Author Topic: Split Altar (Read 19571 times)

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #100 on:** March 04, 2012, 02:10:09 PM »

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.

Josh · « **Reply #101 on:** March 04, 2012, 05:59:32 PM »

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

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 Just because this hypothetical OP card has outdated "clarification" language doesn't mean the card can do something it's not allowed to do.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.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #102 on:** March 04, 2012, 10:34:45 PM »

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?

browarod · « **Reply #103 on:** March 04, 2012, 10:59:59 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on March 04, 2012, 10:34:45 PM

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).

STAMP · « **Reply #104 on:** March 04, 2012, 11:37:31 PM »

I just realized how crazy it is that I'm arging for ANB to be more restrictive.

It's cats chasing dogs again.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #105 on:** March 05, 2012, 12:57:24 PM »

Quote from: browarod on March 04, 2012, 10:59:59 PM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on March 04, 2012, 10:34:45 PM
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.

STAMP · « **Reply #106 on:** March 05, 2012, 01:30:39 PM »

Face-down cards have been, are, and must always be out of play. Period.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #107 on:** March 05, 2012, 01:31:44 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on March 05, 2012, 01:30:39 PM

Face-down cards have been, are, and must always be out of play. Period.

True. But are they still in the territory? Comma,

STAMP · « **Reply #108 on:** March 05, 2012, 01:50:34 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 05, 2012, 01:31:44 PM

Quote from: STAMP on March 05, 2012, 01:30:39 PM
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.

browarod · « **Reply #109 on:** March 05, 2012, 02:31:01 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #110 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:02:52 PM »

Quote

An artifact pile contains a player’s grail icon cards. This pile is located in the player’s territory within the Field of Play.

Quote

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #111 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:09:06 PM »

put face down artifacts are not.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #112 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:15:53 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 05, 2012, 04:09:06 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #113 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:18:59 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on March 05, 2012, 01:50:34 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 05, 2012, 01:31:44 PM
Quote from: STAMP on March 05, 2012, 01:30:39 PM
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

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #114 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:22:59 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #115 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:39:12 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #116 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:47:17 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #117 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:48:43 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #118 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:50:10 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #119 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:53:48 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #120 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:57:02 PM »

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #121 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:57:59 PM »

Quote from: browarod on March 05, 2012, 02:31:01 PM

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.

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 05, 2012, 04:47:17 PM

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."?

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 05, 2012, 04:02:52 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #122 on:** March 05, 2012, 04:58:40 PM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #123 on:** March 05, 2012, 05:08:07 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 05, 2012, 04:22:59 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #124 on:** March 05, 2012, 05:09:29 PM »

Thank you Prof U

News:

Author Topic: Split Altar (Read 19571 times)

browarod

browarod

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy