Author Topic: Battle Prayer (Read 9200 times)

RTSmaniac · « **on:** July 12, 2009, 10:37:56 PM »

Battle Prayer
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search through your draw pile or discard pile and select one gold enhancement card. Shuffle card pile. • Play As: Search your deck or discard pile for any good gold brigade enhancement and add to hand. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon, Involves Music • Verse: Psalms 140:7-8 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Common)

can the warriors card search for an evil enhancement?

kirk dennison I please ask if you could refrain from posting on this topic until more post have been added.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #1 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:39:46 PM »

Read the Play As, you cannot.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #2 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:45:30 PM »

i need as many replies on this post as possible please
the correct answer is that you can but im trying to show a concensus that most if all of the board would answer differently

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #3 on:** July 12, 2009, 10:51:37 PM »

I don't understand why you need more input. The REG clearly states you cannot. Play As > Printed Card

Play As: Search your deck or discard pile for any good gold brigade enhancement and add to hand.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:02:39 PM »

very well...

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14397.0

it seems as stated through email from Rob that the above quote from the REG concerning Battle Prayer is indeed wrong. Not that this is a surprise to some because lets face it we all know that sometimes the REG is wrong and i personally thank everyone that contributes in helping to correct any mistakes or changes found.

Unfortunatly, i was under the impression that Battle Prayer did play as stated in the REG and was completely decimated by a certain someones combo deck after i explained that cards like great faith, battle prayer, ect. did not work to retrieve opposite allignments anymore and i was still confused as to why Gabriel (wa) discarded a good enhancement?

then im shown a printout of the email

does this sound fair to anyone?

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:12:30 PM »

I still argue that the REG is the official source of rulings, unless Rob or another Cactus person confirms it was an error. Since the REG was unchanged after that discussion, I would conclude the REG is right unless otherwise stated by an official source.

sk · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:15:21 PM »

Popular opinion means nothing. According to the other post, three or four judges are in agreement that the REG is in error.

I agree with Cameron. Unless the REG is changed, or the PTB officially rule otherwise, the REG entry still stands.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #7 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:17:52 PM »

I agree that there is a problem.

There have been two other threads in the past few months where that "play as" was stated for ruling purposes and noone commented otherwise. One of those threads had input from Schaef and Sir Nobody. We need an official word from Rob here on the boards, because there is clearly confusion and lack of consistency on who and where this is ruled.

For now, hosts are obligated to rule according to the rulebook and REG, which currently states "good gold."

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #8 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:20:13 PM »

unless someone shows up with a secret email from Rob i guess...

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #9 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:23:04 PM »

I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.

Quote

Hi Kirk:

In general, we aim to let cards do what they say unless a card is broken the way it reads. I don't consider Battle Prayer breaking anything even though thematically it's a bad fit if it grabs an evil enhancement. So, yes I am willing to allow it to grap an evil enhancement just as the Warriors version of Gabriel can discard a good enhancement from opponent's deck.

Sincerely,
Rob Anderson
Cactus Game Design, Inc.

I specifically referenced the mistaken REG quote in my e-mail to him. Bryon, Stephen, and Mike were included in the e-mail exchange, so the main PTB are aware of this.

Kirk

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #10 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:25:31 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on July 12, 2009, 11:23:04 PM

I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.

That's really the key isn't it, though? No official answer on the boards means that all rulings are required to follow the rulebook/REG. That's a pretty big email to not be mass distributed.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #11 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:28:16 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on July 12, 2009, 11:23:04 PM

I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.

Quote
Hi Kirk:

In general, we aim to let cards do what they say unless a card is broken the way it reads. I don't consider Battle Prayer breaking anything even though thematically it's a bad fit if it grabs an evil enhancement. So, yes I am willing to allow it to grap an evil enhancement just as the Warriors version of Gabriel can discard a good enhancement from opponent's deck.

Sincerely,
Rob Anderson
Cactus Game Design, Inc.

I specifically referenced the mistaken REG quote in my e-mail to him. Bryon, Stephen, and Mike were included in the e-mail exchange, so the main PTB are aware of this.

Kirk

Well, that is indication that a change might happen in the future. However, I don't like the idea of using private conversation to directly overturn a formal, official rule.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:29:01 PM »

yup

heres one from april

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15235.0

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:31:07 PM »

Actually, in that post you quoted, you said just the opposite:

Quote from: RTSmaniac on April 08, 2009, 04:12:23 PM

Same with gold cards-cannot search for evil gold

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:32:32 PM »

That is the point we're making here: Good gold only.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:33:31 PM »

Quote from: Cameron the Conqueror on July 12, 2009, 11:28:16 PM

Well, that is indication that a change might happen in the future. However, I don't like the idea of using private conversation to directly overturn a formal, official rule.

Uhh an incorrect quote is not a formal, official rule.

Kirk

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:33:45 PM »

...unless Rob changes the rules and the REG publicly.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:35:36 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on July 12, 2009, 11:33:31 PM

Uhh an incorrect quote is not a formal, official rule.

The point is that hosts "not in the know" would have to rule according to the REG. That is the only official source.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:37:38 PM »

Can I ask how this ruling would affect the card play? Being from Mike's playgroup, he actually mentioned Krik's email last gamenight. We both agreed that although we didn't think it was a great ruling and maybe even the wrong ruling, it won't made a significant impact on any combos. Can you please inform us how uncreative we are?

A similar event occured at Northeast Regionals. Justin Sangillo arrived the second day with an email from Rob stating that Fortresses posses all 7 evil colors. Justin brought this ruling to Roy Cruz as soon as he arrived to make sure he was aware of it. When players overheard, the ruling was argued and brought into question. After alot of fuss, Roy made a quick call to Rob Anderson for an official ruling from the man himself. As it turned out, Justin had misunderstood the email (or someone misunderstood someone else). Either way, we established the precedent previous to competition.

If you have a "secret" email, I am of the opinion that the host needs to be notified previous to the competition's start. That's my only real beef with the above scenario as stated by RTS Maniac.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:39:24 PM »

So Angel's Sword is not corrected in the REG either.... Therefore, the REG is no the only official source.

The point is, I posted in several Battle Prayer threads that I talked with Mike about this issue at nats last year. No one official posted the contrary.

Kirk

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:42:15 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on July 12, 2009, 11:39:24 PM

So Angel's Sword is not corrected in the REG either.... Therefore, the REG is no the only official source.

If I were to have been hosting the Florida State tournament yesterday, and I had to make a ruling on Battle Prayer, I would have said "good gold only." The reason I would say that is because I would have searched the REG and that's what it would have said. I knew nothing about an email from Rob or a PTB discussion of "Gee, is that a mistake?"

Do you really not see a problem with inconsistent rulings occurring?

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:43:55 PM »

I brought the issue to light SEVERAL times on the boards, telling everyone that the ruling was wrong after talking to Mike at nationals last year.

Kirk

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:45:20 PM »

The REG isn't the end all it once may have been. At this point, it is a somewhat safe bet to rule with your gut and various rulings gotten from these boards when they contradict the REG. But again, when you have an email from Rob, who clearly would be official, why wouldn't you make sure at least the host is aware of the ruling? Pulling out a ruling during the argument (which I have been led to believe is what occured, apologies if this is wrong) seems sketchy to me. It'd be similar to getting something like a FSP in your limited Booster pack for Booster Draft. Would you take it and be quiet til you draw it? Or would you immediately call a host to alert them of the fact that you opened the FSP in your pack?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #23 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:46:06 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on July 12, 2009, 11:43:55 PM

I brought the issue to light SEVERAL times on the boards, telling everyone that the ruling was wrong after talking to Mike at nationals last year.

Kirk

I'm not saying that you didn't. I know you're an upstanding guy, because I've met you. But I hope that you can at least see how this could be problematic for those who were not privy to your posts.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2009, 11:49:18 PM »

Quote from: Janissary on July 12, 2009, 11:45:20 PM

The REG isn't the end all it once may have been. At this point, it is a somewhat safe bet to rule with your gut and various rulings gotten from these boards when they contradict the REG. But again, when you have an email from Rob, who clearly would be official, why wouldn't you make sure at least the host is aware of the ruling? Pulling out a ruling during the argument (which I have been led to believe is what occured, apologies if this is wrong) seems sketchy to me. It'd be similar to getting something like a FSP in your limited Booster pack for Booster Draft. Would you take it and be quiet til you draw it? Or would you immediately call a host to alert them of the fact that you opened the FSP in your pack?

I was the host. I know I wasn't judging the events I would play, but I specifically e-mailed Rob so as a host I could confirm the correct ruling.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 12, 2009, 11:46:06 PM

I'm not saying that you didn't. I know you're an upstanding guy, because I've met you. But I hope that you can at least see how this could be problematic for those who were not privy to your posts.

I can see how it is problematic, but no more problematic then ruling Angel's Sword at tournaments. The fact is, if you didn't read the correct threads on the forums, you would rule it by the mistaken REG entries. So if you read the Angel's Sword thread, you would rule that right. If you read the few threads I posted on, you would rule it right.

Kirk

News:

Author Topic: Battle Prayer (Read 9200 times)