Author Topic: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question (Read 6297 times)

Wings of Music · « **Reply #25 on:** March 23, 2012, 01:53:57 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 23, 2012, 01:39:48 PM

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.

Quote from: Redoubter on March 23, 2012, 01:39:48 PM

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.

Quote from: Redoubter on March 23, 2012, 01:39:48 PM

He is not being excluded, either.

If he's not being excluded then how come it has been ruled he can't enter battle?

Quote from: Redoubter on March 23, 2012, 01:39:48 PM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #26 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:12:33 PM »

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.

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 23, 2012, 01:53:57 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #27 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:16:43 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 23, 2012, 02:12:33 PM

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.

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 23, 2012, 01:53:57 PM
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

Redoubter · « **Reply #28 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:23:57 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on March 23, 2012, 02:16:43 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #29 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:25:56 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 23, 2012, 02:23:57 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on March 23, 2012, 02:16:43 PM
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!

Wings of Music · « **Reply #30 on:** March 23, 2012, 02:49:30 PM »

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #31 on:** March 23, 2012, 03:37:08 PM »

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

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #32 on:** March 23, 2012, 03:58:30 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 23, 2012, 12:01:04 PM

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?

Wings of Music · « **Reply #33 on:** March 23, 2012, 04:11:50 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 23, 2012, 03:58:30 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on March 23, 2012, 12:01:04 PM
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/

Redoubter · « **Reply #34 on:** March 23, 2012, 06:31:08 PM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 23, 2012, 02:49:30 PM

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:

Quote

Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption.

So let's move on.

Quote

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.

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 23, 2012, 02:49:30 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #35 on:** March 23, 2012, 07:06:08 PM »

Quote

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.

robm · « **Reply #36 on:** March 23, 2012, 07:24:17 PM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 22, 2012, 03:40:11 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #37 on:** March 23, 2012, 07:30:22 PM »

Quote from: robm on March 23, 2012, 07:24:17 PM

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 22, 2012, 03:40:11 PM
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"

Redoubter · « **Reply #38 on:** March 23, 2012, 07:35:53 PM »

Quote from: robm on March 23, 2012, 07:24:17 PM

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:

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 23, 2012, 08:34:42 AM

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.

Quote from: theselfevident on March 23, 2012, 07:30:22 PM

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.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #39 on:** March 24, 2012, 02:55:40 AM »

@ 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

Redoubter · « **Reply #40 on:** March 24, 2012, 08:28:14 PM »

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:

Quote

...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).

Wings of Music · « **Reply #41 on:** March 24, 2012, 09:49:38 PM »

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?

Redoubter · « **Reply #42 on:** March 24, 2012, 10:08:10 PM »

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

theselfevident · « **Reply #43 on:** March 24, 2012, 10:58:56 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 24, 2012, 10:08:10 PM

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"

Redoubter · « **Reply #44 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:02:44 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on March 24, 2012, 10:58:56 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #45 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:11:46 PM »

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"

?

Redoubter · « **Reply #46 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:14:05 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on March 24, 2012, 11:11:46 PM

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)

theselfevident · « **Reply #47 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:16:07 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 24, 2012, 11:14:05 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on March 24, 2012, 11:11:46 PM
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)

Wings of Music · « **Reply #48 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:33:55 PM »

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...

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.

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."

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...

lp670sv · « **Reply #49 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:45:38 PM »

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.

News:

Author Topic: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question (Read 6297 times)