Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Professoralstad on August 10, 2009, 01:47:41 AM

Title: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Professoralstad on August 10, 2009, 01:47:41 AM
Can I place an Enhancement using Agur with Darius' Decree active? That is, is "place" a subset of "play"?

Darius' Decree
Type:  Artifact • Brigade:  None • Ability:  None • Class:  None • Special Ability: Opponents may not play good Enhancements from hand, unless an Evil Character is in battle. You may discard this card to discard all Heroes in set-aside areas. • Identifiers:  None • Verse:  Daniel 6:9 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()

Agur
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 8 / 9 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may place an O.T. Enhancement from hand (or discard pile if Book of the Law is active) on a human Hero of matching brigade in your territory. The next time that Hero enters battle, that Enhancement activates and is discarded immediately. • Identifiers: OT Male Human • Verse: Proverbs 30:1 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Rare)

Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: crustpope on August 10, 2009, 01:59:34 AM
I say no.  You can place it because the enhancement is not activating.  You would have problems using that character to make an RA though because the enhancement would be prevented from activating, but since it has to activate I think DD would simply force the characters with placed enhancements to remain in territory.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Minister Polarius on August 10, 2009, 04:09:57 AM
Seems that placing is a good way to get around this. You are not playing them from hand, you are placing them. Then, when they enter battle, they are not coming from hand so DD doesn't even try to do anything.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Master KChief on August 10, 2009, 04:14:57 AM
i agree, dd doesnt say anything about restricting placed enhancements from being activated in battle. good find prof.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Kevin Shride on August 10, 2009, 08:07:04 AM
While Daruis Decree is active, you MAY NOT place a good enhancement from your hand on someone unless an evil character is in battle.

Kevin Shride
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Professoralstad on August 10, 2009, 09:48:34 AM
While Daruis Decree is active, you MAY NOT place a good enhancement from your hand on someone unless an evil character is in battle.

Kevin Shride

So then you can "play" a card without actually using it's ability (or even attempting to)? That seems strange, but I guess I can see that.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: happyjosiah on August 10, 2009, 10:04:36 AM
Facedown artifacts, heros into territory, etc.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: crustpope on August 10, 2009, 10:36:38 AM
I totally missed the part on DD that said from hand but I dissagree with Kevin that placing and Playing are the same thing.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Kevin Shride on August 10, 2009, 12:20:44 PM
If taking a card from your hand and putting it into play isn't "playing" it, what would you call it?

Kevin Shride
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Cameron the Conqueror on August 10, 2009, 12:25:05 PM
If taking a card from your hand and putting it into play isn't "playing" it, what would you call it?

Kevin Shride

Placing it.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Gabe on August 10, 2009, 12:32:09 PM
Although my understanding of "played" vs "placed" led me to believe they were different in regards to Darius' Decree, this portion of the REG seems to support Kevin's ruling.  

Add to the fact that I'm rarely right when I disagree with Kevin on a ruling - because he's pretty well versed on how these things work.

Quote from: Redemption® Rulebook > Diagram of a Turn > Battle Phase > Exceptions to Enhancements Played in the Field of Battle
A weapon-class enhancement can be played in either of these ways:

•      Played during battle as a regular enhancement and used by any character of matching brigade following the regular rules of initiative, OR

•      Placed on a warrior-class character of matching brigade during the Preparation Phase or Discard Phase.

The rulebook describes one of the ways that weapon class Enhancements can be played is to place them on a character.

You can still use Agur and friends to place an enhancement from the discard pile since that doesn't come from hand.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Lawfuldog on August 10, 2009, 12:37:24 PM
I agree with Kevin, placing is in fact placing it from hand into PLAY, which could be considered playing it. Although it did not activate, it is still in fact in PLAY.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Cameron the Conqueror on August 10, 2009, 01:16:57 PM
So if I use Ambush, am I playing a place card, even though it isn't going into play?  Face down cards are not in play.

That doesn't make any sense....
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: TimMierz on August 10, 2009, 01:29:08 PM
So if I use Ambush, am I playing a place card, even though it isn't going into play?  Face down cards are not in play.

That doesn't make any sense....

Ambush is being played as a face-up set-aside enhancement.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: frisian9 on August 10, 2009, 07:48:11 PM
The use of "Play" on Darius Decree is a game rule. The reference to "place" on Agur is a special ability, not a game rule. You really have to keep them separate. Play may sometimes be interpretted as place in a game rule context (like placing an enhancement on a character in battle through the game rule), but that is not the same as placing a card outside of a game rule via a special ability. I hope this gets cleared up in the coming weeks - I know it has come up regularly of late.

In this particular case, you can "place" the card via Agur on a character in a territory during battle because you are not "playing" the card via a game rule. What you cannot do is place (or play) a card on Agur during the battle (e.g., A New Creation) to convert the evil character to red - doing so is by a game rule that Darius Decree prevents.

Mike

from the rulebook: "You and your opponent play enhancements on your own characters according to the rules for initiative until the player who is losing either cannot play or chooses not to play any more enhancements. In mutual destruction or stalemate situa­tions, players must either play an enhancement or pass. If there are three consecutive passes (i.e. you pass, opponent passes, you pass again), then resolve the battle."
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: lightningninja on August 10, 2009, 10:06:40 PM
Hm... but you can at least just place from discard pile...
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Professoralstad on August 11, 2009, 12:57:25 AM
In this particular case, you can "place" the card via Agur on a character in a territory during battle because you are not "playing" the card via a game rule. What you cannot do is place (or play) a card on Agur during the battle (e.g., A New Creation) to convert the evil character to red - doing so is by a game rule that Darius Decree prevents.

Mike


That's cool. I'm not sure what you meant by the bolded part, as DD doesn't prevent Agur from playing enhancements when there is an EC in battle, but all the same, I do like this ruling. I think it may encourage more use of the enhancement placers, since DD is bound to be a popular card with all the Jacob's, ET's, Hidden Treasures, and Set-Asides around nowadays.

Another reason I thought of why "placing" should not be "playing" is that if it were, DD would prevent you from putting good enhancements in Storehouse. And that seems wrong.

Although the point that Gabe brought up seems valid, and I was about to agree with him for consistency's sake, until I decided I liked Mike's ruling better.  ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Gabe on August 11, 2009, 08:47:22 AM
I like Mikes ruling better too.  ;)  In fact, that's how I thought it would work.  Knowing that Kevin is usually dead on with his rulings I was trying to understand where he's coming from.  That's when I found that REG quote about played/placed weapons. :scratch:
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Gohanick on August 11, 2009, 05:44:50 PM
What about weapon class enhancments?

They can't be played outside of battle now either right, atleast for heroes?
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on August 11, 2009, 08:16:02 PM
Cool.... Next we'll be saying that you can use territory class and set-asides outside of battle even with DD up.... Why did we make this card again? Oh, I guess it does stop Hidden treasures.....  :laugh:
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: lightningninja on August 11, 2009, 08:17:56 PM
Cool.... Next we'll be saying that you can use territory class and set-asides outside of battle even with DD up.... Why did we make this card again? Oh, I guess it does stop Hidden treasures.....
We obviously made it because so many people complained about pre-block ignore.  ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on August 11, 2009, 08:22:48 PM
Right, because we didn't already have a good dozen or so answers to them.... It also does nothing against TGT ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: lightningninja on August 11, 2009, 08:24:08 PM
Right, because we didn't already have a good dozen or so answers to them.... It also does nothing against TGT
OOh... good point. We must have missed that. It was supposed to say "negate the garden tomb if a hero is set-aside." Oh well... :D
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: frisian9 on August 12, 2009, 08:33:01 PM
I think what Kevin might be saying (I'm guessing so I may be wrong) is that when you use the place special ability you are simultaneously playing a card. I am hoping that is not the case. I don't think this issue is completely settled until a few more playtesters chime in. I hope we get it right and don't have to correct wrong play sometime next summer, right?

Mike
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on August 12, 2009, 08:36:56 PM
As an avid user of placement heroes, I don't think they are "playing" cards, especially not if you take the card from the discard pile.

Long Live Elishana!
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: lightningninja on August 12, 2009, 09:13:58 PM
Oh, Elishana lives because discard pile isn't hand, so DD doesn't even remotely suggest that he'd be stopped.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: RTSmaniac on August 13, 2009, 12:46:15 PM
i think you can still play cards from the discard pile like false priest i think...
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: TimMierz on August 13, 2009, 12:48:16 PM
Oh, Elishana lives because discard pile isn't hand, so DD doesn't even remotely suggest that he'd be stopped.

Elishama? Lives?!
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Minister Polarius on August 14, 2009, 01:13:49 AM
Oh, Elishana lives because discard pile isn't hand, so DD doesn't even remotely suggest that he'd be stopped.

Elishama? Lives?!
The thread has been won.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: SirNobody on August 16, 2009, 04:07:22 AM
Hey,

Let me introduce everyone to the two definitions of "play"

(1) To put a card into the field of play. [I'll call this play (place)]
(2) To activate the ability of a card.  [I'll call this play (activate)]

When the rulebook talks about playing weapons on characters in your territory it is using the play (place) definition.
When the rulebook talks about giving initiative in a stalemate situation to the player that did not play the last card in battle it is using the play (activate) definition.

The question then becomes, when the word "play" appears in the ability of Darius' Decree which definition is it using?

I lean towards saying it uses the play (activate) definition.  So enhancements can still go in storehouse, weapons can still go on characters, Agur still works, and yes John, Set asides and Territory class enhancements can still be played (at least they can be put into play, but they would then not activate, do nothing and be immediately discarded).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: frisian9 on August 16, 2009, 06:07:56 PM
Hey,

Let me introduce everyone to the two definitions of "play"

(1) To put a card into the field of play. [I'll call this play (place)]
(2) To activate the ability of a card.  [I'll call this play (activate)]

When the rulebook talks about playing weapons on characters in your territory it is using the play (place) definition.
When the rulebook talks about giving initiative in a stalemate situation to the player that did not play the last card in battle it is using the play (activate) definition.

The question then becomes, when the word "play" appears in the ability of Darius' Decree which definition is it using?

I lean towards saying it uses the play (activate) definition.  So enhancements can still go in storehouse, weapons can still go on characters, Agur still works, and yes John, Set asides and Territory class enhancements can still be played (at least they can be put into play, but they would then not activate, do nothing and be immediately discarded).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

+1

Brilliant! Brilliant!
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on August 16, 2009, 06:13:00 PM
I largely agree with Maly on this but I have one question.

Would you say this is more along the lines of a prevent? If so, ET + AOCP could still work, since you cant prevent AoCP's ability from activating, but according to your theory, you would be allowed to place AoCP into battle.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: ejberkenpas22 on August 16, 2009, 06:24:46 PM
I think if you cannot play an enhancement from your hand unless an EC is in battle...then you simply can't do it. Can you set aside a hero? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. Can you place a good enhancement on a hero in your territory? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. You are reading way too into this card and making it way more complex than it needs  to be. Just ask yourself, "Would playing this card be playing a good enhancement from my hand without an EC being in battle?" If the answer is yes, then you can't do it. Simple as that. So with the AoCP example...the answer would be yes, because you are playing AoCP without an EC being in batter so no you can't do it. Territory class enhancements...ask the question and your answer should be yes, so you can't play those either. That is how I see it.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on August 16, 2009, 06:26:08 PM
I think if you cannot play an enhancement from your hand unless an EC is in battle...then you simply can't do it. Can you set aside a hero? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. Can you place a good enhancement on a hero in your territory? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. You are reading way too into this card and making it way more complex than it needs  to be. Just ask yourself, "Would playing this card be playing a good enhancement from my hand without an EC being in battle?" If the answer is yes, then you can't do it. Simple as that. So with the AoCP example...the answer would be yes, because you are playing AoCP without an EC being in batter so no you can't do it. Territory class enhancements...ask the question and your answer should be yes, so you can't play those either. That is how I see it.

This is definately the side I am leaning most towards. I much prefer simple, clear, and easy to explain rules.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: ejberkenpas22 on August 16, 2009, 06:28:25 PM
I think if you cannot play an enhancement from your hand unless an EC is in battle...then you simply can't do it. Can you set aside a hero? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. Can you place a good enhancement on a hero in your territory? No, that would be playing a good enhancement without an EC being in battle. You are reading way too into this card and making it way more complex than it needs  to be. Just ask yourself, "Would playing this card be playing a good enhancement from my hand without an EC being in battle?" If the answer is yes, then you can't do it. Simple as that. So with the AoCP example...the answer would be yes, because you are playing AoCP without an EC being in batter so no you can't do it. Territory class enhancements...ask the question and your answer should be yes, so you can't play those either. That is how I see it.

This is definately the side I am leaning most towards. I much prefer simple, clear, and easy to explain rules.

Right, the game ins complicated enough that we shouldn't be making easy cards complex.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: SirNobody on August 17, 2009, 01:55:04 AM
Hey,

Darius' Decree is actually a restrict ability and a prevent ability.  In the case of ET, Darius' Decree prevents ET's ability so you can't even play AoC promo.

I need to make one correction to my explanation in my last post.  Darius' Decree stops players from playing (activating) enhancements, so anything that tries to play (activate) does not work.  Things that try to play (place) do work, but only if they do not try to play (activate) when they play (place).

The result of this is that Set aside and Territory class enhancements cannot be played at all if Darius' Decree is active because while they do play (place) they also play (activate) so Darius' Decree stops both by stopping the latter.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: Kevin Shride on August 17, 2009, 12:38:23 PM
Tim, in my mind, it is a very confusing line to say that Agur can place an enhancement, but territory enhancements can't be played, even if they use the word "place".  I think it is a much cleaner and easier-to-understand ruling to say that you can't play them at all, and that, unfortunately, includes place enhancements, weapons, and Storehouse.

Kevin Shride
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: SirNobody on August 17, 2009, 04:12:11 PM
Hey,

Kevin, I think it's going to be confusing either way.  It's confusing because there are two different definitions of play, but it's too late at this point to change that.  If we use one definition of play it's going to be confusing that it's not the other definition (regardless of which definition of play is the one we use).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: The Guardian on August 17, 2009, 05:28:34 PM
I agree with Tim--activating a card and just putting a card on the table should not be considered the same thing. Set-asides and territory class should be stopped by Darius' Decree. Weapons and enhancements being put in Storehouse should not.
Title: Re: Darius Decree vs. Enhancement Placers
Post by: The Guardian on August 23, 2009, 05:29:35 PM
Official answer on this one?

I personally recommend SirNobody's different definitions of "play."
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal