Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Wings of Music on March 22, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
-
Situation:
I have gray character in territory and my opponent has TGT up. I want to block with my other gray character from hand. From what I hear, the character from hand can't block because he's being ignored.
But this lead me to question:
1) Does TGT ignore ECs with no/unknown brigade? Since my EC is in hand the opponent can't know the brigade, essentially meaning he has no brigade. So would TGT ignore this brigade-less EC?
2) When do the brigades on ECs played from hand activate? Couldn't I put my Gray guy in battle to negate TGT? Remember we don't know his brigade until I put him in play, so I think that this would work unless TGT ignores characters of unknown brigade.
3) A better question is this, can you ignore something that is out of play? If you can ignore something that's out of play I can see how TGT ignores the EC in hand but if Ignore defaults to in play like other abilities shouldn't I be able to block with my gray EC from hand?
The Garden Tomb (RA)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If opponent has a redeemed Lost Soul, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play.
Thanks!
-
AFAIK, characters not in battle being ignored works something like: the brigade is unable to even enter the field of battle, regardless of originating location (you can't pull an ignored EC from deck to battle, for example, anymore than you could drop an ignored EC from hand).
As far as the "ignoring unknown brigades" thing, there is a set list of brigades. I imagine it works much like the latest Lampstand clarification: "not in battle" is a specific list of locations, and "brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play" is also a specific list.
-
My issue is the 'at least two characters in play' clause. As soon as I add a character into battle it's in play and if it's of the same brigade TGT no longer has effect.
Now my argument is invalid if somehow my character is being ignored from out of play. But I don't see how that can work since things default to in play.
In regards to bringing ignored characters into battle, I understand why we won't do that, but in regards to this character that I'm trying to bring in, as soon as he does enters battle he's no longer ignored.
I guess I should find out how the 'can't bring in ignored characters' works, when does that restriction kick in? Does it kick in once the character tries to enter battle or before that?
I have a lot of questions that are difficult to answer. Thanks browarod for helping out. :)
I'm awful curious to hear what the elders say though...
EDIT:
BTW what does AFAIK mean? Not knowing that may have caused me to misconstrue the meaning of your post...
-
'As far as I know'
Ignore is a 4 part ability.
We've got about a dozen threads on it if you want to look for one - But the bottom line is that the character in your hand cannot enter battle.
-
Ok fair enough, I know that ignore is a confusing ability. I suppose that it would be easiest to take your word on it, and let sleeping dogs lie...
-
From the REG:
An ignore ability has four parts:
1. it grants the ignoring card immunity to all cards being ignored
2. it grants the ignored cards immunity to the ignoring card
3. characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)
4. characters already in battle and ignored are treated as though they were not in battle for purposes of determining battle outcome
An ignore ability is ongoing. Part (1) above targets the cards that gain the ignore status. Parts (2) and (4) above target the cards that are ignored. Part (3) above has no target.
Part 3 is the part that stops characters from entering battle, and it apparently has no target, so there's no target to default to in play.
-
It does have a target it targets ignored characters. But if it doesn't specify the target how are the characters ignored unless by the target that they are ignored.
Ignore seems to be tautologous!
-
Yes, unless u can blow TGT sky-high, if u have an Evil Brigade w/ only 1 EC in territory, ur screwed. Unless u have a Cannot be Ignored Card (aka Hating the Light/Large Tree)
-
Yes, unless u can blow TGT sky-high, if u have an Evil Brigade w/ only 1 EC in territory, ur screwed. Unless u have a Cannot be Ignored Card (aka Hating the Light/Large Tree/Golgotha)
FTFY.
-
It does have a target it targets ignored characters. But if it doesn't specify the target how are the characters ignored unless by the target that they are ignored.
Ignore seems to be tautologous!
It actually targets the battlefield. That's how it can stop characters from entering it without targeting them.
-
It actually targets the battlefield. That's how it can stop characters from entering it without targeting them.
3. characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)
Um...question: Does this mean that Lampy suddenly protects hand from Mayhem again? Because if a card is in hand, it is not considered not in battle by the definitions given for that ruling. Evil characters in hand are not targeted by the current definition of Ignore if Mayhem can target them with Lampy up.
By that definition given, the EC must meet BOTH of these conditions: Must be 'not in battle' (this does not include hand) and be ignored.
So I can play from hand into battle by this definition :)
-
What the proof said would not affect Lampy. Lampy doesn't target the battle it targets cards 'not in battle' so since they have different targets they are different situations. Does that make sense?
-
What the proof said would not affect Lampy. Lampy doesn't target the battle it targets cards 'not in battle' so since they have different targets they are different situations. Does that make sense?
Nope, because "not in battle" is defined to not include hand. It is not not in battle. And if Ignore specifically requires the EC to be "not in battle", then it cannot be targeted in hand, which is not not in battle.
Your move broken rule :police:
-
That would be true if ignore targeted the cards not in battle. According to the prof ignore targets the cards 'the field of battle' not cards 'not in the battle'. So there is no discrepancy. Envision ignore as a cement wall with razor-wire on top to keep ECs out, that's the analogy that I thought of when I heard what the proof said.
-
That would be true if ignore targeted the cards not in battle. According to the prof ignore targets the cards 'the field of battle' not cards 'not in the battle'.
An ignore ability has four parts...
...characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)
:o Oh my, it IS how I said it.
Your move broken rule :police:
-
Wait I'm confused by what you meant in the last post... :scratch:
-
Wait I'm confused by what you meant in the last post... :scratch:
I'm saying that, by the definition of ignore, cards can enter battle UNLESS they are 'not in battle' and are being ignored.
Cards in hand are not 'not in battle' anymore.
Therefore, cards in hand can enter battle even if they are being ignored, as they do not meet both criteria required to be restricted from entering.
Your move broken rule :police:
-
Did you even read what the Prof said? Ignore targets the battle not the characters.
It actually targets the battlefield. That's how it can stop characters from entering it without targeting them.
-
Did you even read what the Prof said? Ignore targets the battle not the characters.
It actually targets the battlefield. That's how it can stop characters from entering it without targeting them.
I certainly did read what he said. Does that mean that he is changing the REG at this very second? Because otherwise, the rules currently disagree with him.
I'm not disputing what he said. It is at odds with the rules, however.
-
The quote you are referring to says this "characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle."
You argument would be true if the 'and' were an are. As confusing as it seems the target there is actually battle, the 'cannot enter battle' part of the clause indicates that the battle is being targeted.
I see what you're saying, but the REG does mean what the prof said, even though it may not look like it.
-
The quote you are referring to says this "characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle."
You argument would be true if the 'and' were an are. As confusing as it seems the target there is actually battle, the 'cannot enter battle' part of the clause indicates that the battle is being targeted.
That is patently false. "And" is an operator that states that both conditions must be true in order for the entire statement to be true. That is:
Cannot Enter Battle = (Not in Battle) + (Ignored)
The two Boolean statements (Not in Battle) and (Ignored) must both return "True" for Cannot Enter Battle to be "True". If either is "False", then Cannot Enter Battle is "False".
You are the one misreading the quote. I will post the entirety once again:
An ignore ability has four parts:
it grants the ignoring card immunity to all cards being ignored
it grants the ignored cards immunity to the ignoring card
characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)
characters already in battle and ignored are treated as though they were not in battle for purposes of determining battle outcome
The third statement actually uses the term being defined to refer to a card that is being ignored. It is establishing that if a card is ignored, and the not in battle condition is met, it may not enter battle. The third statement is not defining the definition of ignore, rather its effect on evil characters.
-
The issue we are dealing with is not whether evil characters are affected but whether they are targeted. Yes they are restricted from entering battle that is true, and yes they aren't in battle. (so the statement is true) But the reason they cannot enter battle is not becasue they are targeted, but because the battle itself is targeted.
As you said the third statement establishes the affect on evil characters. It does not say anything about what's being targeted. So there is nothing in your statement that disproves the Profs ruling.
There is nothing in the Reg post that indicates that it should be one way or the other quite frankly, but since an elder has ruled it one way, it must not be the other.
-
Sorry, but you are incorrect. It does not have to be targeted to cause an issue with this ruling.
By the very definition of the rules of Ignore, the only reason an Evil Character cannot enter battle is if it originates from outside the battle (note that this does not include hand, thanks to the ruling they made) and is being ignored. If both of those conditions are not met, the Evil Character can enter battle.
The definition itself has not been updated since they changed the definition of 'not in battle'. The intent may be there for it to include EC from hand, and that is what the elder is going off of. Unfortunately, intent and one elder's statements do not change the rules. Unless the definition of ignore is updated, I would be able to block from hand regardless.
Sorry, but the REG does indicate what it should be :) And I think maybe you should let the elder respond to my assertion himself, no one else has brought this discrepancy up before to my knowledge ;)
-
Sorry, but you are incorrect. It does not have to be targeted to cause an issue with this ruling.
I think that you're misunderstanding what's going on. If there is an issue the issue is with what is being targeted, is it the stuff in battle (no issue) or the stuff out of battle (issue because of Lampy vs Mayhem) If there is to be a problem it's root cause has to be with what ignore is targeting.
By the very definition of the rules of Ignore, the only reason an Evil Character cannot enter battle is if it originates from outside the battle
Correct, but because the battle has become limited not becasue the evil character has become limited.
(note that this does not include hand, thanks to the ruling they made).
This would be true if ignore were an ability that targeted 'cards not in battle' However according to the prof, it targets the cards 'in battle.' Do you understand the significance of what's being targeted? If the evil character in hand is being target it can enter the battle becasue of the Mayhem ruling. If however the prof it right and the battle is being targeted (by placing a limit on what can enter battle) then the evil character cannot enter battle.
And I think maybe you should let the elder respond to my assertion himself, no one else has brought this discrepancy up before to my knowledge
If an Elder wants to comment they are welcome to, but so far only the prof has commented so that's all we have to go on.
-
If an Elder wants to comment they are welcome to, but so far only the prof has commented so that's all we have to go on.
Nothing against our currently-posting elder, but they are not infallible (none of us are), and he has not responded to my assertion. Again, do not speak for elders. Also, I can say that the rules are in opposition, and I do not have to believe just what he says by himself. Please do not add more to the discussion or his comments than are there :) I will wait for responses from elders and other REPs who can actually argue from the REG.
No one (since you've been the only one to reply, and do not seem to understand what I'm saying) has been able to explain how an EC in hand cannot enter battle by this rule. He does not meet the criteria that is excluded, nor does he hit territory first. It does not matter if he is targeted. He is not being excluded, either. Please use the actual rules, not what you think the words mean, to rebut.
Thank you. :)
-
Nothing against our currently-posting elder, but they are not infallible (none of us are), and he has not responded to my assertion. Again, do not speak for elders. Also, I can say that the rules are in opposition, and I do not have to believe just what he says by himself. Please do not add more to the discussion or his comments than are there :) I will wait for responses from elders and other REPs who can actually argue from the REG.
From what I see I have more support than you. There is no target specified in the Reg, if there is show me where. Since the Reg is out of the debate (due to not specifying the target) we have to fall back on what the elders say, the only elder to say anything is the prof, and from what the prof says, you 'discrepancy' is non-existent.
No one (since you've been the only one to reply, and do not seem to understand what I'm saying) has been able to explain how an EC in hand cannot enter battle by this rule. He does not meet the criteria that is excluded, nor does he hit territory first. It does not matter if he is targeted.
The mayhem vs lampy ruling had to do with targeting things that were not in battle. So if you want to use that ruling for support you have to accept the part about targeting things, and not just the 'not in battle part.' Since according to the prof (the only source we have to indicate what's being targeted) it's the battle that's being targeted not the cards 'not in battle.'
Since 'not in battle' is not the target area the mayhem ruling has no affect on ignore.
There I explained to you how the mayhem ruling has no effect.
He is not being excluded, either.
If he's not being excluded then how come it has been ruled he can't enter battle?
Please use the actual rules, not what you think the words mean, to rebut.
Please use support that actually applies to the discussion, I think that I've shown that the Mayhem ruling does not affect ignore. And as for what I think, I'm not using any personal views on this, I've considered three things 1. the rules (which don't specify how our debate should play out, otherwise there would be no debate) 2. The Mayhem Ruling (which you have cited as support. 3. The prof's quote
I haven't considered/talked about my opinion on how this should be at all, I've taken the facts and used the to uphold the current ruling. You've taken facts that don't apply (the mayhem vs lampy ruling) and have tried to insert them into the discussion.
-
Sorry, but you misunderstood my entire statement about Mayhem. The ruling does not apply to only Mayhem. The ruling is that cards in hand are not "not in battle". The EC in your hand is not "not in battle". This does support my position and not yours. Discrepancy exists.
If he's not being excluded then how come it has been ruled he can't enter battle?
That's my point. You seem to think that just because an elder ruled this way means that this is the ultimate answer. I presented my evidence to the contrary, which is how this board works. If it was just 'first elder to post wins the thread!', then you would be right. It's not. Let the process go and don't tell me that something is law because of a single post. Thanks.
So, again, you're the one adding things that don't apply. Please use the rules I have discussed and explain your position.
-
Sorry, but you misunderstood my entire statement about Mayhem. The ruling does not apply to only Mayhem. The ruling is that cards in hand are not "not in battle". The EC in your hand is not "not in battle". This does support my position and not yours. Discrepancy exists.
If he's not being excluded then how come it has been ruled he can't enter battle?
That's my point. You seem to think that just because an elder ruled this way means that this is the ultimate answer. I presented my evidence to the contrary, which is how this board works. If it was just 'first elder to post wins the thread!', then you would be right. It's not. Let the process go and don't tell me that something is law because of a single post. Thanks.
So, again, you're the one adding things that don't apply. Please use the rules I have discussed and explain your position.
Its futile to argue this way, just look at any points that I have made regarding cards. You can argue logically and showing precedents, but ultimate word comes from elders and ultimately any of the non-elder opinions don't matter (with some exceptions ...not going to name names... because they feel like they are the rulers of this realm) Anyhow, my point is, resistance is futile.
P.S. I think TGT should be errata'd
-
Its futile to argue this way, just look at any points that I have made regarding cards. You can argue logically and showing precedents, but ultimate word comes from elders and ultimately any of the non-elder opinions don't matter (with some exceptions ...not going to name names... because they feel like they are the rulers of this realm) Anyhow, my point is, resistance is futile.
I'm just going to point you to SamIAm. Read that thread on duplicate Davids. You still want to say that one elder posting is law? Because then we'd have two laws.
I have not conflicted at all with what he said. He said ignore targets the battlefield. I'm saying that it does not restrict characters in hand from entering that battlefield due to the wording of ignore.
You can debate me from the rules or, if you are so sure that The Elders (note, that means a ruling from on high, not one elder, again no offense to one elder posting) are going to say I'm wrong, why bother even arguing with me? Just let them do it. Do not speak for them, however, and do not say that I cannot point out discrepancies in the rules. That goes against everything this board stands for.
-
Its futile to argue this way, just look at any points that I have made regarding cards. You can argue logically and showing precedents, but ultimate word comes from elders and ultimately any of the non-elder opinions don't matter (with some exceptions ...not going to name names... because they feel like they are the rulers of this realm) Anyhow, my point is, resistance is futile.
I'm just going to point you to SamIAm. Read that thread on duplicate Davids. You still want to say that one elder posting is law? Because then we'd have two laws.
I have not conflicted at all with what he said. He said ignore targets the battlefield. I'm saying that it does not restrict characters in hand from entering that battlefield due to the wording of ignore.
You can debate me from the rules or, if you are so sure that The Elders (note, that means a ruling from on high, not one elder, again no offense to one elder posting) are going to say I'm wrong, why bother even arguing with me? Just let them do it. Do not speak for them, however, and do not say that I cannot point out discrepancies in the rules. That goes against everything this board stands for.
Dude, you're preaching to the choir in regards to me!
-
Ok let's break this down a bit.
The Reg quote is as follows
"An ignore ability has four parts:
1. it grants the ignoring card immunity to all cards being ignored
2. it grants the ignored cards immunity to the ignoring card
3. characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)
4. characters already in battle and ignored are treated as though they were not in battle for purposes of determining battle outcome"
The Mayhem vs Lampy Ruling quote is as follows:
"Not in battle is defined as cards face up on the table that are not in battle (this includes territory, set-aside area and Land of Redemption). It does not include hand, draw pile, discard pile, and cards face down in play." (quote from Gabe)
Redoubter's argument is this: That since not in battle excludes hand the EC should be able to block.
Here are three responses.
1. The 'not in battle' ruling has to do with as SA on the card not with wording in the REG. The two are different and therefore mean different things
2. Ignore does not target cards 'not in battle' it only targets the cards in battle by limiting the battle to the state that it's currently in.
The debate lies in 'why' the cards can or cannot enter battle. The 'why it can' enter battle is because of the mayhem ruling, which Redoubter is arguing for, this would be true if Ignore targeted cards outside of battle (and at first glance that's what appears to happen). The 'why it can't' is because Ignore targets the battle and not cards outside of battle (though this isn't in the Reg it's what an Elder indicated.)
There is no statement in the Reg that says 'ignore targets: X, here's why.' All it says is that cards not in battle can't enter, Elder says they can't enter because it targets the battle Redoubter says it's becasue it targets cards not in battle. So ultimately the debate comes down to who's word is greater the word of the Elder or the word of Redoubter.
I choose to side with the Elder. Until more Elders post affirm or deaffirm the Profs statement I'm signing off.
-
I had a pretty strong issue with determining that hand was not protected from Mayhem by Lampstand... basically what hand was determined to be "not, not in battle"... how can something neither be "in battle" or "not in battle"... that's ridiculous... erg...
Only in the twisted, upside-down world of Redemption... resistance is futile
-
Um...question: Does this mean that Lampy suddenly protects hand from Mayhem again?
What did I miss? Why does Lampstand not protect hands from Mayhem?
-
Um...question: Does this mean that Lampy suddenly protects hand from Mayhem again?
What did I miss? Why does Lampstand not protect hands from Mayhem?
You missed this:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rule-changesclarifications-for-2011-2012-tournament-season/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rule-changesclarifications-for-2011-2012-tournament-season/)
-
1. The 'not in battle' ruling has to do with as SA on the card not with wording in the REG. The two are different and therefore mean different things
Wrong. From the REG:
Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption.
So let's move on.
2. Ignore does not target cards 'not in battle' it only targets the cards in battle by limiting the battle to the state that it's currently in.
You said previously ignore doesn't target, so what made you change your mind? Because you couldn't counter my point without switching?
Ignore excludes certain cards from entering battle. EC in hand do not meet those criteria. Therefore, they may enter battle and are then ignored in battle by the other rules.
There is no statement in the Reg that says 'ignore targets: X, here's why.' All it says is that cards not in battle can't enter, Elder says they can't enter because it targets the battle Redoubter says it's becasue it targets cards not in battle. So ultimately the debate comes down to who's word is greater the word of the Elder or the word of Redoubter.
I choose to side with the Elder. Until more Elders post affirm or deaffirm the Profs statement I'm signing off.
This is the most ridiculous statement I have seen on the forums my entire time here. Let me make something clear to you, because you are obviously not getting it:
It is not my word, or anyone's word, against an elder's word. That is completely wrong, misleading, and out-of-line. This is a discussion where we can all point to the rules and get a ruling. One elder a ruling does not make. You need to stop with this. It constitutes a personal attack by saying that what I'm saying, or any experienced player pointing to rules and asking question says, is completely invalid automatically.
-
This is the most ridiculous statement I have seen on the forums my entire time here. Let me make something clear to you, because you are obviously not getting it:
It is not my word, or anyone's word, against an elder's word. That is completely wrong, misleading, and out-of-line. This is a discussion where we can all point to the rules and get a ruling. One elder a ruling does not make. You need to stop with this. It constitutes a personal attack by saying that what I'm saying, or any experienced player pointing to rules and asking question says, is completely invalid automatically.
I'm on your side for the most part, but I don't agree with you be quite as aggressive as you are. I used to think much like you, until I realized that no matter what you think, it really comes down to what an elder says... no matter how much you think you're right on the matter... the sooner you can come to realize that, the sooner you can just accept it and move on and enjoy the game even if you feel the ruling is wrong. I do this all the time. For example, add to battle = band... but add to hand from top of draw pile does not = draw... sheer madness... or the fact that you can't deactivate Peter's Curse (like EVERY OTHER art/curse/cov.)... complete lunacy... but I don't make the rules, nor do you sir.
-
The Garden Tomb (RA)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If opponent has a redeemed Lost Soul, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play.
I'm not an elder but here is my understanding of TGT. Cards in hand are not in play therefore EC's in hand cannot block the TGT heroes.
Not in play and not is battle are two different statements so while mayhem can be played with lampy, ECs without two evil characters in play cannot block from hand.
-
The Garden Tomb (RA)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If opponent has a redeemed Lost Soul, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play.
I'm not an elder but here is my understanding of TGT. Cards in hand are not in play therefore EC's in hand cannot block the TGT heroes.
Not in play and not is battle are two different statements so while mayhem can be played with lampy, ECs without two evil characters in play cannot block from hand.
I also am not an elder, but I would have to agree with "not in play" is not the same as "not in battle" although I strongly disagree with the definition of "not in battle"
-
I'm not an elder but here is my understanding of TGT. Cards in hand are not in play therefore EC's in hand cannot block the TGT heroes.
Not in play and not is battle are two different statements so while mayhem can be played with lampy, ECs without two evil characters in play cannot block from hand.
I'm not debating what cards TGT ignores, but I am arguing based on the definition of ignore itself. Ignore specifies what cards cannot enter battle, and cards in hand do not meet the qualifications for cards that are excluded.
Again: I have not even said anything that conflicts with an elder. I am instead pointing out how the rule change affects Ignore.
Elder's actual quote:
It actually targets the battlefield. That's how it can stop characters from entering it without targeting them.
Did he say anything against what I have said? NO. So stop saying he has and let him reply.
I also am not an elder, but I would have to agree with "not in play" is not the same as "not in battle" although I strongly disagree with the definition of "not in battle"
Again, see above. Also, the definition is the definition. And the Elders have ruled on that. As the saying goes (though a little nonsensically), you can't have you cake and eat it too.
-
@ Redoubter
I would like to request that you recognize the importance of target. I apologize if what I said seemed offensive to you it was certainly not my intention my only intention is you show how what ignore targets matters.
In redemption you can't do something unless you target that thing. E.G. you can't discard a hero unless you target it.
There are different types of targets, characters enhancements etc.
The two targets that we are dealing with are as follows. 1 Cards not in battle (the target you have chosen) and 2. the battle (the target I have chosen)
If Ignore targets cards not in battle (as you must hold to for your argument to be true) you are correct.
If however it targets cards not in battle (as has previously been ruled) then I am correct. The reason is this. By targeting the battle the battle is being limited not the characters. You can try to put in a character from hand but it won't do anything becasue the battle has been limited to its current state. This is consistent with the Reg, the Mayhem rule, and the Elder.
Your logic is keen and your refutation most amiable, I respect your opinion and hold it in high regard. However it's based off the faulty premise that ignore targets the cards not in battle. It doesn't it targets the battle by limiting it to just the cards in battle. Yes cards not in battle are affected by this, however it's an indirect effect not a direct one.
If you're not going to accept the word of proffesoralstad on what ignore actually targets, I'm not going to hold it against you. Nor will I continue to argue against what you say, other than that I will have to agree to disagree. If however you continue to ignore the importance of what's being targeted in this ruling, I must insist that you are grossly misunderstanding the function of ignore abilities.
In Christ,
Wings
-
I have never said that target is important or unimportant. It is irrelevant to the current discussion. It has been ruled that it targets the battle, limiting what can enter. I agree on this. Not sure where you're getting otherwise. I even said my statements do not conflict with the elder's.
However, you are missing my point. It targets the battle. It defines what cards are excluded. Cards not "not in battle" are not excluded, and that includes hand.
Rule:
...characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle
The rule on "not in battle" is that it does not include hand. Therefore, EC in hand are in an area that is not excluded from presenting a blocker. There is actually no rule that prevents them from entering. The battle is targeted, yes, but the ability targeting it does not specify these EC as excluded. Thus, they may enter, as they are not excluded.
Also, this is not the Mayhem ruling, but the "not in battle" ruling. They are different, as the latter indicates the truth of the rule even as it does not relate to target.
For what it is worth, it makes more logical sense for the status quo to remain the same. However, changing the rule on "not in battle" broke this rule due to the law of unintended consequences. It needs to be fixed, one way or the other. Either the treatment of Ignore needs to be in line with the actual rules on Ignore as they currently stand or the definition needs to change (either Ignore or "not in battle").
And once again, I have said nothing not in line with what an elder has already posted. Still waiting to hear their response (though I'm wondering if the silence means it is being discussed, which is my honest hope, I just want this fixed one way or the other).
-
I understand your frustration but this is where the issue of being targeted or not comes in.
Since the battle is being limited all cards are being limited by default.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is this. Targeting something as 'not in battle' (what lampy does) is different from specific cards from affecting the battle (what ignore does).
Now, I guess at this point it actually does come down to opinion.
If only the Elders would interject something here... ::)
Do you think we scared them off? ;)
-
The thing is, this doesn't come down to opinion. The rules are not written in a way that "not in battle" is different from card-to-card, ability to ability. It doesn't matter if it is Lampstand or any other card or rule. The words "not in battle" do not refer to hand. They are not excluded by the rules of ignore. That is the fact that necessitates a change in the status quo or an update to the ruling.
To clarify: When anything says "not in battle", it refers to the same exact definition. You cannot take your logical explanation for Ignore but take the definition for Lampstand. Both situations use the exact same definition, that's the way rules work. They apply the same to all situations where the words appear.
This is what happens when rules changes to 'fix' cards lead to unintended consequences :)
-
The thing is, this doesn't come down to opinion. The rules are not written in a way that "not in battle" is different from card-to-card, ability to ability. It doesn't matter if it is Lampstand or any other card or rule. The words "not in battle" do not refer to hand. They are not excluded by the rules of ignore. That is the fact that necessitates a change in the status quo or an update to the ruling.
To clarify: When anything says "not in battle", it refers to the same exact definition. You cannot take your logical explanation for Ignore but take the definition for Lampstand. Both situations use the exact same definition, that's the way rules work. They apply the same to all situations where the words appear.
This is what happens when rules changes to 'fix' cards lead to unintended consequences :)
but TGT doesn't say "not in battle"
-
but TGT doesn't say "not in battle"
...I've never said it does. Ignore does. See above on the definition of Ignore. TGT just defines what type of cards are ignored. The definition tells you what that means. The definition involves "not in battle". The hand is not "not in battle". Hence the point.
-
I see you're point, that is why I argued pretty hard that either cards are in battle or aren't in battle. In Battle- should mean cards in the field of battle. Not in battle- should be cards not in field of battle. I have never agreed with the redefinition of it. How can something not be "not in battle" and not be "in battle"???????
-
I see you're point, that is why I argued pretty hard that either cards are in battle or aren't in battle. In Battle- should mean cards in the field of battle. Not in battle- should be cards not in field of battle. I have never agreed with the redefinition of it. How can something not be "not in battle" and not "be in battle"???????
Thanks, that's my point exactly. If the rules get changed to things that are against the normal logic, odds are something else is going to break. Ignore is one of those things.
All I want is to make sure the rule is fixed (or re-ruled) :)
-
I see you're point, that is why I argued pretty hard that either cards are in battle or aren't in battle. In Battle- should mean cards in the field of battle. Not in battle- should be cards not in field of battle. I have never agreed with the redefinition of it. How can something not be "not in battle" and not "be in battle"???????
Thanks, that's my point exactly. If the rules get changed to things that are against the normal logic, odds are something else is going to break. Ignore is one of those things.
All I want is to make sure the rule is fixed (or re-ruled) :)
Either that or rewrite the definition of ignore to "characters not in the field of battle and ignored cannot enter the field of battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)
-
Hey,
I was combing through ignore to find where the flaw in my logic was, and I found the contradiction. Unfortunately it turns up another contradiction in the Reg... :o
I've been basing my argument off of the 3rd part of ignore targeting the battle like the prof said earlier, however I just noticed that the 3rd part of ignore has no target according to the Reg. :doh: If you pointed that out earlier and I missed it I totally apologize for it. :-[
Anyway on to the contradiction I found. According to the Reg the 3rd part of ignore quote "has no target"
but also in another quote from the Reg that talks about targeting we find this: "In Redemption®, special abilities always target cards." :o So how can this have no target if the Reg says all SA's have targets!
I think it's time for another new Reg... ::)
-
TGT's special ability is targeting all cards not in battle and applying the ignore ability to them. ignore is not targeting, TGT is targeting which cards TO ignore. Thus TGT's special ability has a target, but ignore still has none. No contradiction.
-
OK I guess that makes sense... (I think...)
-
TGT's special ability is targeting all cards not in battle and applying the ignore ability to them. ignore is not targeting, TGT is targeting which cards TO ignore. Thus TGT's special ability has a target, but ignore still has none. No contradiction.
Incorrect. TGT defines what cards have Ignore applied to them. The definition of Ignore itself defines what happens to them.
TGT does not say that these cards cannot enter battle, rather that is left to the definition of Ignore. The definition of Ignore states what cards cannot enter battle. It states that the cards must be "not in battle and ignored" to be excluded. Cards in hand are not "not in battle". Therefore, they are not excluded. They only meet one of the required conditions.
TGT is not the issue, but rather Ignore. I can use any Ignore example (Reuben's Torn Clothes, Spiritual Warfare, etc.). In each case, the card defines what is being ignored. However, the definition of Ignore itself is what excludes those cards from battle, and it does not exclude cards from hand. By the definition of Ignore, I can block from hand against any card using Ignore.
-
So, are we going to get a second Elder confirmation of ProfessorAlstad's ruling, or any other Elder input? This thread has gone on long enough and needs to be brought to resolution. Either Redoubter needs to be made aware that the current ruling is final, or Elders need to acknowledge his complaint and respond to it.
-
If you rewrite the 3rd part of the the definition of ignore to "characters not in the field of battle and ignored cannot enter the field of battle" then this all goes away.
-
If you rewrite the 3rd part of the the definition of ignore to "characters not in the field of battle and ignored cannot enter the field of battle" then this all goes away.
Actually, I still think that "not in the field of battle" would go to the same definition as "not in battle". If not, then we'll have two equivalent definitions, one for the first and another for the second, that's not something this game needs more of ;)
Either Redoubter needs to be made aware that the current ruling is final, or Elders need to acknowledge his complaint and respond to it.
Yes please. I honestly don't care about which way it gets ruled (even if I do hate TGT, I don't argue a position based on my likes or dislikes). I just want the rule to be updated or ruled based on the recent changes in definitions. The "not in battle" not including hand decision affected more than just Mayhem and similar situations, that's the point I'm trying to make.
-
The field of battle is different than "not in battle" by the rewrite of the definition of "not in battle"... Once again, I strongly disagree with the rewrite of the definition of "not in battle"... the reason it was rewritten was due to cards that don't even get used in decks and it caused this issue... made little sense back when it was decided and now it makes no sense to have "not in battle" to consider hand not "not in battle".
-
Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption.
The phrase ‘in battle’ or ‘current battle’ refers to any cards in the current battle that can be either the primary battle (rescue attempt or battle challenge) or it can refer to a side battle, NOT BOTH. See also Battle Phase.
The phrase ‘Field of Battle’ refers to any cards in the Field of Battle including primary battle and side battles.
By the definitions in the REG, there is nothing there to say that "not in battle" is not equivalent to "not in the field of battle". They both refer to cards that are in battle (either the current battle or across all battles).
My suggested wording for #3 of Ignore, if there is to be a change to keep the status quo, would be:
"Ignored characters cannot be placed in battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle."
Either that or revert to the old definition of "not in battle" that makes more logical sense.
In addition, when we do get any answer, can we have someone let us know why we are being told Ignore does target the battle (accepted for now, not arguing it) when the REG states "Part (3) above has no target."? Thank you :)
-
Bumping this because no Elder has responded to these questions when there is a legitimate concern based on the change in "not in battle". If this is being discussed on the other side, can we be told so that we know what to expect?
I've summed it up in the posts above (short story: Ignore only has a restrict on cards "not in battle" from entering battle, but cards in hand, deck, and discard are not "not in battle" and therefore not excluded), along with a proposed wording change to keep the ability as currently ruled while removing inconsistency.
I'm bringing this up first because States, Regionals, and Nationals are all on top of us, and also because this does need some attention.
Thanks :)
-
In addition, when we do get any answer, can we have someone let us know why we are being told Ignore does target the battle (accepted for now, not arguing it) when the REG states "Part (3) above has no target."? Thank you :)
The best way I can explain it is that "targeting the battlefield" is more of a concept used to describe what happens, and not really a targeting ability in the more traditional sense. When I used the phrase (I think it was me who said it) that was just how I had heard it explained before; it may not necessarily be the best way to phrase it. Another way to state it would be that ignore makes the state of the game to be such that certain EC's cannot enter battle (i.e. it "targets" the state of the game). It could certainly be made more clear, but for now that's how it has been and will continue to be interpreted/ruled, and hopefully clarification will happen eventually.
As for "not in battle", there is a difference between a phrase used in the REG and a phrase used on a card. Phrases on cards have to have certain wording to avoid awkward situations (e.g. "Not in battle" = "any card in the game not in the current battle" would allow Angry Mob getting all Heroes from hands, decks, and discard piles and shuffling them up). However, in the REG, the phrase is used in the more literal sense. I agree that that too could be made more clear, and perhaps making ignore a specialized type of restrict ability would be a way to do it. What I can say is that the way ignore does work (and will work for all of the upcoming tournies this summer) is that it stops players from putting certain characters in battle.
Hopefully that helps for now. I can't promise anything more solid than that is in the works, but at least it should be able to be ruled correctly for now.
-
As for "not in battle", there is a difference between a phrase used in the REG and a phrase used on a card. Phrases on cards have to have certain wording to avoid awkward situations (e.g. "Not in battle" = "any card in the game not in the current battle" would allow Angry Mob getting all Heroes from hands, decks, and discard piles and shuffling them up). However, in the REG, the phrase is used in the more literal sense. I agree that that too could be made more clear, and perhaps making ignore a specialized type of restrict ability would be a way to do it. What I can say is that the way ignore does work (and will work for all of the upcoming tournies this summer) is that it stops players from putting certain characters in battle.
If we're just going to say that "archaic" wording is what makes Angry Mob unable to target hand, deck, and discard, then why did we have an official ruling change to define "not in battle" to exclude those cases? This ruling change would not have been needed if Angry Mob just worked that way already, as that was the card that broke the rule.
The fact is that "not in battle" is on cards that see use, and they have all been treated exactly the same way, whether it was pre rule change or post. When Angry Mob forced a rule change on "not in battle", didn't Lampstand suddenly behave differently too? And all other cards (Royal Protection would've been an issue as well) with that wording were updated because the rule changed.
And if there is a specific change to the wording in that case, when it is used for Ignore, Ignore becomes broken. I challenge your statement that "in the REG, the phrase is used in the more literal sense", because the LITERAL sense of "not in battle" would include hand, deck, and discard. The fact that it was changed proves that it was done because it actually does reference the abilities on cards like Angry Mob. The same wording helps to define Ignore, and that was all well and good before the wording got changed, because then it truly meant 'not in battle'.
My point is that you (the Elders, not you specifically) unintentionally broke Ignore when you changed "not in battle", because as I've shown, it means the same thing as the definition given in the REG and the wording on cards. All I'm asking is that it be corrected in Ignore, because "not in battle" just doesn't mean what it used to, and I would be able to block from hand by the current wording. It's not an actual question of targeting, its a question of the meaning of "not in battle", because cards in my hand are not "not in battle" and therefore have no restriction against entering the field of battle.
-
In addition, when we do get any answer, can we have someone let us know why we are being told Ignore does target the battle (accepted for now, not arguing it) when the REG states "Part (3) above has no target."? Thank you :)
The best way I can explain it is that "targeting the battlefield" is more of a concept used to describe what happens, and not really a targeting ability in the more traditional sense. When I used the phrase (I think it was me who said it) that was just how I had heard it explained before; it may not necessarily be the best way to phrase it. Another way to state it would be that ignore makes the state of the game to be such that certain EC's cannot enter battle (i.e. it "targets" the state of the game). It could certainly be made more clear, but for now that's how it has been and will continue to be interpreted/ruled, and hopefully clarification will happen eventually.
As for "not in battle", there is a difference between a phrase used in the REG and a phrase used on a card. Phrases on cards have to have certain wording to avoid awkward situations (e.g. "Not in battle" = "any card in the game not in the current battle" would allow Angry Mob getting all Heroes from hands, decks, and discard piles and shuffling them up). However, in the REG, the phrase is used in the more literal sense. I agree that that too could be made more clear, and perhaps making ignore a specialized type of restrict ability would be a way to do it. What I can say is that the way ignore does work (and will work for all of the upcoming tournies this summer) is that it stops players from putting certain characters in battle.
Hopefully that helps for now. I can't promise anything more solid than that is in the works, but at least it should be able to be ruled correctly for now.
100% Support Prof A here. Not in battle is used in a literal sense in the REG. It was not only for Angry Mob that we changed the gameplay definition of Not in Battle - In fact we discussed simply errataing out the archaic language on him, until we realized that there were about a dozen other cards that also used the language, and frankly make a whole lot more sense with the definition change. When we hand out a new or changed ruling after deliberation on our side, we've usually covered all the bases. That's part of the reason that it takes so long sometimes.
-
You do see my problem here, right? I have no problem with the ruling how it is. In fact I was hoping for it to be the final result.
But you have now defined a very specific term in a very specific way and turn around and say that that exact phrase when applied to this one case means something completely different. That's not only confusing to many players, but it doesn't let the rules stand by themselves, as they should.
Again, I am saying that if this is the way it is supposed to be ruled, then Ignore needs an update to get rid of that "archaic" wording still used to define it. The rules need to be able to stand by themselves, without me having to know 'what was intended' (and we all know how well THAT goes half the time).