Cactus Game Design Message Boards

OR...it could be that mark was mistaken and did not understand or recognize that a precedent had been set already.  Both he and John Early chimed in on that thread stating their opinion and others confirmed that Rob has stated that any ruling will not change until after Nats.

Do we have a thread that discusses "Sent to Serve"?

it could be that mark was mistaken and did not understand or recognize that a precedent had been set already.

It is indeed possible that I was mistaken, but if so, then there are at least 3 other elders who also believed that this was still an unresolved issue.  We are talking about this on the other side, and I hope that we'll have a definitive answer by Nats.

My posting next to this ruling was based on this comment by Gabe.  given that Rob has spoken on the ruling, that is good enough for me.  I will leave it stated as such with the asteriks until Rob or a majority of elders tell me otherwise.

Again, I could be mistaken, but I think that Gabe might be reading Rob's comment differently than I am.  Throughout the discussion on the other side, I (and others) have been proceeding based on the idea that this is ruled differently in different parts of the country, and that we'll have to pick one way to rule at Nats.  Therefore, Rob's comment that we won't "need" a decsion until Nats could mean that he is fine with individual regional judges deciding, but that we'll have to have a consensus ruling for Nats itself.  That does NOT necessarily mean that whatever is announced at Nats will be for NEXT year, but rather could be that the announcement will be for how it is ruled at Nats THIS year.

In addition Rob has not stated what the ruling will be, or come down for certain on one side of the fence.  At this point the thread continues to progress, and to assume anything one way or another is probably premature.  When Rob has officially "spoken on the ruling" he will either do it on this side of the boards, or he will do it clear enough on the other side of the boards that all the elders will know what the ruling is and we'll bring it back to you guys.  That hasn't happened yet.

also i remember another thread that im not sure got a clear ruling on... Fishing Boat and when characters can be taken out of the boat. It specifically states when characters can be taken out oif the boat like Chamber of Angels clearly states:

Chamber of Angels (AW)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set this fortress aside. If holder's angel is being discarded, place it here instead. After two turns, return Hero to the top of your draw pile. • Play As: If holder's angel is being discarded, heal and place it here instead. After two turns, return Hero to the top of your deck. Chamber of Angels may hold any number of angels. • Identifiers: Play to set-aside area. • Verse: Revelation 4:8 • Availability: Angel Wars booster packs (Rare)

Fishing Boat (Di)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set this aside. Each upkeep, you may place a Hero from here beneath your deck to draw X or to give your disciples access to all Sites this turn. • Identifiers: Holds up to 12 disciples. X = # of Heroes here • Verse: Luke 5:4 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()

The ruling on that is that Fortresses with a Hold ability allow transfer in/out during prep phase unless the fortress specifies the way in which the cards it holds are both added and removed. Chamber specifies both, which is why you can't just put Angels in there or take them out. Boat only specifies how they leave, so you can add/remove Disciples as much as you want during prep phase.

You could even, for example, put all the Disciples but one into the boat, play Pentecost on the one, then bring the rest back before attacking.

That's an ongoing discussion? I thought that was resolved ages ago, and was in fact given a very detailed explanation of how the mechanics of it function.

I am unsure if this has been resolved or not, but can priestly breastplate be activated from a priest of does it have to be activated from the artifact pile every turn?  I know the first turn you activate it it would have to be activated from the artifact pile, but for each turn after that does it have to be activated from the artifact pile or does it remain on the priest until you deactivate it?

Wool Fleece being a prevent or protect should be added to this list.

Quote from: Gabe on June 26, 2011, 10:21:20 AM

It's still ruled as a prevent. We are discussing the pros/cons of ruling it a protect but no decision has been made on whether or not it will be changed.

That makes it unresolved doesn't it?

Fair enough.

Whether or not a generic character can enter battle more than one time during a turn is up for debate. There's an inactive discussion taking place but no consensus yet.

Ex: I block with Wandering Spirit (txp) and you play AoCp. WS goes under my deck. I use Gates of  @#!*%  to put him back into my territory. Can I now discard Gates to add him to battle (again)?

crustpope, could you add this to the list of unresolved rulings?

It is added.  This one is particularly interesting for me because I have at least one deck that abuses this in type 2.  Is there a thread on this side of the board that I can link to this thread?

Quote from: crustpope on March 17, 2011, 11:18:21 PM

2. Thaddeus and other protects protecting from the Numbers on EC's - 2/27/11
7. Does Thad protect from enhancements played on an evil character. 6/21/2011  *
8. Can Creeping Deciever be negated by enhancements played on an evil character. 6/21/2011  *

These have now all been officially decided.
#2 - Thad DOES protect from the numbers on ECs
#7 - Thad DOES protect from the EEs played on ECs
#8 - CD can NOT be negated by EEs played on characters.

This will be the ruling both at Nats this summer, and also for the foreseeable future.

This would also effectively wrap up the discussion on whether Protection of Angels protects from the numbers on EC's as well.

Muy Bueno!