers, not special abilities. So you can't really say "special abilities overrule identifiers" and then cite 2 identifiers as evidence, lol.

Well, even though I did not personally cite those as examples, does it matter? Identifiers can override game rules just like special abilities. And if you want to look at an example of a special ability activating an artifact to override a game rule, look at Priestly Breastplate.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #11 on:** April 19, 2013, 01:45:45 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 19, 2013, 09:55:34 AM

There is an unwritten hierarchy of special abilities and game rules. Some special abilities overrule some game rules. Some game rules overrule other game rules. Some special abilities overrule some special abilities. This is actually a lot more complicated than this one issue.

Just doesnt seem consistent and over complicated. I vote consistency and simplicity. If I were to quote the true statement above to people I was introducing into the game, I feel it would deter them from the game.

browarod · « **Reply #12 on:** April 19, 2013, 02:03:05 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 19, 2013, 01:33:24 PM

Quote from: browarod on April 19, 2013, 11:22:56 AM
The problem with comparing Ithamar to MC/IP is that those artifacts are active other places due to identifiers, not special abilities. So you can't really say "special abilities overrule identifiers" and then cite 2 identifiers as evidence, lol.

Well, even though I did not personally cite those as examples, does it matter? Identifiers can override game rules just like special abilities. And if you want to look at an example of a special ability activating an artifact to override a game rule, look at Priestly Breastplate.

Priestly Breastplate actually seems more like evidence against your position. Even though its special ability lets you place it on a Priest, it still counts as your 1 artifact on the artifact pile each turn you activate it. The special ability can't overrule the game rule (same with Urim and Thummim). That's not really here nor there with the current discussion, though. The current idea is that special abilities can (or should?) overrule identifiers. Priestly Breastplate doesn't relate.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #13 on:** April 19, 2013, 03:39:21 PM »

Quote

or...we can say ok as of today all rulings will be decided based on this:

Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts game rules, the card takes precedence. The card
overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. The only exception is that a player can
concede the game at any time.

When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t
happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
Example: If one effect reads “You may draw a card” and another reads
“You can’t have more than 16 cards at any given time,” the effect that precludes you from adding an additional card to hand wins.

browarod · « **Reply #14 on:** April 19, 2013, 04:46:37 PM »

I'm not even sure why we have 2 separate threads for this anymore since they've both basically come down to the same thing, lol.

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** April 19, 2013, 06:43:48 PM »

Quote from: browarod on April 19, 2013, 04:46:37 PM

I'm not even sure why we have 2 separate threads for this anymore since they've both basically come down to the same thing, lol.

That, and I'm not sure why people are questioning this particular SA. The SA makes no mention of being able to override the identifier of The Tabernacle, so it doesn't. Game rule says that you can only play a GE of a brigade in battle, but David's SA specifically overrides that by saying that he can when they have his name. This is an example of explicit wording on a card overriding other rules. Ithimar only says you can activate an artifact, he never says what kind of artifact. And because he does not specify any artifact, he does not override the identifier on Tabernacle. It seems pretty cut-and-dry in this case, perhaps a different card would be a better example.

Josh · « **Reply #16 on:** April 20, 2013, 10:21:17 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 19, 2013, 06:43:48 PM

The SA makes no mention of being able to override the identifier of The Tabernacle, so it doesn't.

In general, SAs never mention being able to override identifiers. It's implied that if a special ability says to do something, that you are allowed to do it. Can you provide some examples of cards that specifically mention in their SA that they are overriding an identifier of another card?

Quote from: Redoubter on April 19, 2013, 06:43:48 PM

Ithimar only says you can activate an artifact, he never says what kind of artifact.

Thus implying that he can activate any artifact. Cards should do what they say, and if they are ruled to do something else, an errata should be issued.

Quote from: Redoubter on April 19, 2013, 06:43:48 PM

And because he does not specify any artifact, he does not override the identifier on Tabernacle.

I would like to see what you think Ithamar's ability would be if it allowed the activation of any artifact.

Quote from: browarod on April 19, 2013, 02:03:05 PM

Priestly Breastplate actually seems more like evidence against your position. Even though its special ability lets you place it on a Priest, it still counts as your 1 artifact on the artifact pile each turn you activate it. The special ability can't overrule the game rule (same with Urim and Thummim).

You've missed my point. I wasn't saying that Priestly Breastplate lets you override the game rule on how many artifacts you can have active at once. Priestly Breastplate places itself by special ability, not by identifier (like Magic Charms does). It places itself on a good High Priest, none of which hold artifacts, either by game rule or identifier. So the special ability overrides what game rule and identifier dictate should happen. Why can't Ithamar?

Redoubter · « **Reply #17 on:** April 20, 2013, 08:42:11 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on April 20, 2013, 10:21:17 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on April 19, 2013, 06:43:48 PM
And because he does not specify any artifact, he does not override the identifier on Tabernacle.
I would like to see what you think Ithamar's ability would be if it allowed the activation of any artifact.

I'll start with this one. The ability would have this wording: "Search draw pile for The Tabernacle and put it in play. You may activate any Artifact on The Tabernacle, regardless of whether the artifact was found in the Tabernacle."

Specifically overrides the rules regarding The Tabernacle and is very clear that it does so.

Quote from: jmhartz on April 20, 2013, 10:21:17 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on April 19, 2013, 06:43:48 PM
The SA makes no mention of being able to override the identifier of The Tabernacle, so it doesn't.
In general, SAs never mention being able to override identifiers. It's implied that if a special ability says to do something, that you are allowed to do it. Can you provide some examples of cards that specifically mention in their SA that they are overriding an identifier of another card?

The identifier dictates the rules around The Tabernacle. The rules are that you can only activate Tabernacle artifacts there, so whether the rule originates because of an identifier or game rule (which is where Tabernacle Artifact is defined, by the way), the outcome is the same. You cannot activate an artifact there that is not a Tabernacle Artifact, that is the rule. So, again, unless the SA specifically states that it is breaking the rule, it does not.

Quote from: jmhartz on April 20, 2013, 10:21:17 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on April 19, 2013, 06:43:48 PM
Ithimar only says you can activate an artifact, he never says what kind of artifact.
Thus implying that he can activate any artifact. Cards should do what they say, and if they are ruled to do something else, an errata should be issued.

Actually, no, not implying any artifact. The word "any" is very important in Redemption, as is its exclusion. Just look at the recent ruling on face-down cards and how "any" determines whether there can even be a targeting there. This is also why my proposed SA that could accomplish what you want includes the word. Without it and other additions, there is nothing in the current SA that overcomes the rule about The Tabernacle and what it can hold.

Quote from: jmhartz on April 20, 2013, 10:21:17 AM

Cards should do what they say, and if they are ruled to do something else, an errata should be issued.

First, you know that is not how this works in Redemption from experience. Unless a card is broken, there is no errata. Also, this card not only works how it is worded, as I have explained, but it also works as intended. Happy bonus, and another reason why there is no cause for an errata.

SirNobody · « **Reply #18 on:** April 21, 2013, 02:51:16 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Redoubter on April 20, 2013, 08:42:11 PM

Actually, no, not implying any artifact. The word "any" is very important in Redemption, as is its exclusion. Just look at the recent ruling on face-down cards and how "any" determines whether there can even be a targeting there.

This isn't the case. It's not the word "any" that's significant, it's the complete lack of restrictions. The words "any", "a," and "one" have been used interchangeably on Redemption cards for years.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Redoubter · « **Reply #19 on:** April 21, 2013, 08:57:08 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on April 21, 2013, 02:51:16 PM

Hey,

Quote from: Redoubter on April 20, 2013, 08:42:11 PM
Actually, no, not implying any artifact. The word "any" is very important in Redemption, as is its exclusion. Just look at the recent ruling on face-down cards and how "any" determines whether there can even be a targeting there.

This isn't the case. It's not the word "any" that's significant, it's the complete lack of restrictions. The words "any", "a," and "one" have been used interchangeably on Redemption cards for years.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey Tim, I don't think that is currently the case based on the rulings that are coming down. If you look at the ruling I linked to, they very specifically state that cards like CM and Abom cannot target a face-down card (use "a" in the ability), and that it must target "any or all" to work. This is also standard with other rulings that I have seen on other cards.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #20 on:** April 21, 2013, 09:14:30 PM »

The reason Abom and CM cannot target face down cards is not that they don't say "any" or "all", but rather that they can't actually discard any card. Abom can't discard a LS, and CM can only discard a Hero. If there was a card that said "discard a card" with no restrictions, then it could target a face down card.

News:

Author Topic: Special abilities vs. game rules (Read 2604 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod