Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: bruce2213 on January 09, 2012, 02:34:46 AM
-
Can Chaldeans target an Artifact that is not active but in the Artifact Pile.
Chaldeans
3/3 Crimson/Pale Green
Negate and Discard an Artifact unless it's owner has at least two characters in play with the same testament as the Artifact.
-
no
-
Why can't it be targeted?
-
because you can never target face down cards unless the card your using specifically says so targets default to in play and only face up arts are in play
-
because you can never target face down cards unless the card your using specifically says so targets default to in play and only face up arts are in play
CG25 is correct.
-
Thanks
-
To expound on that a little bit, all abilities default to "in play" unless they specify otherwise. Locations that are in play include your territory and the field of battle. Locations that are not in play include all decks, discard piles, the set-aside area, and the face down cards in your artifact pile. Because of this, Chaldeans cannot target cards that are out of play, however a card like The Imperial Guard ("If another Babylonian is in play, discard a face-down Artifact at random from opponent's Artifact pile.") can target the artifact pile, because it specifically references it.
-
Chronic is correct, with the exception that "instead" abilities do not default to in play. They target the ability they are replacing (regardless of the location of that ability).
-
Chronic is correct, with the exception that "instead" abilities do not default to in play. They target the ability they are replacing (regardless of the location of that ability).
Ah that's right. Examples of where this comes into effect would be Chamber of Angels and The Gates of Hell.
-
To get even more technical, I think "instead" abilities still default to "in play," but currently the only cards that can do things from set-aside are GoH and Boat. The only time it would ever matter is if GoH Discarded an Angel, and it would not go to Chamber.
-
To get even more technical, I think "instead" abilities still default to "in play," but currently the only cards that can do things from set-aside are GoH and Boat. The only time it would ever matter is if GoH Discarded an Angel, and it would not go to Chamber.
If insteads default to in play, then Judas' Plot doesn't work at all and you could also use Darius' Decree to successfully discard Job from Dust and Ashes (which has been ruled to not be the case).
-
Not true. Darius' Decree is in play, so DNA insteads its Discard of Job to sending Job to DNA.
Judas' Plot is a bit tricky, but there have been issues with the mechanics of that card since forever. While I'm not entirely sure how it works, the Dom clearly can't still be in hand while Plot is doing its thing, or hand protection abilities would stop it (which they don't).
I stand by what I say, "instead" still defaults to in play, but it targets the card whose ability is being insteaded, not the target that it's insteading. The only cards in the game that have abilities which activate from set-aside are GoH, Boat, Chamber, and Tartaros, and the only times it will matter is if GoH Discards an Angel (will not go to Chamber) or a non-Orange Demon (will not go to Tartaros).
-
Tartaros and Gates have always sent angels to chamber and non orange demons to tartaros. Proffesor A ruled that way here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/gates-of-hell-vs-chamber-of-angels/msg429896/#msg429896).
-
Sorry, but it takes more than one elder saying "correct" to overturn targeting defaulting to play.
-
Sorry, but it takes more than one elder saying "correct" to overturn targeting defaulting to play.
OK, then we'll make it 2. I have also consistently seen it ruled that angels which are discarded by Gates of Hell, are sent to Chamber of Angels.
I understand your point about targeting, and perhaps this isn't the best ruling possible. However, I do think that it is the current ruling.
I would be interested in getting more input on this from other elders, to see if this could be something that changes.
-
As long as you realize you're overturning years of "defaults to in play" precedence for a single ruling.
-
As long as you realize you're overturning years of "defaults to in play" precedence for a single ruling.
I understand your point about targeting, and perhaps this isn't the best ruling possible. However, I do think that it is the current ruling.
Underwood acknowledges that it probably isn't the best ruling, but it is how it has been ruled in the past.
-
Sort of. It was ruled for a long time that Priestly Breastplate worked the way it was intended, but when people realized that clashed with other, more established rulings, it was immediately called into question and quickly overturned. Just because people overlooked an incorrect ruling for a long time doesn't mean that it should continue to be supported when the discrepancy is brought to attention.
-
I would be interested in getting more input on this from other elders, to see if this could be something that changes.
Sounds like at least one of the Elders is open to changing this.
-
It shouldn't be about changing so much as recognizing a ruling that's been incorrect since it was first brought up. The evidence we have to go on is essentially someone saying "I can do this, right?" and an Elder saying "sounds about right."
-
We clamor and complain about lack of official rulings, Rob gives us the Elder system. The Elder system works, we complain that they didn't agree with us. Boy do we sound like the Israelites.
-
The elder system works mostly. Can anyone point to anywhere the "defaults to play" rule has actually been overturned? All we're going on is one situation where an elder ruled contrary to that core rule. Then another elder comes along and agrees that that's how people are ruling it.
I ask again, if "defaults to play" is not being overturned, how is the "current ruling" on Gates and Chamber tenable?
-
The elder system works mostly. Can anyone point to anywhere the "defaults to play" rule has actually been overturned? All we're going on is one situation where an elder ruled contrary to that core rule. Then another elder comes along and agrees that that's how people are ruling it.
I ask again, if "defaults to play" is not being overturned, how is the "current ruling" on Gates and Chamber tenable?
Except nobody has said anything that should make you assume that we don't disagree with you. We have two Elders who have said that that is how it is ruled right now, and the only one who has posted in this topic has requested other Elders give their opinions with the intention of possibly overturning this ruling, the same way it was done for Priestly Breastplate. Until other Elders do post their opinions in this topic, I'm not sure what insisting that you're right and defending a viewpoint that nobody is yet attacking is going to accomplish.
-
It's back to my base complaint about the elder system: elders are too quick to set a precedent without thinking about all the implications, and too slow to correct errors. There can be no argument that the "current ruling" is either incorrect or overturns a core rule, so why wasn't it stricken down as easily as established?
-
Alright, we get it, you have a complaint. However, continuing to complain without an official response just makes you look like you're whining, and don't care about getting anything accomplished.
-
It's back to my base complaint about the elder system: elders are too quick to set a precedent without thinking about all the implications, and too slow to correct errors. There can be no argument that the "current ruling" is either incorrect or overturns a core rule, so why wasn't it stricken down as easily as established?
Because you haven't give it a chance to possibly be stricken down. I'll understand your complaint if a couple Elders come in here and defense the ruling as-is, but right now, this is the first time this particular scenario is being looked at closely; give it a bit before you get frustrated.
-
Alright, we get it, you have a complaint. However, continuing to complain without an official response just makes you look like you're whining, and don't care about getting anything accomplished.
What I want to get accomplished is what I've been wanting to get accomplished for a long time: no more knee-jerk rulings from elders. The rules of this game are complex and nuanced, and if the ruling-makers can't be nuanced then we need new ruling-makers.
This is not anything against either professor in particular, but a general dissatisfaction with how those with the ability to make rulings view their role. Confirming a ruling should only happen when there is general disagreement among REP's. Posting too quickly is what gets posts like "all due respect to everyone telling me I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear it from an elder" as well as establishing precedent before being sure if the decision even violates core rules of the game.
Those who would call me whiny would call me whiny whether I am unsatisfied with elder behavior or posting about my grandmother dying. It is not whining to attempt to bring attention to a problem. Nobody would have picked up on this problem if nobody had brought attention to it, and this wouldn't be a problem if the bigger problem weren't around.
-
This is not anything against either professor in particular, but a general dissatisfaction with how those with the ability to make rulings view their role. Confirming a ruling should only happen when there is general disagreement among REP's. Posting too quickly is what gets posts like "all due respect to everyone telling me I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear it from an elder" as well as establishing precedent before being sure if the decision even violates core rules of the game.
Among a number of generally useless post in this topic arguing about nothing, I actually agree with this. Constantly posting in non-controversial topics by elders really cheapens the rulings of elders so that everyone feels like they deserve an elder ruling. Sorry, but I don't deserve an elder ruling to confirm that I D3 as opposed to D4 when I start my turn.
-
I actually agree with a lot of what you said in your post, Pol. While I do think you're overreacting in this particular thread, you make some solid points.
-
Considering everything I've posted has been about that very thing, I must have been making a hash of presenting what my point was if it's suddenly acceptable XD I'm glad I finally got it across intelligibly.
-
This is not anything against either professor in particular, but a general dissatisfaction with how those with the ability to make rulings view their role. Confirming a ruling should only happen when there is general disagreement among REP's. Posting too quickly is what gets posts like "all due respect to everyone telling me I'm wrong, but I'd like to hear it from an elder" as well as establishing precedent before being sure if the decision even violates core rules of the game.
Among a number of generally useless post in this topic arguing about nothing, I actually agree with this. Constantly posting in non-controversial topics by elders really cheapens the rulings of elders so that everyone feels like they deserve an elder ruling. Sorry, but I don't deserve an elder ruling to confirm that I D3 as opposed to D4 when I start my turn.
I don't think this is the problem. Rather, it is RLKs with too much entitlement.
RLK: Can I do this? I think yes
REP: No, actually.
RLK (still thinks he's right):ELDERS!
-
Considering everything I've posted has been about that very thing, I must have been making a hash of presenting what my point was if it's suddenly acceptable XD I'm glad I finally got it across intelligibly.
I just think that some of the broader complaints you have don't necessarily apply to this particular issue. I think you jumped the gun a bit on tackling the possibility that a larger issue than this ruling should be looked at. I could be wrong, and I don't really think it matters regardless, since we all seem to be on the same page now.
Aside from that, I agree with Randall for the most part, upon re-examining Pol's post and my own viewpoints. I think that the Elder system definitely has some flaws, but a lot of them are in the way the community reacts to the Elders, rather than anything the Elders themselves are doing.
-
Aside from that, I agree with Randall for the most part, upon re-examining Pol's post and my own viewpoints. I think that the Elder system definitely has some flaws, but a lot of them are in the way the community reacts to the Elders, rather than anything the Elders themselves are doing.
Thanks. I have quite a bit of respect for the Elders, given their volunteer status.
-
lol, I just wasted precious time reading this because I wondered what question about Chaldeans could go 3 pages long.
While we're on a side tangent, what is this ruling reference to Priestly Breastplate that keeps getting mentioned? Are we just talking about the "Eats up an activation" ruling or something else?
-
lol, I just wasted precious time reading this because I wondered what question about Chaldeans could go 3 pages long.
While we're on a side tangent, what is this ruling reference to Priestly Breastplate that keeps getting mentioned? Are we just talking about the "Eats up an activation" ruling or something else?
Nope, that's it.
-
RLK: Can I do this? I think yes
REP: No, actually.
RLK (still thinks he's right):ELDERS!
And you really think that would be an issue if elders didn't make a habit of posting on trivial question threads?
-
RLK: Can I do this? I think yes
REP: No, actually.
RLK (still thinks he's right):ELDERS!
And you really think that would be an issue if elders didn't make a habit of posting on trivial question threads?
I think it absolutely would be, because it's not necessarily a matter of what the Elders do, as much as it is a matter of what the Elders are. It's a status symbol, and the people who demand an answer from an Elder simply want to have that reassurance that whatever asinine question they have that can be answered by REPs is indeed being taken as seriously as any other question. I think that even if the Elders stopped posting on this board entirely, and only posted when it was assuring the members of a heated debate that the matter was being discussed on the other side, or posting the decision from the other side, you'd still get people wanting that Elder reassurance. Even if I'm totally wrong though, I don't think the Elders should feel like they're restricted from posting. If not many people are around and somebody asks an easy question, why shouldn't RDT or Underwood or anyone else take the two minutes to answer that question if they're willing to?
-
From what I know of behavior patterns, people won't expect something they have no reason to expect. If a newer player comes onto the board and sees most ruling questions play out in under a page with general agreement among players with a lot of stars under their names, and shiny titles and colors only posting on very controversial threads 5 pages long, he will not expect to have an elder answer his questions and be content with a consensus or near consensus among hero members posting.
If, however, he comes on and sees that quite frequently, basic questions are answered by fancy titles and colorful stars, he will expect that his questions receive the same level of attention and will not be satisfied until a fancy title with shiny stars tells him it's so.
I'm not in any way meaning to mock by using "fancy titles" or "colorful stars," I'm just relaying how new (especially young) people will see the state of affairs. On pretty much every other forum I'm on, mods rarely post and when they do it's A Big Deal. I love that mods and even gmods are active "normal" members of the forum too, but when they post on non-controversial rulings threads, it creates problems.
-
I understand your concern regarding people expecting mod approval for all simple rulings, but I don't think that it's really become a problem. The few times when someone does demand elder input, people have done a good job of explaining again how the system works and that a consensus of REPs is sufficient for ruling confidence (unless and elder specifically posts to disagree). In this way, they actually learn how things work instead of having to assume anything.
If not many people are around and somebody asks an easy question, why shouldn't RDT or Underwood or anyone else take the two minutes to answer that question if they're willing to?
+1