Author Topic: The Darkness & Wall (Read 6343 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #25 on:** February 28, 2010, 09:48:16 AM »

They don't need to. I found it finally (well hidden) in the current REG:

• The Evil Character in The Darkness is not protected by Wall of Protection. It can be brought into battle by an opponent according to the special ability on The Darkness because the Evil Character is only revealed and not flipped over (put into play). The Evil Character is not protected unless the protect card specifically targets cards that are “face down”.

So, all along the key word was "reveal." WoP does not protect the EC in The Darkness because it is not in play. It is revealed, but not "played" (is that the right word?

) until it enters battle (as if from hand). By then, WoP can do nothing.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #26 on:** February 28, 2010, 09:57:00 AM »

ahh. that makes sense...

STAMP · « **Reply #27 on:** February 28, 2010, 11:45:58 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 28, 2010, 09:48:16 AM

They don't need to. I found it finally (well hidden) in the current REG:

• The Evil Character in The Darkness is not protected by Wall of Protection. It can be brought into battle by an opponent according to the special ability on The Darkness because the Evil Character is only revealed and not flipped over (put into play). The Evil Character is not protected unless the protect card specifically targets cards that are “face down”.

So, all along the key word was "reveal." WoP does not protect the EC in The Darkness because it is not in play. It is revealed, but not "played" (is that the right word? ) until it enters battle (as if from hand). By then, WoP can do nothing.

The REG is correct.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #28 on:** February 28, 2010, 12:35:27 PM »

But the REG is in another persons territory (their server), and therefore it is illegal to band to it during this battle (argument), so that means YMT must be disqualified from this ruling tournament for cheating.

....

Professoralstad · « **Reply #29 on:** February 28, 2010, 12:59:18 PM »

Also, that's the old REG. So what it says is irrelevant.

STAMP · « **Reply #30 on:** February 28, 2010, 02:49:10 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 28, 2010, 12:59:18 PM

Also, that's the old REG. So what it says is irrelevant.

Professoralstad is correct.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #31 on:** February 28, 2010, 05:28:42 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on February 28, 2010, 11:45:58 AM

STAMP is correct.

everytribe · « **Reply #32 on:** February 28, 2010, 07:05:52 PM »

YourMathTeacher is correct.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #33 on:** February 28, 2010, 11:38:57 PM »

Quote from: everytribe on February 28, 2010, 07:05:52 PM

YourMathTeacher is correct.

I'm not completely sure if this is in relation to the above post, or the whole REG quote... but this thread was funny anyway!

again, I'd still argue that it cannot.

Korunks · « **Reply #34 on:** March 01, 2010, 07:54:38 AM »

Quote

• The Evil Character in The Darkness is not protected by Wall of Protection. It can be brought into battle by an opponent according to the special ability on The Darkness because the Evil Character is only revealed and not flipped over (put into play). The Evil Character is not protected unless the protect card specifically targets cards that are “face down”.

Well I think this is how it is, unitil the new REG comes out and changes this to the opposite.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #35 on:** March 01, 2010, 09:09:06 AM »

it does make sense...

frisian9 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 02, 2010, 05:07:05 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 28, 2010, 12:59:18 PM

Also, that's the old REG. So what it says is irrelevant.

There is no old REG until it is replaced with a new one. It has not been replaced yet. What is posted is a draft put out for comment. We are still working on the replacement.

Mike

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #37 on:** March 02, 2010, 05:19:45 PM »

FWIW, I think the Professor was poking fun at me, not the REG.

SirNobody · « **Reply #38 on:** March 03, 2010, 03:20:46 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 28, 2010, 09:48:16 AM

• The Evil Character in The Darkness is not protected by Wall of Protection. It can be brought into battle by an opponent according to the special ability on The Darkness because the Evil Character is only revealed and not flipped over (put into play). The Evil Character is not protected unless the protect card specifically targets cards that are “face down”.

I was actually going to reply and say this, but I wasn't going to bother looking it up in the REG I was just going to say it

The new REG will not change this ruling. I do have an idea for improving how we handle face down cards

but it won't be in the new REG and it wouldn't change this ruling anyway.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Korunks · « **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2010, 03:42:12 PM »

So say I am playing in a MP game, Can I use any opponents Character in the darkness, or does the owner have to initiate the placement.

STAMP · « **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2010, 04:25:59 PM »

Well the REG is wrong, plain and simple. But it doesn't matter.

Wall of Protection
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place this site in your territory. No character in your territory may be brought into battle by an opponent. • Play As: Place this site in your territory. Characters in your territory are protected from being brought into battle by an opponent. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Kings 9:15

If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #41 on:** March 03, 2010, 04:51:31 PM »

As much as I agree with STAMP, I want it ruled the other way beings my deck needs both Wall and Darkness. >:c

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #42 on:** March 03, 2010, 06:57:32 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on March 03, 2010, 04:25:59 PM

If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.

I thought the point was that the face-down card is not a "character," it is just a card.

STAMP · « **Reply #43 on:** March 03, 2010, 07:02:16 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 03, 2010, 06:57:32 PM

Quote from: STAMP on March 03, 2010, 04:25:59 PM
If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.

I thought the point was that the face-down card is not a "character," it is just a card.

If it's not a character how can it be banded into battle in the first place?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #44 on:** March 03, 2010, 07:21:12 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on March 03, 2010, 07:02:16 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 03, 2010, 06:57:32 PM
Quote from: STAMP on March 03, 2010, 04:25:59 PM
If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.

I thought the point was that the face-down card is not a "character," it is just a card.

If it's not a character how can it be banded into battle in the first place?

How can any card in my hand be banded into battle? The card "becomes" a character when it enters battle.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #45 on:** March 03, 2010, 11:51:11 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 03, 2010, 07:21:12 PM

Quote from: STAMP on March 03, 2010, 07:02:16 PM
Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 03, 2010, 06:57:32 PM
Quote from: STAMP on March 03, 2010, 04:25:59 PM
If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.

I thought the point was that the face-down card is not a "character," it is just a card.

If it's not a character how can it be banded into battle in the first place?

How can any card in my hand be banded into battle? The card "becomes" a character when it enters battle.

then how can cards in your draw pile be banded into battle? the card is a character. it's an identifier.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #46 on:** March 04, 2010, 04:53:51 PM »

I have not read the whole identifier/ability/abilifier thread and I'm not going to. Too many people are jumping off the deep end with whatever ruling was made. I think this is silly, so there is no need for me to respond. Until the new REG is released, I will rule by what the current REG says and my interpretations justify.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #47 on:** March 04, 2010, 05:41:46 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 04, 2010, 04:53:51 PM

I have not read the whole identifier/ability/abilifier thread and I'm not going to. Too many people are jumping off the deep end with whatever ruling was made. I think this is silly, so there is no need for me to respond. Until the new REG is released, I will rule by what the current REG says and my interpretations justify.

so you're ruling that some things in the identifier line can be negated? $:-\$

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #48 on:** March 04, 2010, 05:55:56 PM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on March 04, 2010, 05:41:46 PM

so you're ruling that some things in the identifier line can be negated? $:-\$

You'll have to quote where I said that, otherwise you are just spreading rumors.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #49 on:** March 04, 2010, 06:22:59 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 04, 2010, 05:55:56 PM

Quote from: Ring Wraith on March 04, 2010, 05:41:46 PM
so you're ruling that some things in the identifier line can be negated? $:-\$

You'll have to quote where I said that, otherwise you are just spreading rumors.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 04, 2010, 04:53:51 PM

Until the new REG is released, I will rule by what the current REG says and my interpretations justify.

the old REG states that identifiers only tell what something IS. (i.e. male, king of judah... blah blah blah) and some fortresses have S.A. in the identifier line (like holds certain artifact), which are negated when cards such as Image of Jealousy are played.

News:

Author Topic: The Darkness & Wall (Read 6343 times)

Warrior_Monk

Lamborghini_diablo

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk