Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Chronic Apathy on February 19, 2012, 12:43:35 AM
-
Split Altar (P)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: • Special Ability: Shuffle all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play the next Enhancement. Cannot be negated. • Play As: Shuffle [return] all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play an Enhancement. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT, Based on Prophecy • Verse: I Kings 13:3 • Availability: Promotional cards (2008 National Tournament)
So, the Split Altar ruling is one that has ultimately lived in infamy for two and a half years now. It's been the butt of many jokes over that time period, and has even largely become the Godwin's Law of Redemption (Godwin's Law states that in an argument or debate, as soon as anyone involved mentions Hitler, that person loses the debate and the subject is changed). For those of you who don't know, Split Altar was released as the national promo in 2009, and was intended to shuffle all opponents' artifact piles into their decks. However, there was a minor oversight, and the green enhancement instead shuffles just any artifacts in play, effectively nerfing it and keeping it from becoming all that it could (and should) have been. A lot of people are less than happy with this ruling, and I want to present two solid arguments as to why the card should simply receive an errata allowing it to do what it was intended to do:
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 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Ultra Rare)
Ah yes, perhaps the only card that's the butt of more jokes than Split Altar, A New Beginning. Beyond mentioning this card to assure a +1 from STAMP when he sees this post, I think that the comparisons between ANB and SA offer up some serious inconsistencies with the way cards are handled. ANB has been errata'd twice now, the biggest errata being that the card, when played without being negated, is removed from the game along with the abilities. At no point on the card itself does it say that the card is removed from the game, but it was errata'd that way to fix some very broken combos, specifically in T2. The reason this bothers me is because, apparently, allowing a card to do what it was supposed to do in the first place but was worded wrong is not okay, but adding an ability that is not even on the card to begin with is acceptable. I feel like there's a huge inconsistency there, and even though ANB is a special case, one could argue that Split Altar is an equally special case.
The Lord Fights for You (RA)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Red/Yellow • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set aside a Hero. Each upkeep phase while set aside, each player with more than one evil brigade in territory must discard an evil card in his territory. • Identifiers: OT, Based on Prophecy • Verse: Joshua 23:10 • Availability: Rock of Ages booster packs (None)
My second argument is one I brought up in a thread recently (for those who saw it, yes, I did delete it). The Lord Fights for You is a card that was released just a couple years ago, and does not really fall into the category of cards old enough to be interpreted through a filter of "old wording". The part I want to look at is the last bit, when the words on the card say "in his territory," referring to the opponent. What happens if the opponent is female? The intention of the card is clear, however, the card specifically references a male player, not a female one, and as per the Split Altar ruling, intention should not matter, it should be based on what the card says.
These arguments may be reaching, but I don't think anyone can really look at these examples and not see the inconsistencies here. The card gets joked about a lot, but I'm not kidding around; I think the Elders (and specifically Rob) should take a good hard look at this card and see if an errata isn't possible. I recognize what the card says, but that doesn't always matter, and I don't really think it would kill anyone if we let the card work the way it was supposed to.
-
Chronic, come on, just because the horses are dead doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want with them.
ANB was errated because it was broken. Split Altar isn't broken, it just isn't as awesome as it was intended to be.
As for the second case, you are reaching. It doesn't exclude women because that would be sexist.
-
I don't have much to say on any of them, but
1) Split Altar wasn't broken the way it is, there are no ridiculous combos involving Split Altar to make it need an errata, and the card works perfectly well within the game (although not as powerful as they would have liked) so there is no reason to give it an errata
2) A New Beginning was a very powerful card that allowed ridiculous combos and it became a major problem for the game, thus warranting an errata
3) It is perfectly acceptable to use male pronouns to refer to people who's gender is unknown (such as in the case of whoever is playing/being affected by a card in a game) so there is no reason that it should be an issue that cards refer with male pronouns rather than trying to find gender neutral ones.
-
Then maybe what we need to be asking for isn't an errata for split alter but an all new card. Could be a promo or something in the next set but it could be a card that is what SA was intended to be.
-
The answers above are correct. ANB got an errata because playing it as it was written was breaking the game. Playing SA as it was written does NOT break the game, therefore it did NOT get an errata. That is the consistency. Cards play like they are written unless they break the game, and in those cases we errata them.
I understand people's frustration with a National Promo being relatively weak on the playable scale, but I don't see the whole system of why cards get erratas changing anytime soon.
-
Plus ones and minus ones distributed as required.
-
IMHO, unfortunately if they did errata SA then it would probably go like it could target artifacts face-down which would go against all of our work to make the default to play ability inconsistent and frankly, I still wouldn't play with it (T1) if it did get an errata so why bother.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myfacewhen.net%2Fuploads%2F239-oh-look-its-this-thread-again.jpg&hash=3972340fd6bdd22c7bd05dc67647ffee189c7062)
Rob didn't errata my copy of SA, even when I asked nicely.
-
I'm well aware why ANB has an errata, I don't need that explained to me, because I think I did a pretty good job of explaining it in my original post. My point is that erratas are given out in extenuating circumstances, and it wouldn't be such a big deal to errata this card.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myfacewhen.net%2Fuploads%2F239-oh-look-its-this-thread-again.jpg&hash=3972340fd6bdd22c7bd05dc67647ffee189c7062)
Rob didn't errata my copy of SA, even when I asked nicely.
I'm actually willing to bet this is, at the most, the third thread you've ever seen actually legitimately arguing that Split Altar should be errata'd, and it's probably the first.
-
SA should be banned? When did this come up?
And this is one of four million threads complaining about SA.
-
errata's aren't given to cards unless they are broken/OP. Split Altar does neither of these things. Answer:Given
-
SA should be banned? When did this come up?
And this is one of four million threads complaining about SA.
I edited my post. I want links. I only see a thread on Split Altar once in a blue moon, and most of the time it's asking why everyone is talking about it.
errata's aren't given to cards unless they are broken/OP. Split Altar does neither of these things. Answer:Given
Who's beating a dead horse now?
-
That would still be you, the rest of us are trying to get you to leave the poor horse alone.
-
SA should be banned? When did this come up?
And this is one of four million threads complaining about SA.
I edited my post. I want links. I only see a thread on Split Altar once in a blue moon, and most of the time it's asking why everyone is talking about it.
Link: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/search2/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/search2/)
-
SA should be banned? When did this come up?
And this is one of four million threads complaining about SA.
I edited my post. I want links. I only see a thread on Split Altar once in a blue moon, and most of the time it's asking why everyone is talking about it.
Link: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/search2/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/search2/)
Not a single thread that argues why Split Altar should be errata'd, a couple threads questioning it and the original ruling thread, but that's all.
-
maybe thats because it shouldnt be errata'd...
-
The PTB have pretty clearly stated their position. Maybe you should try an internet petition. Those totally work.
-
The PTB have pretty clearly stated their position. Maybe you should try an internet petition. Those totally work.
Don't you have a wiki to work on? ::)
-
The PTB have pretty clearly stated their position. Maybe you should try an internet petition. Those totally work.
...says the unredeemable demons. ;)
-
We are making progress, at least they can rescue lost souls now.
-
We are making progress, at least they can rescue lost souls now.
I don't think STAMP would view that as progress...
-
how can demons rescue lost souls? i thought you couldn't convert demons?
-
It's a bit of a Rube Goldberg. You have to place a Demon on a captured Hero with Possessed, then free the Hero, then make a successful RA with that Hero (Demon in tow).
-
Ah okay so its not really doing the rescuing anyway. I see
-
It's a bit of a Rube Goldberg. You have to place a Demon on a captured Hero with Possessed, then free the Hero, then make a successful RA with that Hero (Demon in tow).
Happens everyday in the real world, so no problems here. ;)
-
Looking at the original Split Altar thread, I see I was the one who brought up the not-the-whole-pile issue in the first place (and fought against errata for it). Let me know when I'm officially banned from the boards. I'll start packing my things.
-
My :2cents: : Original intent should always trump wording errors. Pokemon errata's cards that don't work as intended. Thus split altar needs the power it deserves.
-
Again I'd say just make a new card with the intended ability or make a reprint with correct wording. Then you don't have to make an exception errata for a card that's not broken and people who would have used SA in a deck will get their chance.
-
Split Altar (P)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: • Special Ability: Shuffle all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play the next Enhancement. Cannot be negated. • Play As: Shuffle [return] all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play an Enhancement. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT, Based on Prophecy • Verse: I Kings 13:3 • Availability: Promotional cards (2008 National Tournament)
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 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Ultra Rare)
The real question is, after reading the abilities of Split Altar and A New Beginning, why does A New Beginning shuffle face-down artifacts but Split Altar does not?
-
My guess is because ANB says (or at least said) "Only cards in Land of Redemption and discard piles remain."
-
My guess is because ANB says (or at least said) "Only cards in Land of Redemption and discard piles remain."
+1 but protection still works.
-
As STAMP is the foremost authority on ANB, his agreeing is good enough for me 8)
-
My guess is because ANB says (or at least said) "Only cards in Land of Redemption and discard piles remain."
It's actually because artifact piles are in the field of play.
-
My guess is because ANB says (or at least said) "Only cards in Land of Redemption and discard piles remain."
It's actually because artifact piles are in the field of play.
it doesn't say "in the field of play" it says in play. which facedown arts are not.
-
My guess is because ANB says (or at least said) "Only cards in Land of Redemption and discard piles remain."
It's actually because artifact piles are in the field of play.
it doesn't say "in the field of play" it says in play. which facedown arts are not.
I can't find the original thread now, but that is the logic that Gabe used.
-
So "in the field of play" is different than "in play"? That's strange, considering the REG definition of "In Play" is:
In Play means within the Field of Play.
-
if that were the case split altar would work as intended since artifact piles are art of the field of play
-
Can we get some more input because right now it looks like Split Altar should work right now. Unless we have all been playing ANB wrong for years, and years.
-
I've heard (from STAMP, so you know it's good) that ANB hits art piles because of the caps in ALL.
-
I've heard (from STAMP, so you know it's good) that ANB hits art piles because of the caps in ALL.
It's just one of the things mentioned years ago before they tightened up the definitions of targeting areas, i.e. "in play", "not in battle", etc. It caused quite a bit of discussion, as it no doubt does even to this day. I always mention the "ALL" as tongue-in-cheek.
-
NOW you tell me....
-
I agree that this needs to be clarified, since I believe it recently came up in another thread as well (the difference between Field of Play and In Play).
-
Battle and Field of Battle have very different functional definitions (at least where side battles are concerned) so it wouldn't be a stretch for Play and Field of Play to have different definitions... not a huge fan of the idea, but there is pseudo-precedent
-
They would probably just change the errata on ANB then create one for SA (though, that might be one step closer to STAMP's errata of ANB ;) ).
-
Battle and Field of Battle have very different functional definitions (at least where side battles are concerned) so it wouldn't be a stretch for Play and Field of Play to have different definitions... not a huge fan of the idea, but there is pseudo-precedent
Right now, the REG defines 'in battle' and 'in the Field of Battle' differently. (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/Master/gloss_battle.htm) The REG doesn't distinguish between 'in play' and 'in the Field of Play' (and in fact equates the two), so there'd have to be an actual rules change for there to be such a distinction (when I don't believe any is necessary).
-
The REG contradicts itself in regards to "in play" and the "field of play." Your post is one half of the contradiction, the other is below:
Artifact Pile
An artifact pile contains a player’s grail icon cards. This pile is located in the player’s territory within the Field of Play. See Player’s Card Arrangement .
The Artifact Pile is in territory, meaning it's in the field of play, however face-down artifacts in that pile are not "in play" therefore "in play" and "field of play" cannot be (and aren't) synonymous.
-
The REG contradicts itself in regards to "in play" and the "field of play." Your post is one half of the contradiction, the other is below:
Artifact Pile
An artifact pile contains a player’s grail icon cards. This pile is located in the player’s territory within the Field of Play. See Player’s Card Arrangement .
The Artifact Pile is in territory, meaning it's in the field of play, however face-down artifacts in that pile are not "in play" therefore "in play" and "field of play" cannot be (and aren't) synonymous.
Or the artifact piles not being "in play" was simply ruled wrong. Either way it's a pretty huge contradiction.
-
The artifact pile is in play, but the face down artifacts aren't in play.
I'm not sure if this post should be serious or not.
However this is why I think that face down cards shouldn't automatically be considered not in play, they just can only be targeted by their restrictions (a face down hero can only be targeted by a card that says it targets a hero and such) There could even be a rule that you can only by default target the top artifact on an artifact pile, much like drawing cards is always from the top, if you don't want people randomly discarding face down artifacts with cards that say "discard an artifact" (not that I have a problem with that).
-
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.
-
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.
Again :) But Seriously there is a discrepency here. Why does ANB get to shuffle the Artifact Pile, and not Split Altar.
-
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".
-
Bump can we get some Elder input on this? Why does ANB get to shuffle art piles, and not Split Altar?
-
Going to build a deck with 90% artifacts and ANB. Plusses for days.
-
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. ;D
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. :P
-
You're assuming that ANB has enumerated powers, which I'm not sure it does.
-
Does this mean we get to have a new errata on ANB? Because that would be awesome. :rollin:
(if they make one that works... ::) )
-
In the end it looks like we need some elder input, are they discussing this?
-
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.
-
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.
:rollin: That is probably true.
-
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."?
-
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.
-
I agree but am confused, why errata cards like the Rabshakeh Attacks? Or are blantant errors a good exception?
-
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.
-
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.
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?
-
We still need an answer on why ANB can shuffle Art piles and not Split Altar.
-
*BUMP*
-
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...
-
SA doesn't because it defaults to in play and face down cards aren't in play.
-
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.
-
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?
-
That's what the current question is.
-
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?
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
+1
-
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.
The precedent is actually opposite of what you say. Lampstand targets everything not in battle, but has been ruled to not include certain locations (and not face-down cards).
-
That's because not in battle has been defined
-
That's because not in battle has been defined
So? The reason for why it is that way doesn't change that it is the precedent now.
-
"Not in battle" means a certain thing. You can't use its definition for something completely different.
-
That's because not in battle has been defined
So? The reason for why it is that way doesn't change that it is the precedent now.
Not in battle is only the precedent for not in battle.
-
Not in battle is the precedent for exclusive targeting, which ANB also falls under. I'm not using its definition for anything other than what it is, I'm merely pointing out that the precedent is for further exclusions not inclusions.
-
"Not in battle" has a very specific definition that includes very specific areas. Using it in this debate to try to provide evidence that there's a precedent here will have absolutely no bearing.
-
Except that's what precedents are: rulings/definitions for a type of thing that demonstrate how that type of thing is treated.
-
Not in battle has a definition. It is a specific thing. It is not the same as the logical operator NOT which is what ANB is. It specifically says all cards not in Land of Redemption or discard. Face down artifacts are not in either of those two areas.
-
Except that's what precedents are: rulings/definitions for a type of thing that demonstrate how that type of thing is treated.
Except that doesn't work. "Not in battle" has a definition. We know exactly what it is. You may as use the definition of "in play" as a precedent, because "in play" has a very specific definition with very specific parameters. We're not talking about an area that has very specific parameters here, we're talking about something that has no precedent whatsoever. I happen to disagree with STAMP, because I don't believe that ANB should be ruled that anything that's not included is excluded. The artifact pile isn't ever specifically targeted one way or the other (unless its determined to be in "the field of play," and thus, I don't think that it should be shuffled.
-
So just because something has a definition, that makes it not that thing anymore? So words in the dictionary aren't words anymore because they're defined? Because that's what you're saying. Lampstand is an exclusionary target card regardless of if its specific targeting does or doesn't have a definition, I don't see how you guys can try and say otherwise.
I would agree with Chronic that I don't think ANB should be able to shuffle face-down cards (especially because Lampstand can't protect face-downs). Whether or not there is a precedent in any way, whether or not with Lampstand, I think consistency should be maintained/achieved.
-
This isn't the dictionary, it's redemption. Your argument holds no wait. ANB says shuffle all cards in the field of the play, the definition of artifact pile includes the it being in the field of play therefore it shuffles the ENTIRE pile.
-
This isn't the dictionary, it's redemption. Your argument holds no wait. ANB says shuffle all cards in the field of the play, the definition of artifact pile includes the it being in the field of play therefore it shuffles the ENTIRE pile.
That's actually up in the air right now. If the artifact pile is indeed in the field of play (which is, by definition, in play), then that means that Split Altar shuffles artifacts after all.
-
ANB targets an area, Split altar targets a specific card (the artifact). You can't specifically target the artifact in SAs case because they are not in play and SA says in play, ANB can target the area and everything in that area just like Lampy targets the specific area of Not in Battle.
-
ANB targets an area, Split altar targets a specific card (the artifact). You can't specifically target the artifact in SAs case because they are not in play and SA says in play, ANB can target the area and everything in that area just like Lampy targets the specific area of Not in Battle.
If the reason that ANB shuffles artifact piles is because those piles are in the field of play, then there's no reason that Split Altar wouldn't work.
-
Targeting an area is not the same as trying to target a specific card.
-
Targeting an area is not the same as trying to target a specific card.
The "in play" default applies to both, though.
-
The only reason that Split Altar doesn't work as intended is because all abilities default to "in play," which means Split Altar cannot target any cards that aren't in play. However, the current entry in the REG says that artifact piles are in the field of play, which is, by definition, in play. This would mean that, unless one of the relevant entries is changed, artifact piles are in play, and thus, can be targeted by Split Altar.
-
I'm sorry Chronic it may have been another thread but I'm 100% sure that YOU told ME that "the field of play" and "in play" were not the same thing so what has changed other than which side of the argument you are on?
-
I'm not going to deny that, but I also don't remember saying that; I'd need an actual quote before I'd be able to explain my judgement. At any rate, according to the REG (which is down right now, but I'm 100% sure it says this), the field of play falls within play.
-
I'm of the opinion that the definition of field of play should NOT include "in play" because then it breaks so many other things (like artifact piles, face-down cards, etc.). I'm also of the opinion that, since Lampy can't protect face-down cards, ANB shouldn't be able to shuffle them either.
I think I said that, lp, lol. face-down cards/artifacts are in territory, which means they are in the Field of Play, but they are not themselves "in play" so the REG definition of Field of Play needs to change (or face-downs being not in play needs to change, either one).
-
I'm of the opinion that the definition of field of play should NOT include "in play" because then it breaks so many other things (like artifact piles, face-down cards, etc.). I'm also of the opinion that, since Lampy can't protect face-down cards, ANB shouldn't be able to shuffle them either.
I think I said that, lp, lol. face-down cards/artifacts are in territory, which means they are in the Field of Play, but they are not themselves "in play" so the REG definition of Field of Play needs to change (or face-downs being not in play needs to change, either one).
I disagree slightly. I think face down cards simply shouldn't be considered in the field of play. I think that having "in play" and "in the field of play" as two different things will be really confusing for new players.
-
You're right, consistency would be the best. Hindsight says perhaps they should have named the Field of Play something different (such as the Game Field, or something) if they were going to allow face-down cards to exist in territory, but I think your suggestion for face-downs not being in the field of play, while confusing (where exactly are they, then?), would be the best solution.
-
Haha, there are a lot of things we could say about hindsight and this game.
-
Haha, there are a lot of things we could say about hindsight and this game.
Too true. :P
-
I think the real problem here is that Face down cards were arbitrarily decided to not be in play (there may have been a reason, but that was before my time).
I would love to see it change that face down cards are in play (assuming that they would be in play if they were face up). It actually came up in a tournament, I lost a battle because I couldn't target a face down character (thanks to ambush) I did win the game in the end (and the tournament for that matter) but it did come into play.
My reasoning is really that I think whether or not a card is "in play" or not should be based on its location not its state (face up/face down in this case).
I also really hate using cards that target "not in <location>" because I think that things should be well defined (which they are) and intuitive if possible (which sometimes won't happen) and I would say having cards target "not in <location>" leaves a few things unclear (yes if you read the definition you can often figure it out, but if I'm playing a card in a tournament I don't want to have to look through the REG or the boards too often) because it could target "in play" and "not in <location>" it could include everything except <location> or it could be the current definition (at least when its "not in battle") which is neither.
Just my thoughts, and I haven't looked at everything this would affect and whatnot, so take it as you will.
-
I thought it was answered already? ANB targets everything in play 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.
Don't forget the two emphasized words above. If a hypothetical card said "Rescue all lost souls. No lost souls remain in Land of Bondage.", would it rescue the NT and */4 lost souls? Just because this hypothetical OP card has outdated "clarification" language doesn't mean the card can do something it's not allowed to do.
Similarly, ANB has "clarification" language on the card (since it is from Patriarchs), and there have been multiple rulings that "clarification" language can't be interpreted like a normal special ability. Consider the ruling for the Warrior's Golden Censer or Prince of the World. Your appeal to "everything outside of LoR and discard pile" is based on a phrase in ANB's ability that is now meaningless (based on other SA interpretations of old cards).
And let's not forget the fact that cards that are errata'd cease to function under their "old" abilities. The purpose of errata is to replace, not append. And the errata for ANB clearly does not target face-down artifacts.
-
I didn't read past the first page, so forgive me if I'm re-stating anyone else's idea, but I personally don't think Split Altar needs an errata; what it does need is a rule change. I don't understand why face-down cards are considered out of play when they are in the same place as in-play cards (pretty much literally for artifacts). What breaks when that is changed?
-
I didn't read past the first page, so forgive me if I'm re-stating anyone else's idea, but I personally don't think Split Altar needs an errata; what it does need is a rule change. I don't understand why face-down cards are considered out of play when they are in the same place as in-play cards (pretty much literally for artifacts). What breaks when that is changed?
The only things I can think of: ANB would actually shuffle artifact piles (which everyone has treated it to do, though currently it shouldn't), Split Altar would actually work, and you could Christian Martyr an Ambushed Hero (or Angel of the Lord a face-down guard on a site).
-
I just realized how crazy it is that I'm arging for ANB to be more restrictive.
It's cats chasing dogs again. :o
-
I didn't read past the first page, so forgive me if I'm re-stating anyone else's idea, but I personally don't think Split Altar needs an errata; what it does need is a rule change. I don't understand why face-down cards are considered out of play when they are in the same place as in-play cards (pretty much literally for artifacts). What breaks when that is changed?
The only things I can think of: ANB would actually shuffle artifact piles (which everyone has treated it to do, though currently it shouldn't), Split Altar would actually work, and you could Christian Martyr an Ambushed Hero (or Angel of the Lord a face-down guard on a site).
Those are all fine with me.
-
Face-down cards have been, are, and must always be out of play. Period.
-
Face-down cards have been, are, and must always be out of play. Period.
True. But are they still in the territory? Comma,
-
Face-down cards have been, are, and must always be out of play. Period.
True. But are they still in the territory? Comma,
They are small areas that are out of play within territory.
Set-aside is also a small area that is out of play within the playing surface.
Land of Redemption is also a small area that is out of play within the playing surface.
What's so hard to understand? That one small out-of-play area is within another out-of-play area versus one that is in an in-play area?? A face-down card in The Darkness is another out-of-play area that is within a fortress, which in turn is within a territory, which in turn is within the Field of Play, which in turn is within the playing surface.
Believe me, as someone who primarily plays green prophets I really wish Split Altar had not been misprinted. But changing "face down" rules that have been in place since first introduced is not the answer.
-
The problem, Stamp, is that the definition for "In Play" says that all cards in the "Field of Play" are in play, which obviously is not true (as you so excellently explained). I think that entry just needs to be updated and most of the questions will go away.
-
An artifact pile contains a player’s grail icon cards. This pile is located in the player’s territory within the Field of Play.
In Play means within the Field of Play.
According to the REG, artifact piles are in play. Now I disagree with those who say that face down artifacts should be in play, however, with only the REG and no Elder ruling to go on, artifact piles are currently considered in play.
-
put face down artifacts are not.
-
put face down artifacts are not.
The artifact pile contains the face down artifacts. It says "pile" which would imply that there can be more than one.
-
Face-down cards have been, are, and must always be out of play. Period.
True. But are they still in the territory? Comma,
They are small areas that are out of play within territory.
Set-aside is also a small area that is out of play within the playing surface.
Land of Redemption is also a small area that is out of play within the playing surface.
What's so hard to understand? That one small out-of-play area is within another out-of-play area versus one that is in an in-play area?? A face-down card in The Darkness is another out-of-play area that is within a fortress, which in turn is within a territory, which in turn is within the Field of Play, which in turn is within the playing surface.
Believe me, as someone who primarily plays green prophets I really wish Split Altar had not been misprinted. But changing "face down" rules that have been in place since first introduced is not the answer.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with STAMP on something ANB related but +1
-
I have direct REG quotes telling you that you're wrong. I'm sure an Elder will come in and overturn this, but in the meantime, you can't deny that the REG supports my side.
-
Yeah and it's also an established rule that face down cards are not in play. I have direct Elder quotes from "all over this site and the real world" telling you that you're wrong. You can't deny that the whole "way the game has been played for all of time" supports my side.
See what I did there?
I love how selectively the REG is used as proof on here. If it supports your side of the debate, it's the word of law. If it doesn't it's outdated, has tons of errors and play as disguised as errata.
-
I'm not suggesting that the REG shouldn't be changed. In fact, I specifically said that I disagreed with those who say that face down artifacts should be in play. I'm simply noting that that is what the REG says right now.
-
The REG says that the area of the territory known as the artifact pile is in play, it does not say the cards in it are necessarily in play. See STAMPs example of The Darkness.
-
Why would the artifact pile be in play if the pile itself is not in play? That's not an analogy that has anything to do with the Darkness, and it doesn't work.
-
The pile is in play, but only one of the individual artifacts in that pile is in play. The territory is in play, but if something's on The Darkness it's not in play.
-
I feel like I'm watching an episode of Lost to hear this explained. The pile is in play, but most the pile is not in play? The REG should just be edited to say the pile isn't play, face up artifacts are.
-
The problem, Stamp, is that the definition for "In Play" says that all cards in the "Field of Play" are in play, which obviously is not true (as you so excellently explained). I think that entry just needs to be updated and most of the questions will go away.
I'm not suggesting that the REG shouldn't be changed. In fact, I specifically said that I disagreed with those who say that face down artifacts should be in play. I'm simply noting that that is what the REG says right now.
It's fine the way it is. Because the basest form of logic is that "something" is never the same as "NOT something". If a card is not in play, then it's not in play. Shoot, make it Commandment #11. :)
You can quote the REG statement above all day long. It doesn't need to be re-written. It follows simple logic. There's no need to be redundant. What? Are we going to re-write it as thus: "All cards in the Field of Play are in play, except those that are not in play."?
According to the REG, artifact piles are in play. Now I disagree with those who say that face down artifacts should be in play, however, with only the REG and no Elder ruling to go on, artifact piles are currently considered in play.
Artifact piles are in play. Face-down artifacts are not in play.
-
It is valid, cards that are facedown on the The Darkness are out of play even though the fortress itself is in play. Face down cards are currently considered out of play, you can't dispute that no matter how hard you try, it's a game rule that has been around since long before you or I started playing.
-
I'm sure an Elder will come in and overturn this
You're right about that part at least :)
Face down cards (including those in the artifact pile) are NOT in play. Perhaps the REG should be updated to reflect that more clearly (or perhaps that would be redundant), but either way it is well established that face-down cards are NOT in play.
-
Thank you Prof U
-
I get that face down cards are not in play, but I'm still unsure of the reasoning. I personally don't like it, but saying that: "They just are because we've always done it that way" is not a good reason. I am one of those people who thinks we should constantly look at rules and see if they are necessary or helpful for the game.
What does having face down cards not be in play add to the game? What would the effects of having them in play be? Is it really a good rule to have?
I personally think that in play should be determined by the location not the state of the card. Territory, Land of Bondage and Battle are in play, Set aside area, Deck, Hand, discard pile, Land of Redemption and removed from the game are all out of play. Why should face down cards be exceptions?
-
If they are in play, they would count for and be targeted by many things that depend on what card it is, but when it's face-down, not all players can know what it is. For example, if I have an Ambushed N.T. character in my territory and my opponent tries to CM it and I try to use Herod's Temple, how would my opponent know whether I'm Discarding the proper brigade or whether the Hero is even N.T. in the first place? Making them out of play solves more problems than it creates.
-
Having face down cards out of play also solves problems of duplicate characters unknowingly being in play.
-
Why should face down cards be exceptions?
Well if you want another explanation besides "them's the rulez", then how about the fact that face-down cards are face down so most times they are indeterminate. As a result, you don't know if the card can be targeted or not. All card attributes should be known before being allowed to be targeted.
If they are in play, they would count for and be targeted by many things that depend on what card it is, but when it's face-down, not all players can know what it is. For example, if I have an Ambushed N.T. character in my territory and my opponent tries to CM it and I try to use Herod's Temple, how would my opponent know whether I'm Discarding the proper brigade or whether the Hero is even N.T. in the first place? Making them out of play solves more problems than it creates.
Instaposted.
-
So, if you don't know a certain attribute of a card, you can't target it for any of those attributes. If you Ambush a hero, the only thing you know about it is that it's a hero, so it is not targetable as purple, NT, */3 or higher, male, a priest, etc. while it remains face-down. However, you should still be able to target it with The Wages of Sin (Pa), and it should still satisfy the conditions for Dodai the Ahohite (RA), since you can't say that it is NOT anything. That's my take.
-
does this mean that a new beginning can't target artifact piles now? (sry if this is a redundant question, i haven't been able to read all 9 pages of discussion)
-
does this mean that a new beginning can't target artifact piles now? (sry if this is a redundant question, i haven't been able to read all 9 pages of discussion)
That is what I believe this rule implies, though I have never played it this way.
-
does this mean that a new beginning can't target artifact piles now? (sry if this is a redundant question, i haven't been able to read all 9 pages of discussion)
No. It targets all face-down cards that do not have protection from shuffle (which currently is none). It's due to how targeting was defined eons ago for "ALL cards" "not in Land of Redemption and discard".
-
does this mean that a new beginning can't target artifact piles now? (sry if this is a redundant question, i haven't been able to read all 9 pages of discussion)
No. It targets all face-down cards that do not have protection from shuffle (which currently is none). It's due to how targeting was defined eons ago for "ALL cards" "not in Land of Redemption and discard".
The errata doesn't say ALL though, and as such, if ANB is to target face down artifacts, it probably needs another errata. The pile is not in play, a set-aside area, or a hand.
-
does this mean that a new beginning can't target artifact piles now? (sry if this is a redundant question, i haven't been able to read all 9 pages of discussion)
No. It targets all face-down cards that do not have protection from shuffle (which currently is none). It's due to how targeting was defined eons ago for "ALL cards" "not in Land of Redemption and discard".
The errata doesn't say ALL though, and as such, if ANB is to target face down artifacts, it probably needs another errata. The pile is not in play, a set-aside area, or a hand.
You're preaching to the choir director when it comes to ANB. :rollin:
Let me know how that errata request goes. Don't be surprised if the process leaves scars. ;D
-
I'm simply not sure what the etiquette on handling erratas is. If they are, as jmhartz described, the final word on the card (which I believe they should be), then as of right now, ANB simply doesn't shuffle artifact piles.
-
I'm simply not sure what the etiquette on handling erratas is. If they are, as jmhartz described, the final word on the card (which I believe they should be), then as of right now, ANB simply doesn't shuffle artifact piles.
I agree, unfortunatly the elder's have been fairly silent in this thread. It would be nice to know if there is an answer coming forth, or we have to banter around for 10 more pages to get noticed. ;)
-
The Excedrin hasn't kicked in.
-
unfortunatly the elder's have been fairly silent in this thread.
I think that A New Beginning (Pa) and Split Altar (P) happen to be the 2 cards that the elders are MOST tired of talking about/existing. So having a thread about both of them is like having a thread about birth certificates and communism and wondering why Obama isn't chiming in.
As for what to do with these cards, I already posted about Split Altar on the last page, but you should only shuffle active artifacts with that card. As for ANB, you should shuffle your whole artifact pile (including the face-down ones) and all your other non-protected cards that aren't in your land of redemption or discard pile.
Maybe this means ANB needs yet another errata, but if you want that, you'll have to get some other elder to care more than I do about these annoying cards :)
-
As for what to do with these cards, I already posted about Split Altar on the last page, but you should only shuffle active artifacts with that card. As for ANB, you should shuffle your whole artifact pile (including the face-down ones) and all your other non-protected cards that aren't in your land of redemption or discard pile.
This is getting scary...I've actually been voting the Elder platform for a few weeks now. :o
Maybe this means ANB needs yet another errata, but if you want that, you'll have to get some other elder to care more than I do about these annoying cards :)
And that right there folks is the number one reason yours truly would never be voted in (albeit I generally would run as an Independant)...I would care very much about reveiwing all possible ANB errata and not be annoyed at all. ;)
-
The inconsistencies here are really frustrating.
-
The inconsistencies here are really frustrating.
Agreed. I would say more but I do not want to offend.
-
Demands Elder Rulings.
Is dissatisfied with Elder Rulings.
-
Inconsistencies? With Redemption rules?
I've got to LiveJournal about this!
-
lol LiveJournal, what is this 2007?
-
So is ProfU's post an official overruling of the current Errata listed in the REG for ANB? Because as it stands, Chronic is correct that it would not shuffle face-down artifacts.
Just wanting to clarify.
-
Split Altar does not shuffle face down arts.
ANB does.
That is what he said, that is the way it's been, the Elder's don't want to spend more time on this.
-
the Elder's don't want to spend more time on this.
Maybe they should write a more carefully worded errata, then. ::)
;)
-
Reading back through the topic, I realized I never actually stated this, but I was arguing that the REG should be changed. I still think it should be, but since I've been vastly outvoted here, I've let that particular portion of my argument go. I'm dissatisfied with Underwood's comments because I don't think, "we're tired of hearing about these cards, so we're going to ignore this" is really helpful. The current ANB errata does not shuffle artifact piles, and I think that simply saying "well it does, and we're not going to worry about an errata because we hate hearing about it" is a little ridiculous. That's a massive inconsistency, and frankly, I don't think its too much to ask for a quick official errata that adds "Artifact Piles" to the current ANB errata. Regarding the point that "that's the way it's always been," I'll just point you to Priestly Breastplate (Pi). I don't mean to cause offense since I have a lot of respect for all the Elders, both as a team and individually, but isn't it kind of their job to make sure that these inconsistencies don't exist?
-
<--------
-
*ahem*
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myfacewhen.net%2Fuploads%2F239-oh-look-its-this-thread-again.jpg&hash=3972340fd6bdd22c7bd05dc67647ffee189c7062)
Rob didn't errata my copy of SA, even when I asked nicely.
unfortunatly the elder's have been fairly silent in this thread.
I think that A New Beginning (Pa) and Split Altar (P) happen to be the 2 cards that the elders are MOST tired of talking about/existing.
*is justified*
-
If you all keep pulling a Steve Irwin poking the Elders with a stick and cause ANB to be the first card banned, I swear I will QUIT! For good!
;)
-
I don't mean to cause offense since I have a lot of respect for all the Elders, both as a team and individually, but isn't it kind of their job to make sure that these inconsistencies don't exist?
#1 at least I showed up in this thread.
#2 if I could change the errata personally on ANB to add artifact piles, then I probably would. But I can't, so I won't. If you want it changed, then post it on the thread about REG changes needed.
#3 I can't believe no one even seemed to notice my comment about birth certificates and Obama. I really thought that was funny :)
-
#3 I can't believe no one even seemed to notice my comment about birth certificates and Obama. I really thought that was funny :)
I would have nominated it for your thread if you allowed that sort of thing.
-
I would have nominated it for your thread if you allowed that sort of thing.
Thanks, I'm glad someone appreciated it.
-
In terms of the ANB errata, I have a suggestion. I know you wouldn't want to do this for everyday little erratas (like the Assyrian card), but for erratas with complicated wording, or big changes like ANB, would it be terrible to post them here on the forum for the general members to check out and evaluate? You've done so in the past with ruling change ideas (like dom cap, first round doms, etc.), and that way there would be many more eyes checking the wording for loopholes/errors (like the artifact pile one in ANB's case).
Just a thought.
-
Having more sets of eyes on EVERYTHING would make it better. In this respect I actually do approve of the way it's moving, and unless the momentum is halted again I won't have a problem with not everything being evaluated by people good at rules lawyering overnight.
-
#3 I can't believe no one even seemed to notice my comment about birth certificates and Obama. I really thought that was funny :)
I gave your post a + 1 just for that comment.
-
Your joke was the victim of my annoyance with this thread, i didn't even notice it the first time. It was so subtle haha
-
Demands Elder Rulings.
Is dissatisfied with Elder Rulings.
Are you saying that we shouldn't be disatisfied with an inconsistency in rulings that for the most part is being ignored? One Elder's word is not law and though I respect ProfU a lot, and I will keep pinging away at this until we get as much consistency as possible. This would and should be trivial to fix, so why isn't it being fixed?
-
Ok so ANB doesn't shuffle art piles due to chronic's rules lawyering trying to get split alter changed? If ANB no longer shuffles art piles I'm complaining to multiple elders.
-
Are you saying that we shouldn't be disatisfied with an inconsistency in rulings that for the most part is being ignored? One Elder's word is not law and though I respect ProfU a lot, and I will keep pinging away at this until we get as much consistency as possible. This would and should be trivial to fix, so why isn't it being fixed?
I'm saying that you are continuing to beat a dead horse. The errata will probably get changed eventually but at the moment the elders have decided that their arms are tired, or maybe their stick broke, or maybe the horse has finally decayed beyond recognition and now it's just beating a lump of carbon which is not an old-timey saying so they decided to stop. These cards have cause incredible frustration for the elders for a long period of time and they DO NOT want to revisit them at the moment, not to change the errata, not to change the way the cards work. currently split altar doesn't shuffle facedown arts, and ANB does. this is how it's being played by everyone everywhere so there is no need currently to change the wording. Someday it will get done, but first someone has to kill another horse and give the elders a massage. This isn't one elders word being taken as law this is all of the elders already ruled it this way, one elder reconfirmed. If you want it to be changed ever I suggest you drop the subject for a little while, give the elders some time away from these cards, and bring it up at a later time.
Ok so ANB doesn't shuffle art piles due to chronic's rules lawyering trying to get split alter changed? If ANB no longer shuffles art piles I'm complaining to multiple elders.
Yes THAT will solve the frustration problem.
-
It helps to read a thread.... but when the thread is 11 pages long people(like me) use the current page to make posts... and you get what I said.
-
Are you saying that we shouldn't be disatisfied with an inconsistency in rulings that for the most part is being ignored? One Elder's word is not law and though I respect ProfU a lot, and I will keep pinging away at this until we get as much consistency as possible. This would and should be trivial to fix, so why isn't it being fixed?
I'm saying that you are continuing to beat a dead horse. The errata will probably get changed eventually but at the moment the elders have decided that their arms are tired, or maybe their stick broke, or maybe the horse has finally decayed beyond recognition and now it's just beating a lump of carbon which is not an old-timey saying so they decided to stop. These cards have cause incredible frustration for the elders for a long period of time and they DO NOT want to revisit them at the moment, not to change the errata, not to change the way the cards work. currently split altar doesn't shuffle facedown arts, and ANB does. this is how it's being played by everyone everywhere so there is no need currently to change the wording. Someday it will get done, but first someone has to kill another horse and give the elders a massage. This isn't one elders word being taken as law this is all of the elders already ruled it this way, one elder reconfirmed. If you want it to be changed ever I suggest you drop the subject for a little while, give the elders some time away from these cards, and bring it up at a later time.
Beating a dead horse seems to be the only way that nagging long time inconsistencies get resolved around here. I have seen issues bet brought up and deferred only to not be resolved for months or sometimes years, that is not acceptable. And no I have not seen or heard any other elder say that ANB shuffles art piles with its current errata, remember ANB was errated last season(If my memorey serves). But is has been played that it does shuffle artifact piles under the current errata. That does not make it correct. So when I come here for confirmation because this is inconsistent with the cursed Split Altar ruling, I am told to let it go. When I host tournaments I have duty to do my best to get correct answers AND be able to explain them. When we have an inconsistency, and there is no sufficient answer other than perhaps the eratta was wrong, but if nothing is entered into the REG corrections thread, the REG, or a ruling made by two elders it is not an official rule. I may be being very rigid about this, but as a judge that is my job. There is either a right answer or a wrong answer. IMO it would be a disservice to my players otherwise.
-
You can't explain some things. Why is Michael's ability CBN? Because abilities that grant CBN are inherently CBN. Well why? Because that's how it is.
Why does ANB shuffle artifact piles. Because that's how it is.
-
You can't explain some things. Why is Michael's ability CBN? Because abilities that grant CBN are inherently CBN. Well why? Because that's how it is.
Why does ANB shuffle artifact piles. Because that's how it is.
CBN-granting abilities having CBN status themselves have long-standing support in the rulebook/REG, and is not ambiguous there at all. A New Beginning having different targeting rules than Split Altar does not have such support besides tradition, which is not a good reason. That's more at a "tides go in, tides go out" level of inexplicability.
-
CBN-granting abilities having CBN status themselves have long-standing support in the rulebook/REG, and is not ambiguous there at all. A New Beginning having different targeting rules than Split Altar does not have such support besides tradition, which is not a good reason. That's more at a "tides go in, tides go out" level of inexplicability.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.urlesque.com%2Fmedia%2F2011%2F02%2Foreillycantexplain1.jpg&hash=affb596c65450e8f1755a81efd187349a12fd633)
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.urlesque.com%2Fmedia%2F2011%2F02%2Foreillycantexplain1.jpg&hash=affb596c65450e8f1755a81efd187349a12fd633)
All they have to do to get me to let this go is just correct the errata or make a ruling, those are not unreasonable requests. The CBN decision is well documented and has a ruling so thats apples and oranges. You can mock me all you want but in the end all I want is an "official" answer, that is consistent. So Either:
1. The eratta is worded wrong and we need an entry in the REG corrections thread to reinstate the "ALL".
2. ANB doesn't shuffle artifacts, would require two elders to make it official.
3. Split Altar does Shuffle Art piles because ANB does, again would require two elder.
Asking for an eratta correction is not an outrageous request, regardless of what the card is. We have gotten REG corrections for lesser things.
-
correcting the REG is not the same as asking to have a card re-errata'd
-
correcting the REG is not the same as asking to have a card re-errata'd
Where have I asked for a re-errata? I just requested that they fix this. I don't care how they do it at this point, just that they do it.
-
They forgot the "artifact piles" in the errata, just like they forgot to add facedown arts to split altar. They would now have to do decide to bite the bullet the way they did with split altar or change the errata to include artifact piles. Re-errata.
-
You're all still harping about this? You need to drop it...just like the individual that dropped my post that may or may not have contained some politically-incorrect statements or phraseology regarding the lack of support for our adopted brethren that currently reside in the Promised Land.
:P
-
They forgot the "artifact piles" in the errata, just like they forgot to add facedown arts to split altar. They would now have to do decide to bite the bullet the way they did with split altar or change the errata to include artifact piles. Re-errata.
That's exactly what they need to do. What they cannot do is just put their fingers in their ears and start humming the Munchkin song from The Wizard of Oz.
-
and they probably will, after some time has passed and the mere mention of either of these cards no longer causes instant rAgE
-
That time will never come. You can't not do something just because you don't want to do it, and you especially can't admit that's the reason. Until this gets fixed, ANB does not shuffle art piles. If the elders have a problem with that, they need to make another errata or make a consensus ruling.
-
We're allowed to be dissatisfied with this ruling, Alec. If you're annoyed by this thread, you don't have to post in it, and just shouting "YOU GUYS ARE BEATING A DEAD HORSE" over and over again isn't helping anyone.
-
We have an elder ruling that it does, and since he's not trying to change a rule he really didn't have to say anything at all. ANB functions as it has until 2 elders state otherwise (that is the requirement to overturn a ruling if i'm not mistaken). It is not our place to change that. I'm all for wanting rules clarified but we can't just play a card a certain way because that's how we think it should work.
You are allowed to be dissatisfied, however this issue has been resolved for the time being. You asked for an elder ruling, it was given. Prof U has already stated that the elders aren't going to do anything about it any time soon so at this point you are, infact, beating a dead horse. If you are annoyed by this ruling, you don't have to post in this thread either. Continuing to argue when you got your ruling isn't helping anyone.
-
You can't not do something just because you don't want to do it
#2 if I could change the errata personally on ANB to add artifact piles, then I probably would. But I can't, so I won't. If you want it changed, then post it on the thread about REG changes needed.
It's not a matter of "want to", but a matter of "unable to". And you can post on the thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/play-aserrata-modifications-for-reg/msg447829/#msg447829) where this really belongs just as easily as me, and it will probably be just as effective.
Until this gets fixed, ANB does not shuffle art piles. If the elders have a problem with that, they need to make another errata or make a consensus ruling.
This is wrong. The status quo ruling on ANB is that is DOES shuffle artifact piles. If you want that to change, then you need to get a consensus of elders to agree with you.
Prof U has already stated that the elders aren't going to do anything about it any time soon
Actually I didn't say that nothing would be done soon, just that we're tired of ruling questions about these 2 cards. I actually don't know whether the errata will be updated soon or not. I'm just guessing from the fact that this thread has gone over 10 pages and no other elder than myself seems willing to touch it with a 10-foot pole that it is not worth causing more of a stink about currently.
-
my bad, misinterpreted that.
-
Underwood, I hope you know I'm not really angry with you or any of the other Elders, just the situation in general. As you said, at least you posted. I'm aware that precedent beats anything else until its officially overturned, but can you at least see why most of us who have posted in the last few pages are upset? This seems to be a huge inconsistency, and while I don't know the etiquette for errataing a card, surely this isn't something where there would be any dissent among the Elders?
-
I don't know the etiquette for errataing a card,
And you can post on the thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/play-aserrata-modifications-for-reg/msg447829/#msg447829) where this really belongs just as easily as me, and it will probably be just as effective.
-
I did that, Stamp, however, I don't know what happened if the Elders talk about it. If it's just a thread on that side of the board; that sort of thing.
-
I did that, Stamp, however, I don't know what happened if the Elders talk about it. If it's just a thread on that side of the board; that sort of thing.
I don't think you want to tear down that veil. ;D
-
Prof U, currently, either Split Altar does shuffle the piles, ANB does not shuffle the piles, or defaulting to play is no longer true. There is no possible way for ANB in its current form to shuffle art piles unless Split Altar also does. The status quo was changed when ANB was re-errata'd again, it just took a while to catch it. The other option is to have two bottom-up rulings regarding two specific cards, which is what you're suggesting is currently the case. I can't believe any elder supports those kinds of rulings.
-
The other option is to have two bottom-up rulings regarding two specific cards, which is what you're suggesting is currently the case. I can't believe any elder supports those kinds of rulings.
Actually my understanding is that at this point we have 1 card that fits with the top down rulings (Split Altar) and 1 card that is a bottom-up ruling currently (ANB).
Do I like having any bottom-up rulings? No
Am I going to single-handedly change the ruling on ANB? No
Can I possibly change the errata myself? No
So there you have it. I feel badly for the apparent inconsistency. But at this point this issue has been sufficiently pointed out, and the suggestion of updating the errata has been made on the proper thread. Unless some other elders want to get involved, I think the best idea is for me to stop posting on this thread.