Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Or better, reverse the ruling that never should have been made in the first place and let each of them play as they seem to upon reading.

I agree, This was all started when the AT ruling came through and it is fouling up the works.  Now people do not know how to rule on any artifact that seems to be clear in wording, but because of AT few players are sure of anything when it comes to Arts.

I would really rather preffer that there be a list of Arts that are used upon activation and those used upon condition and that list stay put.  That way people know hhow to play those arts.  Nothing makes me more angry that when I get to a tournament and have a card, especially an Art crucial to my offense or defense, ruled the wrong way.

Someone tell us how it is to be played and settle this.  I think Arch Angel is a fool for trying to make UW a one turn use art just like AT is a two turn use art because UW does not limit its use of turns, it only says d/c after use, but if this AT ruling id going to change other Arts, let us know NOW so that we can know how to play them.

These rulings coming down before Nats is simply insane.

Someone tell us how it is to be played and settle this.  I think Arch Angel is a fool for trying to make UW a one turn use art just like AT is a two turn use art because UW does not limit its use of turns, it only says d/c after use, but if this AT ruling id going to change other Arts, let us know NOW so that we can know how to play them.

I'm not trying to make it be a 1 turn use artifact, I'd actually much prefer it to recieve a Play As so that it functions like Go Into Captivity. I've said that probably about five times by now.

Quote from: crustpope on July 29, 2009, 11:02:17 AM

I think Arch Angel is a fool for trying to make UW a one turn use art just like AT is a two turn use art because UW does not limit its use of turns, it only says d/c after use..

I'm not trying to make it be a 1 turn use artifact, I'd actually much prefer it to recieve a Play As so that it functions like Go Into Captivity. I've said that probably about five times by now.

Yes you are trying to make it a one turn artifact.  The problem I have is that you have Zero basis for making that claim.  I think this whole thread is foolishness because there are probably artifacts that are much more like AT that you could pick a fight with like "The Silver Trumpets" or "Thirty Pieces of Silver" and make a case for them to be expired after two turns.  I would still argue with you on those points as well because I see them as Optional that may be applied at any time, but at least you would have a leg to stand on. 

Unholy Writ says nothing in its SA about only being used for one turn.  It talks about being used and it sets the conditions for that use. period.

Unholy Writ
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: A human Hero in battle may be taken prisoner. Discard Artifact after use. • Play As: When holder chooses, capture a human Hero during battle. Discard Artifact after one use.

It is as clear as it can be written.  It is optional and may be used at the discresion of the holder.  Tim Maly has already pointed out that the REG quote you keep using is not in ANY of the other rulebook material and is likely a misprint yet you keep slogging away at this.  This Argument of yours is bordering on insanity and frankly is doing nothing to clear up the problems that originaly started it, The "faulty" AT ruling.  My problem is not that you are making this argument as an example of the potential problems with the AT ruling, it is that you have chosen perhaps the POORESt example of a possible problem and have continued ot hammer away at it long after TPTB have noted that  your arguments are based on:

1) a faulty understanding of optional or conditional uses artifacts,
2) a wrong Quote in the REG and
3) perhapst the WORST EXAMPLE of a potential problem with the AT ruling.

do yourself a favor an please stop

That directly contradicts what Rob said.  That is the part you have not addressed.  Repeating the same statement you've been making does not address the problem.

Where did I contradict anything Rob said?

Yes you are trying to make it a one turn artifact.  The problem I have is that you have Zero basis for making that claim.

Ok so wait you said I'm being oblivious, and then said I'm doing something that i just said I'm not. Way to be.

I'm NOT trying to make UW a one time use art. I'm simply trying to get either a ruling (on either side) or the abilities on the cards changed via play as so that things don't contradict.

Here's what I've been trying to say the whole time:
Scenario one (Ongoing, no Limit):
On my turn, I activate Tables of the Law, it is now that artifact I'm using. The round goes through and it's once again my turn. Because TotL was my active artifact it loses a "use." TotL has no limit on uses, though, so this is not recorded.

Scenario two (Ongoing, Limit):
On my turn. I activate AT, it is now the artifact that I'm using. The round goes through without me blocking with an Assyrian and comes back to my turn, and because AT was my active artifact it loses a "use." I leave AT active again, the round goes through and it comes back to my turn. AT is now discarded because there's an understood "Discard this card..." after the two 'uses' are completed. Even though the SAs say they "May" be used twice, activating them automatically applies a Use because of game rule.

Scenario three (Manual Trigger, Limit):
On my turn, I activate UW, it is now the artifact I'm using. The round goes around, but I decide not to capture a Hero in Battle. It's now my turn again, and because UW was active it loses a "use." Because UW says "discard after one use" I discard it.

Scenario four (Manual Trigger, no Limit):
On my turn, I activate Unknown Nation, it is now that artifact I'm using. The round goes through and it's once again my turn. Because UN was my active artifact it loses a "use." UN has no limit on uses, though, so this is not recorded.

You were careful to point out that the first two abilities were ongoing, but "conveniently" left out that the last two were non-ongoing (and completely neglected the optional/non-optional abilities).

Er, how did i 'conveniently' leave it out? I just used the term the REG uses, "Manual Trigger"

Also, Like I said Rob was talking about the activation of the special abilities, he didn't once mention the physical use of an artifact. According to the entry in the rulebook (which according to Rob's post existed BEFORE he posted it) Activation constitutes "Using" the ability. There isn't anything in the REG or Rulebook that says "But if the Artifact's ability is optional, it's only a use if you trigger it's ability." If such a statement WERE in the REG/Rulebook then I wouldn't be debating this. In fact if such a thing were added it'd be a fine solution as well.

Also, I would appreciate not being falsely accused of things I haven't done.

Er, how did i 'conveniently' leave it out? I just used the term the REG uses, "Manual Trigger"

Well, first of all, what I said you left out was the fact that they are instant abilities when activated.  You made it a point to note ongoing Artifacts, but not non-ongoing Artifacts, even though that is a key part of how these work.  And here, you're questioning me for saying so, but still make no mention of their instantaneous effect.

And the part you are neglecting is the description of how optional Artifact uses work that was laid out in plain English on page 1.  You used the term but you didn't bother to apply any significance to it, nor apply that in your scenarios to determine the outcome.  So "using the term" doesn't really impress me when it's just a throwaway phrase.

Also, Like I said Rob was talking about the activation of the special abilities, he didn't once mention the physical use of an artifact.

He specifically differentiated between using an Artifact on demand and using an Artifact when activated.  You are inventing a distinction that does not exist.

If such a statement WERE in the REG/Rulebook then I wouldn't be debating this.

Alternately, if something the creator of the game specifically said mattered to you at all, you wouldn't be debating this.

Manually Triggered Ability

A manually triggered ability is an ongoing ability that is directly triggered by the holder... Manually triggered abilities can be identified by the phrase “when holder chooses”... If the condition for the trigger is met, the holder must be given the choice to activate the ability before another card can be played.

Also, I would appreciate not being falsely accused of things I haven't done.

I'm only going on what you said, and I don't say anything that I can't back up.

Well, first of all, what I said you left out was the fact that they are instant abilities when activated.  You made it a point to note ongoing Artifacts, but not non-ongoing Artifacts, even though that is a key part of how these work.  And here, you're questioning me for saying so, but still make no mention of their instantaneous effect.

I didn't include that they were instant abilities because it wasn't relevant to the scenarios I presented. I also presumed that it was understood that a Manual Trigger Artifact always was an optional ability because that's the definition.

And the part you are neglecting is the description of how optional Artifact uses work that was laid out in plain English on page 1.  You used the term but you didn't bother to apply any significance to it, nor apply that in your scenarios to determine the outcome.  So "using the term" doesn't really impress me when it's just a throwaway phrase.

... Why would I include a description that I not only disagree with, but that is not found anywhere in the rules.

"Manual Trigger" ONLY applies to the ABILITY of the artifact, not how many "uses" it has.

He specifically differentiated between using an Artifact on demand and using an Artifact when activated.  You are inventing a distinction that does not exist.

He specified between how the SAs on them functioned, not as to whether or not activating them does/does not count as a use.

Manually Triggered Ability

A manually triggered ability is an ongoing ability that is directly triggered by the holder... Manually triggered abilities can be identified by the phrase “when holder chooses”... If the condition for the trigger is met, the holder must be given the choice to activate the ability before another card can be played.

Fixed your emphasis.
Ability =! Use
Activated as an Artifact = Use

As I tried to say, in those scenarios i was describing how it should work currently following the current wording and rules.

That's not correct because you have been shown repeatedly how your interpretation is contradictory and you have not addressed that contradiction.

UW just says the understood meaning instead of the typical ruling.

It is understood because of the rules regarding the optional use of Artifacts.

I didn't include that they were instant abilities because it wasn't relevant to the scenarios I presented.

It IS, because ongoing abilities are active for an extended period of time, and therefore those are always used when active.  That was THE POINT of what Tim and Rob said earlier, and the fact that you think it doesn't matter demonstrates your lack of understanding.

I also presumed that it was understood that a Manual Trigger Artifact always was an optional ability because that's the definition.

Apparently not, because you are making the usage mandatory.

"Manual Trigger" ONLY applies to the ABILITY of the artifact, not how many "uses" it has.

You are inventing a distinction that does not exist.  Using the ability IS the use.

He specified between how the SAs on them functioned, not as to whether or not activating them does/does not count as a use.

He specifically used the term "used when activated" and specifically differentiated them.  "USED WHEN ACTIVATED" is the EXACT thing you are talking about, and it is blatantly false to limit his words to the special ability, as though there was somehow a difference.  You have been shown repeatedly that the places you think there is a difference are wrong.

Ability =! Use
Activated as an Artifact = Use

This statement directly contradicts the REG definition that says the holder can CHOOSE TO ACTIVATE.  You are inventing a distinction that does not exist.

Pretty sure Arch Angel isn't gonna give this up until Rob specifically addresses it.

Rob addressed it on page 1, actually BEFORE because he was QUOTED on page one.  It hasn't made a lick of difference because he refuses to accept any information beyond the small amount he is drawing from.

Look, Arch, I know you don't agree with the ruling.  You have established this.  However, ROB HAS RULED ON THIS ISSUE.  Once Rob rules, that's it.

I'm not going to say Rob has never changed his mind, but he's a lot like a baseball umpire in that he's not likely to do it very often.

I don't agree with every ruling Rob has ever made.  But we all accept them.  There has to be a final call in Redemption, and Rob makes those calls.  He has made a call.  Please live with it and move on.

Kevin Shride