Author Topic: Split Altar (Read 19534 times)

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #50 on:** February 23, 2012, 06:24:27 PM »

Quote from: Jmbeers on February 23, 2012, 04:58:59 PM

The above couldn't work without affecting the Imperial Guard wich specifically targets the artifact pile and not the active artifact. No matter what a card some how some where will be getting changed. Just right now the read headed step chilaled is Split Altar.

Imperial Guard specifically says it targets a random face down artifact from artifact pile, so that is what it does regardless of what ruling gets made in regards to defaults and/or what locations are and are not "in play".

Korunks · « **Reply #51 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:33:08 AM »

Bump can we get some Elder input on this? Why does ANB get to shuffle art piles, and not Split Altar?

Master KChief · « **Reply #52 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:40:29 AM »

Going to build a deck with 90% artifacts and ANB. Plusses for days.

STAMP · « **Reply #53 on:** February 24, 2012, 11:02:05 AM »

Quote from: Korunks on February 24, 2012, 10:33:08 AM

Bump can we get some Elder input on this? Why does ANB get to shuffle art piles, and not Split Altar?

It pains me to bring this up.

A New Beginning (Pa)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 4 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: ALL players shuffle ALL cards in the field of play, set-aside areas and their hands back into their draw pile. Only cards in Land of Redemption and discard piles remain. ALL players Draw 8 new cards. Holder may begin a new turn. • Errata: If making a rescue attempt, remove this card from the game to shuffle [return] all cards in play, set aside areas, and hands into decks. End the battle. All players draw 8. End the turn. Begin a new turn. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Genesis 8:15-17

The original SA qualified the targeting area: "Only cards in Land of Redemption and discard piles remain". By specifying which areas cannot be targeted, the targetable areas can be extrapolated to all cards not in LoR and discard. So every other card on the table that is not protected is fair game.

However, the errata reduces the targeting areas. Besides protected cards, face-down cards cannot be targeted. I'm sure this was just an oversight.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #54 on:** February 24, 2012, 11:06:57 AM »

You're assuming that ANB has enumerated powers, which I'm not sure it does.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #55 on:** February 24, 2012, 11:11:40 AM »

Does this mean we get to have a new errata on ANB? Because that would be awesome.

(if they make one that works...

)

Korunks · « **Reply #56 on:** February 24, 2012, 11:17:32 AM »

In the end it looks like we need some elder input, are they discussing this?

STAMP · « **Reply #57 on:** February 24, 2012, 11:19:29 AM »

Quote from: Korunks on February 24, 2012, 11:17:32 AM

In the end it looks like we need some elder input, are they discussing this?

Probably not until all of them have had some Excedrin.

Korunks · « **Reply #58 on:** February 24, 2012, 11:21:18 AM »

Quote from: STAMP on February 24, 2012, 11:19:29 AM

Quote from: Korunks on February 24, 2012, 11:17:32 AM
In the end it looks like we need some elder input, are they discussing this?

Probably not until all of them have had some Excedrin.

That is probably true.

Praeceps · « **Reply #59 on:** February 24, 2012, 11:55:05 AM »

So if I'm understanding all of this the ANB was errated to work contrary to what it says it does because it was deemed able to break them game, therefore it was justifiable to twist the card to suit our purposes, but we can not errata a card that isn't breaking the game to work the way it was supposed to work because that would set a dangerous precedent? Really? Having cards work they way they were intended to work is dangerous? We can outright change the way certain cards work by making them do things that aren't part of their original abilities (i.e. Highway, ANB) because they are deemed to be too powerful but we can not make a card do what it is supposed to do?

Am I the only one who sees how ridiculous this sounds? I can understand not wanting to ban cards, I get that. But really, we can't manage to fix the card when it was simply worded badly? It's not intended to be OP, it wouldn't be something that would break the game, but we still can't fix it because..."We said so."?

lp670sv · « **Reply #60 on:** February 24, 2012, 12:36:00 PM »

It is dangerous to errata cards when they aren't broken because it take sets a precedent that if we don't like a way a card words just errata it! if the card does not break the game no errata.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #61 on:** February 24, 2012, 12:39:31 PM »

I agree but am confused, why errata cards like the Rabshakeh Attacks? Or are blantant errors a good exception?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #62 on:** February 24, 2012, 12:53:46 PM »

Rabshakeh Attacks could be argued to have been a printing error, but if that were the case Eli should be half-Teal. There are inconsistencies all over the place here.

Praeceps · « **Reply #63 on:** February 24, 2012, 07:56:41 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on February 24, 2012, 12:36:00 PM

It is dangerous to errata cards when they aren't broken because it take sets a precedent that if we don't like a way a card words just errata it! if the card does not break the game no errata.

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on February 24, 2012, 12:39:31 PM

I agree but am confused, why errata cards like the Rabshakeh Attacks? Or are blantant errors a good exception?

But that's just it. We erratad RA to make it work like it's supposed to, not like it reads. It didn't break the game, before or after. So why Errata that card but not SA?

Korunks · « **Reply #64 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:06:55 PM »

We still need an answer on why ANB can shuffle Art piles and not Split Altar.

Korunks · « **Reply #65 on:** March 03, 2012, 12:07:11 PM »

*BUMP*

theselfevident · « **Reply #66 on:** March 03, 2012, 01:05:41 PM »

So... I'm confused... SA doesn't shuffle opponents' art piles? why would it not, it says it should?
Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding the issue, is the issue moreso that SA can and ANB can't? it would seem that unactivated art cards aren't in play and ANB shouldn't and SA specifically indicates arts pile so...

lp670sv · « **Reply #67 on:** March 03, 2012, 01:14:10 PM »

SA doesn't because it defaults to in play and face down cards aren't in play.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #68 on:** March 03, 2012, 01:40:54 PM »

Split Altar doesn't say artifact piles, it just says artifacts. Since special abilities default into play, and as of right now artifact piles are not considered in play, SA can't target face down artifacts.

theselfevident · « **Reply #69 on:** March 03, 2012, 02:38:17 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 03, 2012, 01:40:54 PM

Split Altar doesn't say artifact piles, it just says artifacts. Since special abilities default into play, and as of right now artifact piles are not considered in play, SA can't target face down artifacts.

Ah, I see... makes sense, but its pretty obvious what the intent of the card was... so why does ANB target face-down arts?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #70 on:** March 03, 2012, 02:46:13 PM »

That's what the current question is.

STAMP · « **Reply #71 on:** March 03, 2012, 04:16:50 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on March 03, 2012, 02:38:17 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 03, 2012, 01:40:54 PM
Split Altar doesn't say artifact piles, it just says artifacts. Since special abilities default into play, and as of right now artifact piles are not considered in play, SA can't target face down artifacts.

Ah, I see... makes sense, but its pretty obvious what the intent of the card was... so why does ANB target face-down arts?

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 03, 2012, 02:46:13 PM

That's what the current question is.

I thought it was answered already? ANB targets everything outside of LoR and discard pile, which by precedent, is able to target out of play areas. In other words, if you target specific areas for exclusion, then everything else is open for inclusion. It's just a property of a NOT() condition as ruled by the Elders.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #72 on:** March 03, 2012, 04:19:34 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on March 03, 2012, 04:16:50 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on March 03, 2012, 02:38:17 PM
Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 03, 2012, 01:40:54 PM
Split Altar doesn't say artifact piles, it just says artifacts. Since special abilities default into play, and as of right now artifact piles are not considered in play, SA can't target face down artifacts.

Ah, I see... makes sense, but its pretty obvious what the intent of the card was... so why does ANB target face-down arts?

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 03, 2012, 02:46:13 PM
That's what the current question is.

I thought it was answered already? ANB targets everything outside of LoR and discard pile, which by precedent, is able to target out of play areas. In other words, if you target specific areas for exclusion, then everything else is open for inclusion. It's just a property of a NOT() condition as ruled by the Elders.

If that was the case, there's a strong argument that cards removed from the game could be put back in the deck.

lp670sv · « **Reply #73 on:** March 03, 2012, 05:03:21 PM »

Except that removed from game cards are just that, removed from the game. You wouldn't shuffle your collection in to your deck when you got ANB'd because they are not in the game, neither are cards that have been removed from the game.

STAMP · « **Reply #74 on:** March 03, 2012, 05:28:18 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 03, 2012, 05:03:21 PM

Except that removed from game cards are just that, removed from the game. You wouldn't shuffle your collection in to your deck when you got ANB'd because they are not in the game, neither are cards that have been removed from the game.

News:

Author Topic: Split Altar (Read 19534 times)

Chronic Apathy

TheHobbit13

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy