Author Topic: Split Altar (Read 19581 times)

browarod · « **Reply #75 on:** March 03, 2012, 05:37:47 PM »

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

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).

lp670sv · « **Reply #76 on:** March 03, 2012, 05:40:22 PM »

That's because not in battle has been defined

browarod · « **Reply #77 on:** March 03, 2012, 05:53:12 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 03, 2012, 05:40:22 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #78 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:00:11 PM »

"Not in battle" means a certain thing. You can't use its definition for something completely different.

lp670sv · « **Reply #79 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:07:29 PM »

Quote from: browarod on March 03, 2012, 05:53:12 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on March 03, 2012, 05:40:22 PM
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.

browarod · « **Reply #80 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:14:17 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #81 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:17:59 PM »

"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.

browarod · « **Reply #82 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:18:51 PM »

Except that's what precedents are: rulings/definitions for a type of thing that demonstrate how that type of thing is treated.

lp670sv · « **Reply #83 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:21:15 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #84 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:23:59 PM »

Quote from: browarod on March 03, 2012, 06:18:51 PM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #85 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:34:12 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #86 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:41:42 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #87 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:43:43 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 03, 2012, 06:41:42 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #88 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:45:24 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #89 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:46:36 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 03, 2012, 06:45:24 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #90 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:47:40 PM »

Targeting an area is not the same as trying to target a specific card.

browarod · « **Reply #91 on:** March 03, 2012, 06:54:41 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 03, 2012, 06:47:40 PM

Targeting an area is not the same as trying to target a specific card.

The "in play" default applies to both, though.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #92 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:00:05 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #93 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:04:39 PM »

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?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #94 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:11:21 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #95 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:14:12 PM »

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).

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #96 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:17:28 PM »

Quote from: browarod on March 03, 2012, 07:14:12 PM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #97 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:20:37 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #98 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:21:29 PM »

Haha, there are a lot of things we could say about hindsight and this game.

browarod · « **Reply #99 on:** March 03, 2012, 07:28:50 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 03, 2012, 07:21:29 PM

Haha, there are a lot of things we could say about hindsight and this game.

Too true.

News:

Author Topic: Split Altar (Read 19581 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

browarod