Author Topic: Uzzah vs Covenants/Curses (Read 3634 times)

Master KChief · « **on:** October 11, 2012, 02:12:57 PM »

Just want to clarify, can you discard a Curse or Covenant in hand/artifact pile to use Uzzah's effect?

Uzzah (FF)

Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Brown • Ability: 3 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may discard Uzzah and an Artifact from your hand or artifact pile to protect all Lost Souls from rescue. • Identifiers: OT Male Human • Verse: II Samuel 6:7 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)

Drrek · « **Reply #1 on:** October 11, 2012, 02:23:46 PM »

You can from artifact pile, because it was played as an artifact at that point, but I'm actually not sure about discarding from hand. I would think no, since its a covenant/curse until played, when it becomes an enhancement/artifact in addition to the covenant/curse type.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #2 on:** October 11, 2012, 02:28:10 PM »

You can. There's a quirky and oddly specific rule that lets you target your own curses and covenants in hand as either enhancements or artifacts in addition to c/c's. I think Storehouse had something to do with it.

Master KChief · « **Reply #3 on:** October 11, 2012, 02:31:14 PM »

That was the way I understood it as well and explained to me years ago by Maly, that they can be targeted in hand as artifacts or enhancements. It is an odd situation that could perhaps use some revisiting, especially since as far as I know you can't target curses/covies in deck as enhancements/artifacts...

Gabe · « **Reply #4 on:** October 11, 2012, 02:33:59 PM »

Pol is correct, you may choose to treat a Covenant or Curse in your hand as an Artifact to satisfy Uzzah's cost.

Red · « **Reply #5 on:** October 11, 2012, 02:56:15 PM »

This should be revisited. It's inconsistent.

Gabe · « **Reply #6 on:** October 11, 2012, 03:21:30 PM »

Quote from: Red on October 11, 2012, 02:56:15 PM

This should be revisited. It's inconsistent.

Please explain your statement.

Red · « **Reply #7 on:** October 11, 2012, 03:37:27 PM »

In my opinion, A dual type card(DAEs Covs/Curses) all need to be ruled the same. Currently Covs/Curses can only be targeted as Covs/Curses. On the other hand you can search a DAE as either of it's alignments. Covs/Curses should be ruled in a way likening to DAE when it comes to searching.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #8 on:** October 11, 2012, 03:38:32 PM »

It's not inconsistent, it just seems inconsistent. The wide angle default for c/c's is to be neither artifact nor enhancement when in hand, deck, or discard, but you are allowed to pay a cost with them as either. I may be wrong on that but I think that's the exact mechanism by which it works, functioning as a cost.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #9 on:** October 11, 2012, 03:47:46 PM »

I think the way it was reasoned when the ruling on DAEs was made was that, as Pol suggested, a Covenant/Curse in your hand is only a Covenant/Curse (and I'm fairly certain that means that an opponent cannot target one with, say, Taking Egypt's Wealth, though I don't know if it's ever come up--I'd rule it that way). As Pol said, you can use them to pay costs, and that is because the game rule is that (as the old Covenants say) you can "use" the card as an enhancement or an Artifact, and while "use" is a somewhat arbitrary term in Redemption, it makes sense that paying a cost is using a card moreso than, say, exchanging Great Faith with a Covenant is using that Covenant.

I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be the way you propose, Red, but I don't think it's really inconsistent either.

Red · « **Reply #10 on:** October 11, 2012, 04:22:44 PM »

The problem is at this point each of the more complex card types have at least a paragraph on how to play them. Cov/Curses being the worst of it. The way I'm proposing is attempting to simplify in some form by making them either play consitently with DAEs as far as that goes or making it where it's only a curse/cov when in hand deck or discard and can only be treated as such. Either way would in my opinion, play better.

Gabe · « **Reply #11 on:** October 11, 2012, 04:23:32 PM »

Quote from: Red on October 11, 2012, 03:37:27 PM

In my opinion, A dual type card(DAEs Covs/Curses) all need to be ruled the same. Currently Covs/Curses can only be targeted as Covs/Curses. On the other hand you can search a DAE as either of it's alignments. Covs/Curses should be ruled in a way likening to DAE when it comes to searching.

Red, thanks for explaining your reasoning politely. I appreciate your thoughts on this subject and notice that you're growing in the way you communicate on the boards.

I don't really have anything else to add to the conversation. Pol and Prof A have explained my thoughts, probably better than I would have.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #12 on:** October 11, 2012, 04:27:27 PM »

Well said, Skinner!

Redoubter · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2012, 09:20:05 PM »

I just wanted to concur with the thought that Cov/Curses should not be able to be used, as previous precedent does have them not being target-able as artifacts in hand, deck, or discard. I do understand your point about 'use', but I do not see how it applies in the case of Cov/Curses for being discarded from hand. If I cannot discard a Curse from deck with Gabriel or from hand with Haman's Plot Exposed, I should not be able to discard a Curse from hand with Uzzah. It is the same terminology and the same effect, in essence. From what I can see, if the third case works, so should the first two, as even though it is a cost, it is the exact same effect (discard).

That's where the inconsistency aspect would come in, and I can certainly see that point.

Drrek · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2012, 09:25:51 PM »

I agree you could definitely see this ruling as inconsistent. Without knowing the very specific ruling that you can use them for this, a person could very easily assume from the rulings in similar situations that they cannot be referred to as artifacts/enhancements would apply for using them in this situation too.

Red · « **Reply #15 on:** October 12, 2012, 09:46:24 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on October 12, 2012, 09:25:51 PM

I agree you could definitely see this ruling as inconsistent. Without knowing the very specific ruling that you can use them for this, a person could very easily assume from the rulings in similar situations that they cannot be referred to as artifacts/enhancements would apply for using them in this situation too.

That was me....

Gabe · « **Reply #16 on:** October 13, 2012, 12:26:38 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on October 12, 2012, 09:20:05 PM

I just wanted to concur with the thought that Cov/Curses should not be able to be used, as previous precedent does have them not being target-able as artifacts in hand, deck, or discard. I do understand your point about 'use', but I do not see how it applies in the case of Cov/Curses for being discarded from hand. If I cannot discard a Curse from deck with Gabriel or from hand with Haman's Plot Exposed, I should not be able to discard a Curse from hand with Uzzah. It is the same terminology and the same effect, in essence. From what I can see, if the third case works, so should the first two, as even though it is a cost, it is the exact same effect (discard).

What you've described is how it was originally ruled when curses were new and people tried to discard Captured Ark from hand to satisfy King Zimri. At Nationals in Boston (2008?) I learned that Rob himself had overturned that ruling and allows a curse to be discarded from hand to satisfy the cost of cards like Uzzah and King Zimri.

Whether or not you agree with that ruling, I believe this is the logic behind it and the reason it is not considered inconsistent by the elders. The game rule that applies to curses and covenants states that the owner of the card may choose how it's used. With Gabriel and Haman's Plot Exposed, the opponent is not allowed to choose how I want to treat my curse. King Zimri and Uzzah however, do give me the opportunity to choose since I'm the player making the choice.

Red · « **Reply #17 on:** October 13, 2012, 12:51:06 AM »

Yes. But the thing is I can't choose I want it as an enhancement in deck with say A solider's prayer.

Gabe · « **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2012, 12:58:27 AM »

Quote from: Red on October 13, 2012, 12:51:06 AM

Yes. But the thing is I can't choose I want it as an enhancement in deck with say A solider's prayer.

If that's true then that would be inconsistent. What red Covenant have you tried to get and had it ruled you couldn't?

Redoubter · « **Reply #19 on:** October 13, 2012, 02:03:47 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on October 13, 2012, 12:26:38 AM

Whether or not you agree with that ruling, I believe this is the logic behind it and the reason it is not considered inconsistent by the elders. The game rule that applies to curses and covenants states that the owner of the card may choose how it's used. With Gabriel and Haman's Plot Exposed, the opponent is not allowed to choose how I want to treat my curse. King Zimri and Uzzah however, do give me the opportunity to choose since I'm the player making the choice.

But that is very much inconsistent with the current rules for Curses and Covenants. By that logic, I could use Abraham's Descendant to place a Covenant beneath my deck because it is 'mine', but not one of my opponent's because I cannot choose its state?

Quote from: Gabe on October 13, 2012, 12:58:27 AM

Quote from: Red on October 13, 2012, 12:51:06 AM
Yes. But the thing is I can't choose I want it as an enhancement in deck with say A solider's prayer.

If that's true then that would be inconsistent. What red Covenant have you tried to get and had it ruled you couldn't?

But that's already against the rules for Covenants and Curses, explicitly in the rules for them. And if there is a question as to whether that should work (and I am Creator would be a Covenant to consider for this, but other searches like Battle Prayer would have more useful options), then the entire way we approach searches and recurs for Curses and Covenants would change.

Gabe · « **Reply #20 on:** October 13, 2012, 02:13:07 AM »

I know some of you like to have long debates with people but I don't have the time or interest for that. My goal was only to help you understand why it's ruled the way it is. I can tell from the rhetorical question in the last post I've accomplished that. I cannot make you like it.

Redoubter · « **Reply #21 on:** October 13, 2012, 02:30:51 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on October 13, 2012, 02:13:07 AM

I know some of you like to have long debates with people but I don't have the time or interest for that. My goal was only to help you understand why it's ruled the way it is. I can tell from the rhetorical question in the last post I've accomplished that. I cannot make you like it.

I'm...very confused by your response.

Your own post indicated that it would be possible to search for a Covenant with Soldier's Prayer:

Quote from: Gabe on October 13, 2012, 12:58:27 AM

Quote from: Red on October 13, 2012, 12:51:06 AM
Yes. But the thing is I can't choose I want it as an enhancement in deck with say A solider's prayer.

If that's true then that would be inconsistent. What red Covenant have you tried to get and had it ruled you couldn't?

, when it has been ruled against (see the comprehensive ruling in the link below) and was against the rules given when the cards came out. Can you clarify what you meant by that, because if you mean what you said, then it is inconsistent as you indicated and as I demonstrated. That's the point I'm trying to make, and my question was real, with actual answers, not rhetorical.

For reference, I found a thread that mentions the ruling for this particular case. And since I'm here to get rulings RIGHT not to argue, it bothers me how easily people throw that around here and feel like it's not hurtful. I actually research rulings and rules and will support what I initially oppose (like when I find a thread like above), but I will try to clear up inconsistencies.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #22 on:** October 13, 2012, 10:40:02 AM »

I agree with the other elders in this thread that official rule is that you are able choose to use a covenant/curse as an enhancement or artifact even if it's hand. This is necessary because only artifacts may be put in your artifact pile. So if you couldn't choose for the curse to be an artifact while it was in your hand, you could never put it there to begin with. The same can be said for enhancements going to Storehouse.

Although this idea hasn't been expanded to also include deck or discard pile, I agree with those who say that it seems like the same mechanic, and therefore would now rule that you could search your own deck for an enhancement and choose to use a covenant/curse that way and therefore pull it out. I have updated the thread referenced above to reflect this.

I understand that this seems inconsistent because your opponent can NOT choose to treat your covenant/curse as a specific type while it's in your hand, but I think this is the best ruling for these. There are a lot of things that you can do with your cards that your opponent can NOT, so I think we can just wrap this up in that list

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #23 on:** October 13, 2012, 12:06:21 PM »

I don't think it is inconsistent to simply rule that only you can decide what your cards will be used as. This is completely logical.

Redoubter · « **Reply #24 on:** October 13, 2012, 01:06:53 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 13, 2012, 10:40:02 AM

I agree with the other elders in this thread that official rule is that you are able choose to use a covenant/curse as an enhancement or artifact even if it's hand. This is necessary because only artifacts may be put in your artifact pile. So if you couldn't choose for the curse to be an artifact while it was in your hand, you could never put it there to begin with. The same can be said for enhancements going to Storehouse.

Although this idea hasn't been expanded to also include deck or discard pile, I agree with those who say that it seems like the same mechanic, and therefore would now rule that you could search your own deck for an enhancement and choose to use a covenant/curse that way and therefore pull it out. I have updated the thread referenced above to reflect this.

I understand that this seems inconsistent because your opponent can NOT choose to treat your covenant/curse as a specific type while it's in your hand, but I think this is the best ruling for these. There are a lot of things that you can do with your cards that your opponent can NOT, so I think we can just wrap this up in that list

Was not expected the rule to be completely changed. As I pointed out in my post, what Gabe said was against all of the rules and rulings given to us so far, since the cards came out. I have only ever seen rulings that say that they are only Cov/Curses in hand, deck or discard. This changes things completely if adopted, and the answer to my (not rhetorical) question above would be "yes".

Is there consensus then on this rule change, and should we be playing this at upcoming tournaments?

To be honest, that is a more consistent rule in one way (allows for the 'use' by Zimri and Uzzah to follow the same pattern for all things the player does), but it will definitely change the way searches are done, and there is still inconsistency with how each player can target them (even if that is explained away by 'ownership').

News:

Author Topic: Uzzah vs Covenants/Curses (Read 3634 times)