Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: sepjazzwarrior on February 11, 2010, 08:54:07 AM

Title: Darius Decree
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on February 11, 2010, 08:54:07 AM
sorry if this had been asked before, but i can't find a post pertaining exactly to this.  Does DD stop your opponent from
1)putting weapon-class enhancements on characters in territory
2) placing enhancements in characters in territory
2) putting ehancements in storehouse
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 11, 2010, 09:23:06 AM
1)Yes. I am playing a WC enh on a hero. - Not 100% sure
2)No. - Placing =/= Playing
3)No - Same Logic.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 11, 2010, 09:32:04 AM
Can you be more specific with #2? Give an example.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on February 11, 2010, 10:00:36 AM
like using augr to place an enhancement on a character
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 11, 2010, 10:16:13 AM
Ok, I'd say no as well, because it's not immediately activating.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 11, 2010, 10:51:09 AM
This brings up the very good question of what is "playing" a card compared to "placing" a card or "activating" a card or "triggering" a card.  I don't know that this is all very well defined, and I look forward to seeing how this thread works out.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: redemptioncousin on February 11, 2010, 11:00:37 AM
Ok, I'd say no as well, because it's not immediately activating.

But you could use this argument to say that you're allowed to "place" WC enhancements on characters because they "aren't activating."
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 11, 2010, 11:06:10 AM
I say that playing = putting a card from hand into play simply via game rule, or if an ability says to play a card.

Placing is different, because there is no way to place without using a place ability. You may go "But what about Tclass enhs!" My Answer, you still need to PLAY those in order for their place ability to activate.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: RTSmaniac on February 11, 2010, 11:12:28 AM
why does WC enhancments get so many special treatments compared to other cards? they must have a special place in someones heart...

I think DD should stop WC enhancments like it stops territory class enhancments b/c:
1.) its cool thet there is something that buffers WC enhancments
2.) b/c DD is just that strong

i would consider putting a wc enhancment is actually letting you play it b/c of the WC symbol and storehouse's ability is letting you play enhacments into it
but to counter that argument is that thier not getting played b/c thier ability is not activating so if they were played wouldn't thier ability activate?

so maybe a played card is when a special ability of a card activates compared to placing where the special ability does not activate so DD only stops SA from activating...
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on February 11, 2010, 11:46:26 AM
i would agree that playing=SA activating, placing=no SA activating.  That would amke sense with storehouse because you don't play enhancements into storehouse, you place them, and the SA on those enhancements don't activate
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: SirNobody on February 11, 2010, 11:52:57 AM
Hey,

A enhancement card is played when (a) it enters the field of play, or (b) it's ability is activated.

Thus Darius' Decree stops all three things mentioned in the original post of this thread.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: uthminister [BR] on February 11, 2010, 11:57:46 AM
Wow, DD is so much more powerful than I originally thought...AMAZING!!!
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Master KChief on February 11, 2010, 12:08:08 PM
i dont agree with dd stopping a player from placing enhancements in storehouse, as they're not being played.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 11, 2010, 01:46:48 PM
i agree. I place cards into sh.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: SirNobody on February 11, 2010, 02:09:50 PM
Hey,

i agree. I place cards into sh.

Stronghold in the Desert: "While occupied, each time an opponent plays an Evil Character of a brigade he does not already have in play, discard the top card of his deck."

According to the rulebook I place evil characters in my territory.  So are you saying that Stronghold in the Desert isn't triggered by that?  So it can only works if I block with an evil character from hand?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 11, 2010, 02:26:08 PM
I feel that the difference is... When you play a card, it is almost ALWAYS done without the help of a special ability. You play characters into your territory from hand without abilities, play cards in battle due to initative rules, even play healing enhancements due to the rules. The only ability that lets you "play" a card is one that SAYS "play", such as ET.

Storehouse is an ability that lets you place the cards on it. I don't see how the two are the same. Play = putting a card into play from hand by game rule or a "play" ability. Place = done entirely by special ability. You cannot place a card WITHOUT a special ability.

So, I see Play as more of a game rule, with a few abilities that allow you to use that rule out of normal bounds, while Place is done entirely by special ability, and only involves the placement of a card into an area it normally is not allowed (such as into a territory or into a fortress)

I have no REG quotes to back me up, but I stand by this idea.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: SirNobody on February 11, 2010, 02:34:02 PM
Hey,

You cannot place a card WITHOUT a special ability.

Apparently you haven't read your rulebook recently enough :)

Quote
3. Preparation Phase – You may perform any number of these actions in any order. Actions may be repeated unless a limit is stipulated:
a) Place a character (cross or dragon icon) into your territory.
b) Place an artifact face down in your artifact pile.
c) Activate an artifact by placing an artifact face up on your artifact pile (limit once per turn).
d) Place a site into your territory.
e) Place a Lost Soul into a site.
f) Set aside a character.
g) Return a character from your set-aside area and place[/b] it back into your territory.
h) Place a weapon-class enhancement on a warrior-class character in your territory.
i) Place a fortress on the table as described on the fortress.  At this time its special ability becomes active.
j) Place or remove a card in a fortress as described on the fortress.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 11, 2010, 02:37:46 PM
j) Place or remove a card in a fortress as described on the fortress.

So, why do you say that DD stops storehouse? Perhaps we both need to read our rulebooks some more?  ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: redemptioncousin on February 11, 2010, 03:50:51 PM
He's arguing that they all say place, even though we know that they are being played. (ie Stronghold in the Desert example)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 11, 2010, 04:16:40 PM
If thats the case though, why did he even bring it up then? If All those should be changed to "play," then what good is the rulebook if its not even accurate?

Is that quote word for word accurate, or can I start switching words in other parts of the rules as well? See where I'm going with this? You start flipping words around, and then it just becomes a big mess, with rules that don't even work anymore.

So, Until something changes, I will use that quote as proof that DD does NOT stop weapons and placing enhancements into storehouse. Otherwise Im going to maybe switch Discard for Redeem on my Burial cards...
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Master KChief on February 11, 2010, 04:57:06 PM
yeah, dd stopping enhancements from going into sh just doesnt stick well. 'play' can mean entirely different things for different types of cards. 'play' for enhancements has pretty much always exclusively meant by activating its ability.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 11, 2010, 05:40:21 PM
A enhancement card is played when (a) it enters the field of play, or (b) it's ability is activated.

Thus Darius' Decree stops all three things mentioned in the original post of this thread.
Agreed.  When you take a card from your hand and put it in play, that is called "playing" the card.  If the card is going to stick around after the phase in which it is played, then it is ALSO called "placing" the card.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 11, 2010, 05:54:23 PM
So, can I use Cannot be Removed to protect from discard too?

Discarding takes them out of play, which could be considered removing from the field of play, so doesn't discard = remove?

I reeeeeeeeally do not like the idea of using BOTH terms for something such as this. Can we keep it to ONE term per action?

Now, as for the current ruling at hand, what is there in the current rulebook/REG that says putting a card into a fort is playing? The only thing I have seen is it stating that it is PLACED in there... which would mean it bypasses DD.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 11, 2010, 07:08:28 PM
Some basic knowledge of card games is assumed here.  A booster pack of Redemption contains pieces of cardstock cut into pieces called "cards."  These are arranged in a pile face down called a deck.  To draw a card is to take the top card of deck into your hand.  The cards in your hand are called your hand.  When you take a card from your hand and put it into the discard pile, that is card discarding the card.  When you take a card from your hand and put it down into a place other than the discard pile or deck, that is called playing it.  :)  These are consistent across almost every card game I've ever played.

Your question about "Cannot be removed" has me scratching my head.  Do you mean "Cannot be removed from the game"?  That is totally different from discard.

If you mean "Cannot be removed from battle" then yes, that would also protect from discard.

In the rules, you will see a section about "losing by removal."  That refers to removal from battle.  This includes discard, capture, shuffle, removal from the game, conversion, return to hand, return to territory, withdraw, return to deck, etc.  So, yes, "cannot be removed from battle" would protect from discard as well.  So...

A character that is being captured from battle is also losing by removal.  Both terms apply.  

A Beast is also a Demon.  Both terms apply.  Beasts are a subset of Demons.

A Giant is also a human.  Both terms apply.  Giants are a subset of humans.

Place from hand is also play.  Both terms apply.  Place from hand is a subset of play.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Master KChief on February 11, 2010, 07:42:35 PM
too much twisted terminology. 'playing' enhancements has always meant activating its ability, which is why placed enhancements like tc enhancements worked...you placed them, then activated their abilities. i dont think placed enhancements that do not activate does not qualify as a played enhancement.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 11, 2010, 07:48:43 PM
Wait, do we want consistency or not?

Putting a hero, evil character, artifact, site, fortress, good dominant, evil dominant, lost soul, covenant, or curse on the table counts as playing it.  But puting an enhancement on the table does not?  Wha?

If a card goes from your hand onto the playing field (table, floor, bottom of the pool, whatever), then it was played.

The special abilities of characters and weapons only activate as they enter battle.  Enhancements played onto another card as part of a place ability do not activate, but they were still played.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Master KChief on February 11, 2010, 08:01:40 PM
there are always exceptions. does putting a character face down count as 'playing' it? does putting an artifact face down count as 'playing' it?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 11, 2010, 09:01:38 PM
Did it come from your hand?  Did it go in play?  That's it, really.

Face down cards are not considered in play, right?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Master KChief on February 11, 2010, 09:06:46 PM
Did it come from your hand?  Did it go in play?  That's it, really.

yes. yes.

Face down cards are not considered in play, right?

right. so why would a face-down card be considered 'played' if its not even in play?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 11, 2010, 09:09:17 PM
Cards can go on the table from places other than one's hand, and there was no mention in previous posts of the requirement to be in the Field of Play.  There are areas out of play to which cards are "played", so I don't think that's an accurate defining characteristic, anyway.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 11, 2010, 09:37:41 PM
Good point, Schaef.  You CAN play a card to a set aside area.

So, the hero was played, and the artifact was played, as long as they came from your hand.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 11, 2010, 09:47:32 PM
So if I play a card that says take an Artifact from my discard pile and put it face-down in my Artifact pile, that does not count as playing the Artifact, but if I do the same thing from my hand, that does count?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: EmJayBee83 on February 11, 2010, 10:49:02 PM
Can I just say I love these types of discussion?

Fifteen years in and we have top tier judges debating the meaning of the verb "play." There is something so awesome about that.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: CountFount on February 11, 2010, 10:54:42 PM
Can I just say I love these types of discussion?

Fifteen years in and we have top tier judges debating the meaning of the verb "play." There is something so awesome about that.

What kind of judges are we, Matt? And can you define what the word 'is' means?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: EmJayBee83 on February 11, 2010, 11:06:04 PM
What kind of judges are we, Matt? And can you define what the word 'is' means?
I am a jolly old judge who does his best to muddle through the complexity of a game designed for the flexible minds of whippersnappers. Whenever I blow a call, I point to these discussions, shrug my shoulders, and say, "If the best minds in the game are just now deciding what 'play' means how can you expect me to rule correctly on your shiny new super-fantasti-insta-ca-bibbity-bobbity combo?"



Super-fantasti-insta-ca-bibbity-bobbity combo  noun a type of exceedingly convoluted card combination that Sir Nobody plays at least one time in every tournament I am judging where he is present.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 11, 2010, 11:52:02 PM
You know what the best thing about retirement is?  I don't have to be 59 1/2 to collect as many chuckles as I can from these types of threads.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Minister Polarius on February 12, 2010, 02:48:22 AM
This thread made me cry a little. Here I was, thinking sanity had won yet another battle in Redemption with "play" and "place" meaning two different things (since they obviously function very differently in the game). Then all of the sudden, the ruling is reversed and somehow playing cards loses the less simple but more logical definition (playing a card by a game rule) and becomes more simple and less logical (any time a card leaves your hand and isn't Discarded, basically).

When I heard "play an Enhancement on..." and then "Place an Enhancement on..." I used to think they meant two different things. Now they don't? What, really, is the definition of play, if you play an Enhancement when it is placed by a Special Ability? And if it's defined as broadly as the reversal requires it to be defined, then either playing an enhancement and activating an enhancement are always separate (making cards like ET impotent), or cards like Agur get a lot more powerful because placing an Enhancement is now playing an Enhancement.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Master KChief on February 12, 2010, 02:56:06 AM
i call SHENANIGANS!
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: CountFount on February 12, 2010, 09:01:48 AM
i call SHENANIGANS!

Clear your cards we have a winner! Now what does 'dominant' really mean?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 12, 2010, 10:21:08 AM
When I heard "play an Enhancement on..." and then "Place an Enhancement on..." I used to think they meant two different things. Now they don't?
If I understand Bryon correctly then they still mean 2 different things.  "Place" is a subset of "Play", just as a "Babylonian" is a subset of "human".  He seems to be saying that "Play" is just a word for putting a card down on the table (except in the discard pile).  He seems to be saying that this "Playing" can be broken down into several subsets.  One of those subsets is "Place" which puts the card in a specific location to be activated later.

Assumedly other subsets would include "Activating" (which would include putting down an artifact face-up, or playing a TC-class enhancement, or putting a LS in the LoB or a site, or putting down a fortress, all of which cause something to happen) and "Filling" (which would include filling Storehouse with enhs, or the territory with characters, or the art pile with face down arts, none of which cause anything to happen).

Are there current rulings that would not fit into the scheme above?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 10:41:49 AM
No, because discarding is the act of placing something in your discard pile.

So the only set/subset according to him is that putting any card anywhere any time is "placing", and "playing" is when you place something, only from your hand, and not in the discard pile.  Things like activation and filling don't even factor into that.

There is a very strong suggestion of use in the general notion of playing a card, or the use of term anywhere in games or sports.  It's an active verb.  The answer that makes more sense to me is to say that playing a card is a combination of placing the card and using its special ability.

If Decree or some other card is somehow broken by this distinction, then we can expand it to include cards that are put in play by game rule without using their special ability (basically, characters and weapons in territory).  But this other definition keeps expanding every time another scenario comes up, to the point where there's almost no distinguishable difference at all between place and play.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 10:43:41 AM
Prof Underwood, thank you for your response, and your honest attempt to understand what Tim and I are saying.  :)  According to the rulebook, you place heroes in your territory to have their abilities activate later, and that is still called playing.  It is the same with weapons.  It is the same with puting an enhancement in Storehouse.  If it goes from hand to table (other than discard pile which has its own definition: discard), it is called PLAY.

As for whether you can "play" a card from the discard pile, I guess you could, but I'm not certain.  Or, is that technically search + play?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 12, 2010, 10:44:40 AM
My only issue is when a card says the word "Place" and DD stops it cuz its "playing" a card. And I understand it is putting a card into play, but then why was the word place chosen? "Play on a hero. When hero enters battle..." works just as well.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 10:49:04 AM
"Subset" was not entirely accurate.

Capture is not really a subset of "removal from battle," since you could also capture a character in a territory.  What I meant to say about that (and you all understand it, really), is that capture and "removal from battle" mean DIFFERENT things, right?  But they can both accurately describe what is happening to a card.

It is the same with Place and Play.  They mean different things, but they can both accurately describe what is happening to a card.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 11:08:03 AM
So, I'm still not seeing a whole lot of difference between play and place under this idea.

You play and place characters into your territory.
You play and place weapons on those characters.
You play and place enhancements in storehouse.
You play and place artifacts into your art pile.
You play and place enhancements using Elishana & Co.
You play and place some dominants such as GoYS and Doubt.
You play and place Artifacts that activate on characters.
You play and place Sites and fortresses in your territory.

So, does this mean I play and place enhancements on my characters in battle too? Why don't we just merge play and place to be the same thing? In this case, can I use High Places to play enhancements that say Play as well, since they pretty much mean the same thing now?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 12, 2010, 11:16:02 AM
"Subset" was not entirely accurate.

Capture is not really a subset of "removal from battle," since you could also capture a character in a territory.  What I meant to say about that (and you all understand it, really), is that capture and "removal from battle" mean DIFFERENT things, right?  But they can both accurately describe what is happening to a card.

It is the same with Place and Play.  They mean different things, but they can both accurately describe what is happening to a card.
So when my little brother asks why he can't play a card with his place hero because my card stops cards from being played. How do I explain this without confusing him? (Note he is 11) I mean I can wrap my head around what you're saying, but I know he wouldn't be able to.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Professoralstad on February 12, 2010, 11:19:45 AM
So, does this mean I play and place enhancements on my characters in battle too?

No. I would see it like this: Place = play + remain. When you place something, you initially place it, and it stays there until it is removed by a special ability. When you play an enhancement on a character in battle, the default is that it is discarded after battle, with the few exceptions of WC and placed enhancements.

Quote
In this case, can I use High Places to play enhancements that say Play as well, since they pretty much mean the same thing now?

Also no. "Place X" and "X is placed" mean essentially the same thing already, yet one ability can be used by HiP, and one can't. That distinction has already been made.

So when my little brother asks why he can't play a card with his place hero because my card stops cards from being played. How do I explain this without confusing him? (Note he is 11) I mean I can wrap my head around what you're saying, but I know he wouldn't be able to.

Same reason why he can't play a territory class enhancement. I initially thought this could cause confusion too, but after reading Bryon's arguments, I think it makes sense, and I don't think it would be that difficult of a concept to grasp.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 11:21:38 AM
It doesn't make sense to me that putting a card in Storehouse is "playing" a card rather than using the "place instead" ability that is printed on the Fortress itself.

Nor does it make sense that various other actions, for example inactive Artifacts, are considered "played" even though you're not putting them "in play" or even doing anything with them other than putting them in an out-of-play stack.

You say place and play mean different things, but the only difference you've cited is that discarding doesn't count as playing, which seems arbitrary because you count every other act of putting down a card as playing, even when it can be defined differently.  The requirement to come from your hand now even seems to be in question.

Compare to defining play as either activating or putting "in play" by game rule.  The rules clearly define when the various card types are activated, and they clearly define when you can just put a card "in play" without activating it.  This also draws clear lines between place (putting a card somewhere) and play (using a card).  Using special abilities, you can retrieve a card from discard pile and "place" it in hand or "place" it in territory, or "play" it in battle where it is activated.  You can "place" a card in Storehouse by special ability, or "place" it in discard pile by game rule, or "play" it into your territory by game rule (assuming a character or weapon).
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 11:29:45 AM
It doesn't make sense to me that putting a card in Storehouse is "playing" a card rather than using the "place instead" ability that is printed on the Fortress itself.

Nor does it make sense that various other actions, for example inactive Artifacts, are considered "played" even though you're not putting them "in play" or even doing anything with them other than putting them in an out-of-play stack.

You say place and play mean different things, but the only difference you've cited is that discarding doesn't count as playing, which seems arbitrary because you count every other act of putting down a card as playing, even when it can be defined differently.  The requirement to come from your hand now even seems to be in question.

Compare to defining play as either activating or putting "in play" by game rule.  The rules clearly define when the various card types are activated, and they clearly define when you can just put a card "in play" without activating it.  This also draws clear lines between place (putting a card somewhere) and play (using a card).  Using special abilities, you can retrieve a card from discard pile and "place" it in hand or "place" it in territory, or "play" it in battle where it is activated.  You can "place" a card in Storehouse by special ability, or "place" it in discard pile by game rule, or "play" it into your territory by game rule (assuming a character or weapon).

+1, I mean honestly, what is wrong with the reasoning I stated earlier? Is there any real reason why splitting the two into two very different actions is a BAD thing?

I feel that the difference is... When you play a card, it is almost ALWAYS done without the help of a special ability. You play characters into your territory from hand without abilities, play cards in battle due to initative rules, even play healing enhancements due to the rules. The only ability that lets you "play" a card is one that SAYS "play", such as ET.

Storehouse is an ability that lets you place the cards on it. I don't see how the two are the same. Play = putting a card into play from hand by game rule or a "play" ability. Place = done entirely by special ability. You cannot place a card WITHOUT a special ability.

So, I see Play as more of a game rule, with a few abilities that allow you to use that rule out of normal bounds, while Place is done entirely by special ability, and only involves the placement of a card into an area it normally is not allowed (such as into a territory or into a fortress)

I have no REG quotes to back me up, but I stand by this idea.

If you all are trying to define play simply based on terms of OTHER games rather than the RULES of this game... then Why does Queen of Sheeba defeat King Zedekiah? According to every other card game, Kings are better than Queens... why is Redemption different?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 11:40:19 AM
The idea has merit but I kind of balk at a). the exceptional cases that exist and b). the fact that your definition still allows for weird cases where cards are "played" without being either activated or put "in play", face-down Arts remaining the best example.

Also, discarding your cards at the end of turn is "placing" them in the discard pile, not playing them by game rule into discard.  Or if it is, that's seriously messed up.

I also take exception to your claim that I'm doing anything here "rather than" the rules of Redemption.  My appeal to broader definitions speaks only to conventions that players expect to remain consistent.  I will not argue that discarding is "playing" and activating is "discarding" just because we can make rules that would call it that.  Convention is a key component in making a game accessible.

That said, I am still defining place and play firmly within the context of these rules and these rules only.  I simply think that it's easy enough for everyone to understand and distinguish if "placing" is putting a card somewhere and "playing" is actively using the card in some way, either by activation or by putting it "in play" where it can be the target of most effects.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 12, 2010, 11:42:40 AM
I'm pretty sure Lambo's comment wasn't at you.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 11:46:34 AM
Well, I kinda wrote out my ideas on the spot, so of course that wouldn't be the end-all version.  :)

Putting something in the discard pile is always discarding... which is its own ability/action.

I also take exception to your claim that I'm doing anything here "rather than" the rules of Redemption.  My appeal to broader definitions speaks only to conventions that players expect to remain consistent.  I will not argue that discarding is "playing" and activating is "discarding" just because we can make rules that would call it that.  Convention is a key component in making a game accessible.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I never meant my last comment to be directed at you. I was refering to when Bryon was talking about common card terms, such as how a piece of cardstock is referred to as a card.  :D

Quote
That said, I am still defining place and play firmly within the context of these rules and these rules only.  I simply think that it's easy enough for everyone to understand and distinguish if "placing" is putting a card somewhere and "playing" is actively using the card in some way, either by activation or by putting it "in play" where it can be the target of most effects.

Yeah, and I totally agree with something like this, where the two can be similar, but there is a line drawn between the two. Some times both can happen together... Tclass enhs for example. First it would be played by game rule, and then its ability activates, which allows it to be placed (provided it has a place ability)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 12, 2010, 12:16:53 PM
Let's ALL playce our differences aside for a moment.

Place can be a subset of play and it can also be a separate entity unto itself.  (see negate/interrupt/prevent)

This can also be confusing to explain to younger ones.  (see negate/interrupt/prevent)

Finally, I do agree with both what Bryon and Schaef are describing but there really needs to be a point where their arguments conjoin.  (see negat...)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 12:18:50 PM
Any time you put a card from hand onto the table (other than discard pile), you are playing it.

If you PLACE a character in territory, it is played, but its special ability does not activate. Since it is placed, it sticks around after that phase.
As the character enters battle, its special ability activates.  But the card was already played in a prior phase.

If you PLACE a weapon in territory, it is played, but its special ability does not activate.  Since it is placed, it sticks around after that phase.
As the weapon enters battle, its special ability activates.  But the card was already played in a prior phase.  If the weapon was placed, and then later DD was activated, then DD does nothing to the weapon as it enters battle.  Why not?  Because it is not being "played" at that moment.  It was already played when it was placed on a previous turn.

If you PLACE an enhancement in Storehouse, it is played, but its special ability does not activate.  Since it is placed, it sticks around after that phase.

If you simply PLAY a territory class enhancement (that does not contain a place ability), then it is NOT placed.  Its special ability DOES activate.  Since it was NOT placed, then it does NOT stick around after that phase.

So, place and play are different, but not mutually exclusive.  There is a lot of overlap.  You can simultaneously play and place a card, just as you can simultaneously capture a hero and remove it from battle.  Being captured and "losing by removal" have a lot of overlap, though it is possible to do either without doing the other.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 12:24:09 PM
Let's ALL playce our differences aside for a moment.

You totally just stole my joke:

Quote
redemption1414 (11:36:47 AM): I can't make any fun half words. Well Phooey
lambodiablov (11:37:29 AM): playce
lambodiablov (11:37:44 AM): imma start using that term now
redemption1414 (11:37:55 AM): Eh, doesn't have the same weird sound I shoot for. But it works.
lambodiablov (11:38:02 AM): I COPYRIGHT IT... 25 cents anytime its used

I'll take my $0.25 now.  :D

*edit*

If you PLACE a weapon in territory, it is played, but its special ability does not activate.  Since it is placed, it sticks around after that phase.
As the weapon enters battle, its special ability activates.  But the card was already played in a prior phase.  If the weapon was placed, and then later DD was activated, then DD does nothing to the weapon as it enters battle.  Why not?  Because it is not being "played" at that moment.  It was already played when it was placed on a previous turn.

Wait wait wait wait a second... I've had it ruled that Proud Pharisee cannot play the next enhancement if a character with a weapon on him entered battle first, because the weapon was considered to have been played. I am not totally sure on this, but I belive Maly was the one who told me that.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 12, 2010, 12:29:23 PM
Let's ALL playce our differences aside for a moment.

You totally just stole my joke:

Quote
redemption1414 (11:36:47 AM): I can't make any fun half words. Well Phooey
lambodiablov (11:37:29 AM): playce
lambodiablov (11:37:44 AM): imma start using that term now
redemption1414 (11:37:55 AM): Eh, doesn't have the same weird sound I shoot for. But it works.
lambodiablov (11:38:02 AM): I COPYRIGHT IT... 25 cents anytime its used

I'll take my $0.25 now.  :D

*edit*

If you PLACE a weapon in territory, it is played, but its special ability does not activate.  Since it is placed, it sticks around after that phase.
As the weapon enters battle, its special ability activates.  But the card was already played in a prior phase.  If the weapon was placed, and then later DD was activated, then DD does nothing to the weapon as it enters battle.  Why not?  Because it is not being "played" at that moment.  It was already played when it was placed on a previous turn.

Wait wait wait wait a second... I've had it ruled that Proud Pharisee cannot play the next enhancement if a character with a weapon on him entered battle first, because the weapon was considered to have been played.

Tell you what.  I'll playce 4 bits in an email and send it to you.   ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 12:45:46 PM
Putting something in the discard pile is always discarding... which is its own ability/action.

I don't disagree that it's distinct from removing always removing and shuffling always shuffling.  I just think that you can "place" a card anywhere, and certain placements have names.

Quote
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I never meant my last comment to be directed at you. I was refering to when Bryon was talking about common card terms, such as how a piece of cardstock is referred to as a card.

When I see the term "you all" I just cover my own bases and let whoever else "you all" might mean fend for themselves.  If it was me, not me, whoever, whatever, doesn't matter, just gives me an opportunity to clarify.

Quote
Yeah, and I totally agree with something like this, where the two can be similar, but there is a line drawn between the two. Some times both can happen together... Tclass enhs for example. First it would be played by game rule, and then its ability activates, which allows it to be placed (provided it has a place ability)

I think there is about 98% agreement between the various schools of thought on this, and it just boils down to what explanations work the best and have the fewest weird cases.

Lastly, to Stamp, the principal reason I've chosen this line of thought is that it makes it incredibly simple to understand and can be very clearly delineated by the rules.  Placing a card is just putting it somewhere.  Playing a card is putting it "in play" and/or activating it (in many cases, those two happen together anyway).
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 01:15:36 PM
Double-post:

Any time you put a card from hand onto the table (other than discard pile), you are playing it.

But why other than discard pile.  More importantly, why ONLY discard pile?  And why are we now back to only hand?  I question again why this level of complication even needs to exist.  It seems that by this definition, Unknown Nation does not play an Evil Character.

Quote
If you PLACE a character in territory, it is played, but its special ability does not activate.

That does not disagree with my definition.

Quote
If you PLACE a weapon in territory, it is played, but its special ability does not activate...If the weapon was placed, and then later DD was activated, then DD does nothing to the weapon as it enters battle.

That does not disagree with my definition.

Quote
If you PLACE an enhancement in Storehouse, it is played, but its special ability does not activate.  Since it is placed, it sticks around after that phase.

It is placed because of the special ability ON Storehouse.  It does not make sense why this is considered playing a card.  I do not draw equivalency between playing a card into Storehouse and playing a card in battle or playing a TC card in territory.

Quote
If you simply PLAY a territory class enhancement (that does not contain a place ability), then it is NOT placed.  Its special ability DOES activate.  Since it was NOT placed, then it does NOT stick around after that phase.

The card is PLACED on the character on which it is activated, just like when you place a character or Enhancement into the Field of Battle (therefore typically "playing" those as well).  But the rules then say to PLACE the card in the discard pile, where it DOES stay, unless the special ability directs otherwise.

Quote
So, place and play are different, but not mutually exclusive.  There is a lot of overlap.

Nobody argued they were mutually exclusive.  I don't know why that's even being brought into the conversation.  But you still do not make a convincing argument on why these terms are differentiated in your mind, beyond saying "play" has to come from hand and cannot go to discard (but not why).  Most importantly, you do not give an example of placing a card without playing a card, only the inverse.

Every card that is "placed" stays where it is "placed" every time.  But the RULES governing the use of Enhancements played in battle, is that any which remain in the Field of Battle at the end are then PLACED in the discard pile.  Just as I described with TC Enhancements above.

I think this approach is indicative of taking the special ability "place", which is supposed to override normal rules of play when applied, and mapping it backwards onto the general game definition of "placing" cards.  It should be the other way round, the special ability should extend the game rule into an area where it would not normally function.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 12, 2010, 01:25:25 PM
Lastly, to Stamp, the principal reason I've chosen this line of thought is that it makes it incredibly simple to understand and can be very clearly delineated by the rules.  Placing a card is just putting it somewhere.  Playing a card is putting it "in play" and/or activating it (in many cases, those two happen together anyway).

I'm not disagreeing with your logic or the fact it is derived from the current ruleset.  It makes sense.  What Bryon is saying also makes sense.  It depends on the perspective.  To use an analogy, consider the past debates on "cannot be prevented".  Both the "cannot be prevented means cannot be prevented" and the "cannot be prevented means protecting against being stopped before" arguments actually make sense based on the perspective in which you look at them.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TimMierz on February 12, 2010, 01:35:08 PM
Recognizing that multiple points of view are valid? On the Internet?! I thought you'd know better.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 01:37:37 PM
As I told Lambo, the various ideas coincide about 98% of the time, in terms of whether or not they "work" with the cards.  So to find the differentiation and determine what works best, we must look at the reasons why they must be defined one way and not the other, and which makes the most sense among the 2% disagreement between them.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 12, 2010, 01:40:28 PM
Recognizing that multiple points of view are valid? On the Internet?! I thought you'd know better.

Sorry.  I studied Modern Physics in college (which now that I think about it, it's no longer "modern").  I'm an Einstein follower.   ;)

As I told Lambo, the various ideas coincide about 98% of the time, in terms of whether or not they "work" with the cards.  So to find the differentiation and determine what works best, we must look at the reasons why they must be defined one way and not the other, and which makes the most sense among the 2% disagreement between them.

I concur.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 01:41:37 PM
STAMP, that is true.  I just prefer to look at it from my perspective.  :)

When a card goes from hand to discard pile, that is called discarding, not playing.  Discarding a card and playing a card ARE mutually exclusive.  Placing a card and playing a card are NOT mutually exclusive.

If you place a character or enhancement into your territory, that is playing it.

This is true of characters placed from hand into territory, weapons placed from hand onto characters, characters placed from hand onto fortresses, and enhancements placed from hand onto fortresses.  In all those cases, the card is going from hand into the field of play.

I can understand the head scratching when it comes to "playing" a card to an area that is NOT in play, but there are cards that do that ("Plays to set aide area.").  And you still "play" an artifact when you place it face down in your artifact pile.  If there were a card that said "Opponent cannot play artifacts, sites, or characters next turn," that would keep your opponent from placing any one of those into his territory - even face down.  Right?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 12, 2010, 01:44:35 PM
STAMP, that is true.  I just prefer to look at it from my perspective.  :)

When a card goes from hand to discard pile, that is called discarding, not playing.  Discarding a card and playing a card ARE mutually exclusive.  Placing a card and playing a card are NOT mutually exclusive.

If you place a character or enhancement into your territory, that is playing it.

This is true of characters placed from hand into territory, weapons placed from hand onto characters, characters placed from hand onto fortresses, and enhancements placed from hand onto fortresses.  In all those cases, the card is going from hand into the field of play.

I can understand the head scratching when it comes to "playing" a card to an area that is NOT in play, but there are cards that do that ("Plays to set aide area.").  And you still "play" an artifact when you place it face down in your artifact pile.  If there were a card that said "Opponent cannot play artifacts, sites, or characters next turn," that would keep your opponent from placing any one of those into his territory - even face down.  Right?


{stands next to Bryon}  I concur.


 ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 01:55:40 PM
Discarding a card and playing a card ARE mutually exclusive.  Placing a card and playing a card are NOT mutually exclusive.

But you haven't explained what makes them different.  And for the second time, no one ever said they were mutually exclusive, and I can think of no reason anyone would even approach you with that.  Why does this keep coming up?

Quote
This is true of characters placed from hand into territory, weapons placed from hand onto characters, characters placed from hand onto fortresses, and enhancements placed from hand onto fortresses.  In all those cases, the card is going from hand into the field of play.

All of those are put into the field of play by game rule.  Which is why my definition works.

Quote
And you still "play" an artifact when you place it face down in your artifact pile.

I don't agree with this and I don't see why putting a card in a stack is considered to be "playing a card".  It's not an intuitive use of the term.

This is why you have not explained what MAKES placement and play different.  Why MUST this be considered a "play" and not just a "place"?  Only because it was not discarded?

Nor have I seen any examples of where your definition "places" a card without "playing" the card.  If the two are different, then they should each have a function that the other does not.

I have managed to find some on my own, though.  Unknown Nation places an Evil Charcter from draw pile into battle, but because it did not come from my hand, I'm not playing an Evil Character.  Transfiguration places Moses from discard pile into battle, but because it did not come from my hand, I'm not playing the Hero.  Also counter-intuitive.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 02:11:17 PM
I'd say its a lot less the 98%...

I do not think putting Characters in your territory is "placing"

To avoid confusion, I'll go ahead and split the two into lists and show what I think each one is.


---------------Play---------------

*Putting Characters into your territory from hand by game rules.
*Putting enhancements into battle due to rules of initative OR an ability that specifies "play". In some cases, "Add to battle" is a play ability if it adds an enhancement into battle.
*Using a territory class enhancement, warrior class enhancement, or healing enhancement outside of battle by game rules. In regards to WC enhs, they are not placed because there is a game rule that allows them to stick. You cannot negate a WC characters ability to hold WC enhancements.
*Putting fortresses and sites down into your territory.

The general rule of thumb to classify something as having been played is that it was put onto the table due to a game rule, or a specific ability that specifies to Play or Add to Battle (only when AtB specifies an enhancement)

---------------Place---------------

*Placing cards onto fortresses, such as heroes and enhancements.
*Placing cards onto other characters. Examples are Destructive Sin, PG Panic Demon, and Elishana
*Placing cards into territories or other areas of the table. Examples are Abom, GoyS, and Glory of the Lord.
*The only case where Placement happens without an ability is Lost Souls and sites.

General rule of thumb to classify something as having been placed is that it must be done by the special ability of a card. I do not see place as a game rule, but rather as an ability. The rules may state that in the prep phase you can place cards on forts or w/e, but I see that as simply a clarification of WHEN you can use those special abilities when they are not specified.

So, as said, I see the two as being 100% seperate terms, not a subset of eachother. This is not in the REG or anything, but this is how I feel it should work.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 02:17:37 PM
So, Lambo, "holds" is a "may place" special ability again?  ;)

Quote
Quote
Discarding a card and playing a card ARE mutually exclusive.  Placing a card and playing a card are NOT mutually exclusive.
But you haven't explained what makes them different.
:laugh: 

I was trying to explain the differences between place and play and discard... That place and play could overlap, while discard and play could not.  I am sorry that wasn't clear.

Panic Demon (pale green) places itself on a hero.  Panic Demon is not played at that moment, because it was already played.

Lots of enhancements are played first, then (perhaps under certain circumstances), their special abilities allow them to be placed somewhere.  Leprosy does this, too, right?  If the special ability is negated, then the play still happens even when the place does not. In the case of Leprosy, it is placed on a second hero, but it isn't played at that time.  It was played in battle on a previous turn.

The answer to "Why MUST this be considered PLAY, rather than only a place" comes down to one thing for me: a card can't hit the table from hand without being either played or discarded.  How can a card activate its ability if it wasn't played at some point?

I place a weapon onto my warrior.  It is considered played at that point.  At some point in the future, I can use it in a way that it will activate.
I place an artifact into my pile.  It is considered played at that point.  At some point in the future, I can use it in a way that it will activate.
Otherwise, I go from placing an artifact to activating it, and it was never played?  How do you play cards if you don't play the cards?  At some point, the artifact was played.  If placing a weapon or character into territory is considered playing it (even though the special ability is not activated at that time), then it seems to me that placing an artifact into your territory is considered playing it (even though the special ability is not activated at that time).

If putting a card into your territory without its special ability activating (see heroes, weapons, ECs, artifacts, multi-color sites), can still count as playing it, then placing a card from hand onto fortress still counts as playing it, too.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 02:19:04 PM
I do not think putting Characters in your territory is "placing"

Why?  That's what the rules call it.

Quote
*The only case where Placement happens without an ability is Lost Souls and sites.
And Forts.  And your Artifact pile.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 02:29:20 PM
So, Lambo, "holds" is a "may place" special ability again?  ;)


LOL. If its not written on the card (such as ZT) then I still think its not an ability.  :P Almost every other fort that holds cards does say "place" on it.

Another thing...

How is Elishana a play ability? The enhancement he places doesnt even go into your hand. He places enhancements directly from the discard pile.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 12, 2010, 04:31:52 PM
If I'm understanding the argument at this point, we have:

Bryon is saying that cards must be considered "played" when they hit the table so that you can use them then (ie. face-up artifacts) or later (ie. face-down artifacts).

Schaef is saying that cards are only being "placed" when they hit the table, and that they are "played" when they enter "play".  Therefore, putting down a face-down art would be "placing" it, but it wouldn't be "played" until you turned it face-up and "activated" it.

Are there any current rulings that would contradict either of these perspectives, or are they equally valid?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 04:53:21 PM
Mark,

Any ability that says "search for a card and play it" does not work under Bryon's definition, which I should also note that you have slightly misstated by leaving out the "only from your hand" restriction.

Panic Demon (pale green) places itself on a hero.  Panic Demon is not played at that moment, because it was already played.

That is an additional "place" special ability after the card has already entered play.  You still placed the Panic Demon into battle in order to play it in the first place.  Activation of the special ability fits my definition.  If the two are different, tell me how I can place a card without playing a card.

Quote
How can a card activate its ability if it wasn't played at some point?

This fits my definition of activation being one of the two basic ways to play a card.  It does not match your definition which includes putting a card anywhere, regardless of activation.

Quote
Otherwise, I go from placing an artifact to activating it, and it was never played?

Activating the Artifact is playing it.

Quote
If putting a card into your territory without its special ability activating (see heroes, weapons, ECs, artifacts, multi-color sites), can still count as playing it, then placing a card from hand onto fortress still counts as playing it, too.

This is an erroneous characterization of my argument, because I specifically said that placing Artifacts face-down does not constitute a play, because they are not in play and not active, while putting down an active Artifact is activating it, therefore fulfilling one of my criteria.  There is no way to play an Artifact that contradicts my definitions.  Additionally, I consider Sites to activate when played but multi-color Sites only have their effect when in battle.  So this does not contradict my definition either.  Even if you want to throw that out, the Site is placed in play by game rule and therefore fits my definition anyway.

I have outlined the exact reason why placing a card should not count as playing it.  You have not shown me where that reasoning would not work.  And by saying it does, you only lend weight to the idea that play and place are almost completely interchangeable.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 12, 2010, 05:03:01 PM
Mark,

Any ability that says "search for a card and play it" does not work under Bryon's definition, which I should also note that you have slightly misstated by leaving out the "only from your hand" restriction.

I think for Bryon's interpretation to work we have to entertain a previous debate about whether cards that are searched for actually "pass through" the hand.  I did not have an opinion on that one way or another, but I do remember reading a thread about it.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 05:20:05 PM
The answer to "Why MUST this be considered PLAY, rather than only a place" comes down to one thing for me: a card can't hit the table from hand without being either played or discarded.  How can a card activate its ability if it wasn't played at some point?

Sure it can, lets see how many ways I can think of:

Convincing Miracle: Search discard pile for a N.T. human Hero and place it in territory. Convert a human Evil Character to a white brigade Hero. Cannot be negated if opponent has less than ten cards in deck.

Pleading for the City: Set aside a Hero for one turn. On return, you may search deck for up to 2 silver Heroes and put them in hand, and search opponent's discard pile for all Lost Souls and place in his territory.

Drawn Out: Take an O.T. male human Hero from deck, discard pile, or hand and put it in territory. Place this card on that Hero. Protect that Hero from evil discard abilities.

Valley of Dry Bones: Return all Heroes from all discard piles to the Field of Play.

Eliashib the High Priest: You may search draw pile or discard pile for Wall of Protection or Jerusalem Tower and put it in play.

Elishana the Priest: If Jehoshaphat is in play, you may place an O.T. Enhancement from hand or discard pile on a human Hero of matching brigade in territory. The next time that Hero enters battle that Enhancement activates and is discarded immediately.

Pagan Priest: You may discard two cards from hand to search discard pile for an Artifact depicting an idol or evil alter and activate it. Previous Artifact is negated.

Seven Sons of Sceva: Negate and discard Three Nails. You may exchange this Evil Character with an orange brigade demon in discard pile. Cannot be prevented by a good card.

Unknown Nation: If opponent's Hero is in battle, you may discard this card to search draw pile for a human Evil Character and add it to battle.

And the strongest example.... Gates of Hell: At any time, you may discard the bottom card of deck.  If it is an orange demon or a Lost Soul, place it in your territory instead.  You may discard this card to add your demon to the battle.

All of those bypass cards going into play from your hand, so technically none of those were played. I skipped over ones that were similar to some I listed, but there are plenty that do this.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 05:38:17 PM
I think for Bryon's interpretation to work we have to entertain a previous debate about whether cards that are searched for actually "pass through" the hand.  I did not have an opinion on that one way or another, but I do remember reading a thread about it.

But then tons of definitions in the REG, new or old, get busted.  Without getting into anything regarding the new document or paired abilities or what not, the fact remains that when a search card tells you to do something, that gets done, else it goes to hand.

Besides, a "pass-through" has no function other than to create a wedge for a square peg.

Whereas if place is just putting a card somewhere, and playing is just activating or putting into the Field of Play by game rule, everything works: the terms have overlap but are clearly distinguished, there's no pass-through, there's no confusion about face-down cards or cards placed by special ability or where the card is "played from",  there's no fiddling with the rules for special abilities, it "just works", and is explained in less than 25 words with no ambiguity.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 06:07:31 PM
Thank you for all those examples.  In all of those cases, the card was played.  That just furthers my point.  The card HAS to be played to be able to activate its ability at that point or in the future.  It can't just be placed and then activated later.  There has to be a "played" point for every card before or as the special ability on the card activates.

I guess I have not been thorough enough in my posts.  I never said that you can't play a card from a discard pile or a deck.  I just said that putting a card onto the table from your hand counts as playing the card.  But that is not the ONLY way to play a card.  Playing a card from a discard pile or a deck is still playing a card, too. 

Whether or not the special ability of a card activates as the card hits the table makes ZERO difference in determining whether a card is considered "played."  If I put a character or weapon or multi-colored site into my territory, its special ability does not activate.  But it was still played.  If I put a demon into territory via Gates of Hell, its ability does not activate, but it is still considered played.  None of these actions activates the special ability on the played card, but they are still played.  So a lack of special ability activation has no bearing on whether a card is considered played.

Characters are played once.  Their special abilities activate as many times as they enter battle.

Weapons are played once.  Their special abilities activate as many times as they enter battle.

Multi-colored sites are played once.  Their special abilities activate as many times as they enter battle.

Artifacts are played once.  Their special abilities activate as many times as they are activated. 

If a character (with or without weapon) or site was set aside, returning from the set aside area is not considered "playing" the character, weapon, or site.  It was already played when it hit the table from your hand (or deck or discard pile.  I'll be thorough).

If an artifact was face down, then turning it face up is not considered "playing" the artifact.  It was already played when it hit the table from your hand (or deck or discard pile.)  :)

Activating an artifact that was already in your artifact pile is not "playing" an artifact, just like returning a hero from my set aside area to my territory is not "playing" the hero.

If the card goes from hand to table, it is considered played.
If the card goes from deck to table, it is considered played.
If the card goes from discard pile to table, it is considered played.

A card that enters play from another "out of play" location (set aside area, face down, etc.) must already have been played at an earlier time. 

What problems does this cause?  I can think of none.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 06:14:22 PM
I just said that putting a card onto the table from your hand counts as playing the card.  But that is not the ONLY way to play a card.  Playing a card from a discard pile or a deck is still playing a card, too.

That was how you defined the term.  And by expanding it now to include cards coming FROM anywhere, there is now no difference at all between placing a card and playing a card, in terms of how you define them, with the possible lone exception of discard. 

Quote
If an artifact was face down, then turning it face up is not considered "playing" the artifact.  It was already played when it hit the table from your hand (or deck or discard pile.)

Why?  It's not in play and it's not active.  How is this played and not only placed?

Quote
What problems does this cause?  I can think of none.

Aside from the numerous counter-intuitive scenarios, you have effectively eliminated any distinction between the two terms, such that cards like Storehouse can be worded as "placed" or "played" and work exactly the same.  What then is the point of saying "play" or "place" at all?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 06:15:17 PM
Bryon is saying that cards must be considered "played" when they hit the table so that you can use them then (ie. face-up artifacts) or later (ie. face-down artifacts).

Schaef is saying that cards are only being "placed" when they hit the table, and that they are "played" when they enter "play".  Therefore, putting down a face-down art would be "placing" it, but it wouldn't be "played" until you turned it face-up and "activated" it.

Are there any current rulings that would contradict either of these perspectives, or are they equally valid?
This seems to be an accurate picture of our positions (of mine at least).  Here's one way to answer your question about validity:

Artifact special ability: Opponents cannot play heroes, weapons, or artifacts this round.  May be used once.

Would you allow a player to put an artifact into his artifact pile with this active?  I would not.
If the point was to disallow activation of artifacts, we'd just call out "activate" as the key word, like Joseph's Silver Cup does.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 06:27:27 PM
To be frank, yes this can cause a change in the game.

Wasting Disease has now become increasingly more powerful.

Quote
Prevent all good abilities that allow a player to play an Enhancement.

Previously, it only prevented cards such as ET and Reach. Now... it stops:

ET type heroes, Reach type enhancements, Great Faith type enhancements, Elishana type heroes, I am Truth (though it did before, idk how many people realized this), Musicians Chamber, Drawn out type enhancements, AND storehouse.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 12, 2010, 06:33:25 PM
To be frank, yes this can cause a change in the game.

Wasting Disease has now become increasingly more powerful.

Quote
Prevent all good abilities that allow a player to play an Enhancement.

Previously, it only prevented cards such as ET and Reach. Now... it stops:

ET type heroes, Reach type enhancements, Great Faith type enhancements, Elishana type heroes, I am Truth (though it did before, idk how many people realized this), Musicians Chamber, Drawn out type enhancements, AND storehouse.

My new favorite card.  Buwahahaha!   :maul:
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 06:35:55 PM
Yeah, it seems to be quite the anti-purple card... I mean:

TToD, ET, Reach, Great Faith, Drawn Out, Storehouse.... thats a HUGE hit to purple offenses.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 12, 2010, 06:44:19 PM
And don't forget search-type cards that put other cards on the table.   ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 06:47:43 PM
Well, WD specifies playing enhancements. Not many put enhancements on the table, if any. Though it does stop Water to Wine...
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 06:54:34 PM
I don't see any problems with Wasting Disease stopping those cards.  It stops most of them already (and really should have stopped all of them all along).

For future cards, if we want to specifically stop play abilities, but allow exchange for enhancement cards, we will word the special ability like so:

"Negate band, draw, and play abilities." so that searches and exchanges are still allowed.  While Great Faith allows you to play an enhancement out of your deck, it is not specifically a "play" ability.  (Just like a "Band from hand" ability plays a hero but is not really a "play" ability).

That way, Wasting Disease stops ANY ability that allows you to play an enhancement, while the new card will only stop the specific "play" special ability.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 07:04:26 PM
A "play ability" would simply be an ability that allows a card to be played, is it not?

In that case, that would be a devistating card. It'd stop cards like Solomon, Midwives, Gates of Hell, and many many more in addition to what WD stops.

Also, I dont have a huge issue with it stopping those cards either (except for it preventing Storehouse and musicians chambers), but I'm saying that this DOES have an impact on how the game may be played.

Oh, add I am Creator and Creation of the World to the WD list as well.

Also, one funny point... DD does NOT stop Elishana... since DD specifies "play from hand"... he can grab from discard pile and thus bypass DD.  :D
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 07:14:06 PM
Would you allow a player to put an artifact into his artifact pile with this active?  I would not.

Why not?  I do not think that putting my card somewhere that it's not in play and not active would violate that premise.

BTW, shuffling a card also counts as playing it under your definition.

And I'm not clear on whether you consider cards in e.g. Musician's Chambers to be played when they're used in battle or only the first time when they're placed there, but if it's the latter, then any ability that allows you to "play an Enhancement" cannot use a card stored there or similar places since you already played it once.

And removing from the game unless you force players to move removed cards somewhere off the physical surface of the table.

And despite your claim of wording "future stop play" cards as you say, the way you have defined play, that STILL stops exchanges.  You are moving a card from deck to table.  Period.

My definition of "play" doesn't worry about things like that because it involves either putting cards in play (note the correlation there... play... play...), or activating the card (actively using the card as distinct from putting it somewhere).  Locations and terminology clearly defined in the rulebook without concern for the physical nature of the playing surface or creating a list of exceptions.

So what breaks the game if I can put a card somewhere out of play without having to say I played it?  Or if I place a card without also saying I played it?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: RTSmaniac on February 12, 2010, 07:16:43 PM
Quote
Oh, add I am Creator and Creation of the World to the WD list as well.

how does wasting disease stop these?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 07:19:17 PM
Crap.  :D I had Bryons other card on my mind when I wrote that... my bad.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 07:47:18 PM
Quote
A "play ability" would simply be an ability that allows a card to be played, is it not?
No.  "Play abilities" means "play" special abilities.  Remember the lost soul exchange/place ruling?

If I exchange a lost soul in my site with the deck discard lost soul, I did NOT use a place ability.  However, as a result of the action, the lost soul was placed in a site.

If I exchange a card with a card in the discard pile, I did NOT use a discard ability.  However, as a result of the action, a card was discarded.

If I exchange a card with a card in my deck, I did NOT use a play special ability.  However, as a result of the action, a card was played.

So, WD does stop special abilities that allow an enhancement to be played, which includes cards like Great Faith (it does not specify "play abilities").

On the other hand, a card that says "Negate play abilities" does not stop cards that indirectly play a card (like via an exchange).  "Negate play abilities" only negates "play" abilities.

Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 07:57:21 PM
If an ability moves a card onto the table (except in nebulous circumstances), but not discard, it is a play ability, because the definition of play is to move a card onto the table (except in nebulous circumstances).
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 12, 2010, 08:35:20 PM
Not so.  An exchange ability is an exchange ability, nothing more.  But it can have the effect of place, discard, or play (see the 3 examples in my post above).

"Place" exists as a special ability, but it also is something that happens to a card as a result of another ability or action.
"Play" exists as a special ability, but it also is something that happens to a card as a result of another ability or action.
"Discard" exists as a special ability, but it also is something that happens to a card as a result of another ability or action.

Negating place abilities does not negate the exchange lost soul.
Negating play abilities does not negate Great Faith.
Negating discard abilities does not negate Hunger.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 08:42:15 PM
Not so.  An exchange ability is an exchange ability, nothing more.  But it can have the effect of place, discard, or play.

Indeed!  So what we have learned from this exercise is that the question of exchange does absolutely nothing to bring us any closer to an answer on this issue, because it is applied the same in all circumstances.

There is still the unanswered question of whether you count shuffle/place somewhere in deck and remove from game abilities as "playing a card", since they are putting a card on the table without discarding them.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: RTSmaniac on February 12, 2010, 09:44:09 PM
would a "negate play" card stop philistine outpost?

 Philistine Outpost
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When you are attacked, you may discard this card or an evil card from deck to search discard pile for a generic Philistine and place it in your territory. Protect Sites from being placed beneath decks. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Samuel 14:12 •
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 12, 2010, 09:46:26 PM
Under Bryon's rules, I would say yes. Under Schaef's rules, no.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 09:49:12 PM
And I think it makes sense that a distinction should exist between going from discard to territory versus discard to battle.  If I were putting that EC into battle, I would be playing that card.  Outpost seems to me like I'm just sticking him there because an ability moved it.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: SirNobody on February 12, 2010, 10:11:53 PM
Hey,

Wow...now I'm confused.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on February 12, 2010, 10:15:16 PM
I second that thought, Somebody PM me when with the broken combo's I can or can't do when this is over 30 pages in the future, after Scheaf flip/flops a few times ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: YourMathTeacher on February 12, 2010, 10:16:00 PM
Hmm.... this thread ballooned to 7 pages in a day. I haven't kept up with it. Could someone give me the skinny on what the debate is about?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 10:21:40 PM
I just had a thought about the definitions of place and play that were extremely short, simple, distinct, clear and intuitive to the terms used.  It doesn't seem to have a lot of traction, though.  That's pretty much the whole thing in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Master KChief on February 12, 2010, 10:23:06 PM
this thread didnt make sense since page 1.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: YourMathTeacher on February 12, 2010, 10:28:30 PM
I see. Are the definitions of "Play" and "Place" clarified in the "New REG," or is that part of the debate (i.e. How should we define them?).
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 12, 2010, 10:31:09 PM
That's a question for a more objective voice regarding the state of the REG.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 01:32:51 AM
Did a card leave a hand, deck, or discard pile and end up in a location other than those?  Then it was played.



And before I'm asked, "removed from the game" is not a location.  It isn't in the game anymore.  :)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: ChristianSoldier on February 13, 2010, 03:38:20 AM
I do like Bryon's idea of what play should be, there is still a large distinction between play and place, even though it makes a few cards a little more powerful.  I don't really think it would be very problematic to the game if we define cards being played as going from hand, deck or discard pile, since that to me sounds like an intuitive ruling, it seems a bit odd that you play cards when they are placed in storehouse but that might just be me wanting my storehouse to always work.

As for face down artifacts (or FD characters, set aside cards etc) I still find it odd that if I have a face down character in my territory that its not in play, same thing with artifacts, but I've come to accept that one a little more since it would cause too many problems.

But I mainly want the rules to be clearly laid out so whatever the ruling is, so long as it makes some sense and doesn't break the game, I will be happy with and play that way.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 13, 2010, 06:44:01 AM
That's sort of the point, though, is that my definition has been clearly laid out from a very early point in this discussion and has not needed to be altered in the least to accommodate everything that has come up since then.  Bryon has had to re-word his definition some half dozen times over the same period of time.  That suggests to me that the idea of what constitutes playing a card has been more of an "understood" thing than one clearly defined.

Second, the exact scenarios - all the exact scenarios - you mention as not seeming right as "playing a card" are the ones that my definition does not count.  You are also the fourth or fifth person in this thread to say those don't seem right.

So it boils down to this: which is simpler, more clear, and more intuitive to you?
1). to move any card that goes from any hand, deck, or discard pile, to any location other than a hand, deck, or discard pile
- cards placed face-down are still played
- cards placed into a location by a special ability (e.g. Storehouse) are still played
- "abilities that allow you to play" and "play abilities" are two different things

2). to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
- cards placed face-down are not "played" until activated
- cards placed by a special ability are not "played" unless/until activated

and on a related note, the differing definitions of place:
1). to put a card in a location or on a card, as long as it stays there until the next phase
- a card used in battle was never "placed" in the Field of Battle
- not clear whether an Artifact that is used and discarded the moment it's put down counts as being "placed" in your Artifact pile

2). to put a card in a location or on a card
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 13, 2010, 08:16:17 AM
I think that both definitions seem like they could work at this point, so I guess I'd like to look at a specific disagreement between the 2...face down artifacts.

According to Bryon, putting an artifact face-down in you art pile is "playing" it because you put it on the table.
According to Schaef, it is "placing" it, but the card wouldn't be "played" until a later point when it enters "play" by being turned face-up (ie. "activated").

Are there any current rulings that would be messed up by either of these perspectives?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2010, 08:53:30 AM
That's a question for a more objective voice regarding the state of the REG.

Was that a slight of me? If so, then LOL.  ;D If not, then I don't get it.

If you're saying that my voice is not worth hearing, then join the club. Otherwise, I would think that any voice should be welcome on these forums if it results in a solution.

Regarding the "New REG," my point has always been that until said REG is released, the "Current REG" lays in disrepair and despair with hosts making incorrect rulings on unclear (or false) quotes. I (and others) have volunteered our time to make updates to the "Current REG" to avoid such confusion. We know that the rest of you are consumed by the production of the "New REG," which is why we have offered our services. To refuse our help and then poke us in spite of it leaves you no more objective than me.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 13, 2010, 09:34:36 AM
If you're saying that my voice is not worth hearing, then join the club.

I was saying that I don't think I am qualified to answer the question.

Quote
We know that the rest of you are consumed by the production of the "New REG," which is why we have offered our services. To refuse our help and then poke us in spite of it leaves you no more objective than me.

Aside from the fact that I was not poking fun of you, I have never refused anyone the opportunity to help, even when I was in a position to do so.  But as "the rest of you" is a term applied more loosely than you realize, the point turns out to be moot.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2010, 10:04:00 AM
If you're saying that my voice is not worth hearing, then join the club.

I was saying that I don't think I am qualified to answer the question.

Then the "otherwise" portion of my statement applies. Your opinion still matters, regardless of what some may consider contradictory.

But as "the rest of you" is a term applied more loosely than you realize, the point turns out to be moot.

I admit, then, that you are right about what I realize. I was under the impression that all significant moderators were part of the "New REG" construction, which is a subset that would include you. Who exactly is working on the "New REG" then, so I don't generalize inappropriately?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 10:19:09 AM
Right now, EVERYONE on this board is (supposed to be) contributing to the new REG.  Tim posted a link to most of it for everyone to read and comment on.  A couple people have actually helped by calling out sections that they didn't understand or agree with.

Others just complain or tease about how long it's taking everyone else to do it.  :)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 13, 2010, 10:39:02 AM
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fssbassmaster%2F_%2Frsrc%2F1256233622380%2FComplainers.gif&hash=d831d7bfb9076f5a0476f9a84d024902a8928971)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 13, 2010, 10:45:49 AM
@ Bryon
So if I "play" an artifact face down, My opp is entitled to DON it correct? After all, it was "played" (Which requires a card to be in PLAY to be PLAYed). Right?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 10:50:26 AM
Well playced STAMP, lol.

Right now, EVERYONE on this board is (supposed to be) contributing to the new REG.  Tim posted a link to most of it for everyone to read and comment on.  A couple people have actually helped by calling out sections that they didn't understand or agree with.

Others just complain or tease about how long it's taking everyone else to do it.  :)

There is only so much we can do to help with only one section posted. If we could see more sections of the REG to offer advice, then I think things may move along faster.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 11:00:25 AM
So it comes down to two options for defining play (unless someone else has another suggestion):

1) to move a card from hand, deck, or discard pile to a location other than those
- No exceptions

2) to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
- except that every time a character, weapon, or multi-colored site leaves your territory and enters battle to activate its special ability, that doesn't count as "play"
- except that every time a character, weapon, or site returns from set aside by game rule (not by a "return" special ability stated on a card), that doesn't count as play

Our definitions of "place" (the special ability) are identical: "Put the card in the specified location.  It remains indefinately."  This matches the REG.

Our definitions of "place" (the action by game rule or the consequece of other abilities) are identical as well, with these possible exceptions: playing an enhancement or dominant.  

Card A: Each time opponent plays a dominant or enhancement, draw a card.
Card B: Each time opponnet places a dominant or enhancement, draw a card.

To me, those trigger at different times, because "place" has a permanent feature (placed cards remain indefinately).  That permanence is part of what makes "place" different from "play."
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 11:03:35 AM
Well playced STAMP, lol.
There is only so much we can do to help with only one section posted. If we could see more sections of the REG to offer advice, then I think things may move along faster.
One section?!?  I count about 37.  :)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 11:10:20 AM
Lol.  :D I see the almanac of abilities as one piece.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 11:46:50 AM
Lol.  :D I see the almanac of abilities as one piece.
LOL.  The "almanac of special abilities" IS the new REG. 
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 11:51:04 AM
Well theres the whole glossary of terms and stuff too, thats a huge part as well.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: SirNobody on February 13, 2010, 12:16:14 PM
Hey,

I see. Are the definitions of "Play" and "Place" clarified in the "New REG," or is that part of the debate (i.e. How should we define them?).

The new REG clearly defines the keywords "Play an Enhancement" and "Place."

That is different from the conditions "played" or "placed."  I believe a major source of confusion in this thread is that people see "Play an Enhancement" on Ethiopian Treasurer and "If no good enhancements are played" on Trembling Demon and think that they refer to the same term.  They don't.  It would be nice if they could refer to the same term, but we're 15 years in to a game that doesn't cycle out cards, has never had a rules reset, and hasn't always had an abundance of forethought in game development.  Sometimes (often) we have to just do the best with what we have.  In this case that means that an ability to "Play an Enhancement" is different than a condition of "in play."

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: SirNobody on February 13, 2010, 12:19:37 PM
Hey,

I (and others) have volunteered our time to make updates to the "Current REG" to avoid such confusion. We know that the rest of you are consumed by the production of the "New REG," which is why we have offered our services. To refuse our help and then poke us in spite of it leaves you no more objective than me.

Perhaps I should have given more information about the development of the new REG a while ago.  I have added an FAQ to  the new REG thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19231.0) that hopefully explains why we haven't availed ourselves to much to the help offered by players and what sort of things players can do to help.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 13, 2010, 12:57:21 PM
2) to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
- except that every time a character, weapon, or multi-colored site leaves your territory and enters battle to activate its special ability, that doesn't count as "play"
That is not an exception to the above.
- except that every time a character, weapon, or site returns from set aside by game rule (not by a "return" special ability stated on a card), that doesn't count as play
That is not an exception to the above

I find it incredibly disappointing to see a mischaracterization in response to my honest, accurate and unembellished layout.

Quote
Our definitions of "place" (the special ability) are identical...Our definitions of "place" (the action by game rule or the consequece of other abilities) are identical as well...

If you consider there to be any distinction between these two definitions, then it is logically impossible for your two definitions to be an identical match to my one definition.  I would think the mere fact that you have two different definitions should make that obvious.

Another interesting factoid about my definitions is that they don't require a distinction from the conditions by the same name, as has been supposed in this thread.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2010, 01:17:46 PM
Right now, EVERYONE on this board is (supposed to be) contributing to the new REG.  Tim posted a link to most of it for everyone to read and comment on.  A couple people have actually helped by calling out sections that they didn't understand or agree with.

I must remind you that the offer some of us made was to help update the "Current REG," not the "New REG." Until the "New REG" is released, there are many misguided or otherwise incorrect rulings being made. There have also been rulings on these boards that have not made their way to the "Current REG" so some hosts are not aware of them.

Others just complain or tease about how long it's taking everyone else to do it.  :)

I realize that this is how I have come across and I apologize for that. My concern is that the amount of time necessary for those involved in the "New REG" to complete their daunting task leaves current hosts using the "Current REG" without necessary modifications. I'm only talking about sentence alterations and wording, not grand scale redefinitions. The "New REG" will take time, and it should. I am offering my services to tweak the "Current REG" to help cover hosts in the meantime.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 01:28:12 PM
Honestly, Schaef, I was NOT trying to mischaracterize anything.  HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, for crying out loud.  HOW is it not an exception?  I DON'T get it.  Help.  Really.  Please.

The way I read your definition, placing a hero into territory is playing it, and then pushing it into battle to activate its special ability is playing it again, and then returning the character from set aside to territory is playing it again, right?  Am I understanding your position?  If not, then clarify it.  Clarify your rule so that it doesn't confuse me.

And again,

There IS a difference between "discard abilities" and "discard" (see HPPalace).

There IS a difference between "place abilities" and "is placed" (see exchange lost soul + deck discard soul)

There IS a difference between "play abilities" and "is played."
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 13, 2010, 01:38:26 PM
Quote
HOW is it not an exception?

If it's not an exception, explain to me how the weapon got placed into territory without satisfying my condition of being put into play by one of the two listed methods.

Since I never even used the word "again", and since I have accepted from the very beginning of this discussion that your position only suggests that a card is played the first time it meets the condition, and not every time, I made the mistake of assuming you were giving my definition the same consideration.

The only difference in the things you mentioned is that "discard ability" refers to an ability that discards.  It is my understanding that discarding by game rule is taking something and putting it in the discard pile, and discarding by special ability is taking something and putting it in the discard pile.  The base term "discard" has only one definition regardless of how it is applied.

There is no reason that the base term "place" requires two definitions based on how it is used.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 01:42:19 PM
Quote
Since I never even used the word "again", and since I have accepted from the very beginning of this discussion that your position only suggests that a card is played the first time it meets the condition, and not every time, I made the mistake of assuming you were giving my definition the same consideration.
Ah.  Now I understand completely.

I was mistaken in thinking your definition was complete.  It assumes a nebulous "first time" (though is that true for deactivated and reactivated artifacts by your definition?  Not returned to hand and put in play again?)  Please rewrite your rule so that it clarifies this "first time" for me.

You were mistaken in thinking my definition was incomplete.  It is not.  It is a play EVERY time it satisfies the condition.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 13, 2010, 01:58:50 PM
You were mistaken in thinking my definition was incomplete.  It is not.  It is a play EVERY time it satisfies the condition.

You were the one who said cards are played once and activated multiple times thereafter.  I am not at fault for defining the terms under your parameters.  Especially when the game has been ruled this way for years.  You cannot activate something already activated, you cannot discard something already discarded, but you can play something already played?  Is that what I am now forced to clarify?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 13, 2010, 04:33:19 PM
OK, so at this point we have the following 2 definitions (using their own words), and perceived oddities (using my words).

1) to move a card from hand, deck, or discard pile to a location other than those
Oddities: Putting an artifact face-down or putting enhancements in Storehouse would count as "playing" them.

2). to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
Oddities: A card could be played multiple times (ie. artifacts getting activated, deactivated, and then activated again, or cards getting set aside and returning to play).

I repeat my question.  Is there any reason why a face-down artifact needs to be considered "played"?  And I'll add another.  Is there any reason why an artifact being activated for a second time needs to be considered "played again"?  I really think we could get somewhere faster in this conversation if we looked at a specific difference between the definitions and see which one works better with current rulings.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 13, 2010, 04:41:24 PM
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fssbassmaster%2F_%2Frsrc%2F1256233622380%2FComplainers.gif&hash=d831d7bfb9076f5a0476f9a84d024902a8928971)
And we have our first picture in the list. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12349.msg309174#msg309174)  Of course that does mean that you need to keep that picture there forever STAMP, so that future generations will all get to enjoy it as well :)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 04:52:49 PM
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I will bring it up again... Another situation this could be game changing is with Proud Pharisee. If he is brought into battle by say... Herod Agrippa II, who has a weapon on him... has an enhancement been played this turn?

Quote
If another Pharisee is in play, you may reveal your hand to draw two cards.  If you have played no Enhancements this turn, you may play an Enhancement.

Also said earlier, I have had it ruled that Proud Pharisee would NOT be allowed to play an enhancement if a weapon is in battle before he enters.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 07:24:16 PM
You cannot activate something already activated, you cannot discard something already discarded, but you can play something already played?  Is that what I am now forced to clarify?
I asked you to clarify your definition. 

If a hero entering battle from territory and activating its special ability counts as being played, then your definition is fine.  If not, then your definition is not clear and needs to be fixed.

If a hero returning from set aside counts as bring played, then your definition is fine.  If not, then your definition is not clear and needs to be fixed.

If an artifact being activated a second time in a game counts as being played, then your definition is fine.  If not, then your definition is not clear and needs to be fixed.

If your rule is as simple as you profess, then this is a simple request.  Please write your rule so that it doesn't have the fuzzy "first time" feature as a hidden, unstated footnote.  Please make that part clear so we can have a good look at a side-by-side comparison of our ideas of "what constitutes being played."
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 07:25:30 PM
Quote
Oddities: Putting an artifact face-down
There are fortresses that say "Plays to set aside area."  So, playing a card to an out-of-play location is not new.

Quote
putting enhancements in Storehouse would count as "playing" them.
This is the biggest hangup for people.  MasterKChief pointed this out on the second page:
Quote
yeah, dd stopping enhancements from going into sh just doesnt stick well. 'play' can mean entirely different things for different types of cards. 'play' for enhancements has pretty much always exclusively meant by activating its ability.

I think the reason for that hangup is that players know what "play an enhancement" means as a special ability, and are not thinking about it from the standpoint of "I didn't use a "play" ability, but the card was still played" angle.

Look at the exchange lost soul + the hand discard lost soul (If you put this lost soul in a site, each opponent must discard a card from hand.) If I have my wanderer/exchanger in a site, and then exchange it with your hand discard soul, then the lost soul was put into the site.  I didn't put it there by a "put/place" ability.  I didn't put it there by a "put/place" game rule (put a lost soul in a site durign prep phase).  Yet, I PUT it there as a byproduct of the exchange.

So, it is possible to play a card as a byproduct of another ability.

Doesn't River Flowing from the Temple's band ability also result in the hero being played? 
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 13, 2010, 07:52:06 PM
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I will bring it up again... Another situation this could be game changing is with Proud Pharisee. If he is brought into battle by say... Herod Agrippa II, who has a weapon on him... has an enhancement been played this turn?

Quote
If another Pharisee is in play, you may reveal your hand to draw two cards.  If you have played no Enhancements this turn, you may play an Enhancement.

Also said earlier, I have had it ruled that Proud Pharisee would NOT be allowed to play an enhancement if a weapon is in battle before he enters.

Along those lines, will placing an enhancement on Table of Showbread stay the trigger on Proud Pharisee if he enters battle during the same turn?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 07:56:11 PM
That would only happen during a side battle, which can't be caused by a hero without playing an enhancement in the first place can it?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 13, 2010, 07:58:34 PM
I was thinking more of a converted PP, since that is popular.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 08:01:40 PM
Ah, that totally slipped my mind. True.

Regardless of when he is played, this discussion can change how he is played.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 08:03:47 PM
Does placing a hero from hand onto House in Bethany mean the hero is considered played?  I'd say so.

Then placing an enhancement from hand onto Musician's Chambers means the enhancement is considered played.

And placing an enhancement from hand onto Table of Showbread means the enhancement is considered played.

UNLESS it is decided that, for the sake of long-time players such as MasterKChief and others who are understandably hung-up on the idea of an enhancement being considered "played" even though it is not being allowed to take effect (those who have difficulty separating the special ability "play an enhancement" from the side effect "the enhancement entered play"), we decide to treat enhancements DIFFERENTLY than every other type of card.

I would not be totally opposed to that idea, but it DOES mean the dreaded word "inconsistency."
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Minister Polarius on February 13, 2010, 08:04:55 PM
Eww.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 13, 2010, 08:20:14 PM
So what about Proud Pharisee and Weapons... that still has yet to be answered. Was the weapon "played" by entering battle or not?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Gabe on February 13, 2010, 08:25:44 PM
UNLESS it is decided that, for the sake of long-time players such as MasterKChief and others who are understandably hung-up on the idea of an enhancement being considered "played" even though it is not being allowed to take effect (those who have difficulty separating the special ability from the side effect), we decide to treat enhancements DIFFERENTLY than every other type of card.

But if we go by that definition, then all those 2/2 enhancements from limited will never be "played"...

...since they have no SA to activate.

FWIW, I agree with the logic behind Bryon's definition.  Whatever we decide I'm glad we will finally have a standard definition for what "played" means.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 13, 2010, 08:32:00 PM
"If a card comes from hand, deck or discard pile and is put in a location other than those, it is considered played."

So, a weapon is played when it comes from hand, deck, or discard pile.  Moving from territory to battle does not count as "playing" the card.

According to Schaef's definition as written, it is played when it first enters play, and played again every time it enters battle.  But that is not what he intended by his definition.  I'm hoping we will see his definition expanded and clarified to include what he meant by "first time."
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 13, 2010, 09:58:23 PM
Quote
we decide to treat enhancements DIFFERENTLY than every other type of card.
Because it is a different type of card?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 13, 2010, 11:13:11 PM
Please write your rule so that it doesn't have the fuzzy "first time" feature as a hidden, unstated footnote.

This is now the second time I am asking you to drop this specious argument.  I didn't consider it particularly sporting that I had to ask a first time.  It's not fuzzy if YOU established it as a given.

Can you discard a card that is already discarded?
Can you activate a card that is already activated?

The rules say these are impossible, but this qualifier DOES NOT EXIST IN THE DEFINITIONS FOR EITHER TERM, in EITHER version of the REG.

I take great exception to accusations that I am not doing my due diligence when I am following the same conventions being applied to both existing and new definitions, and which YOU YOURSELF PROVIDED IN THIS EXACT THREAD.  I am happy to be cooperative but disinclined to entertain the same questions over and over after providing an answer, or to stipulate to your terms only to be smacked down for living up to them.  I don't think anybody benefits when controversies are just invented and goalposts are moved.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: RTSmaniac on February 13, 2010, 11:59:40 PM
In other card games i follow, cards can be played before they come into play. (and some never even make it into play, even though theyve been played)

I think you can play a face down card, and it can be considered in play (yet untargetable, unless specifically a.k.a. DragonRaid, Assyrian Spoilers, Blinding Demon), conditions can be met and the cards special ability can be activated.

Quote
I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I will bring it up again... Another situation this could be game changing is with Proud Pharisee. If he is brought into battle by say... Herod Agrippa II, who has a weapon on him... has an enhancement been played this turn?
Quote
If another Pharisee is in play, you may reveal your hand to draw two cards.  If you have played no Enhancements this turn, you may play an Enhancement.
Also said earlier, I have had it ruled that Proud Pharisee would NOT be allowed to play an enhancement if a weapon is in battle before he enters. 
 
-Lambo

I think it depends on when the enhancement was played. if you placed an enhancment on Agrippa this turn, attacked with a hero and created a side battle then you played an enhancement (actually two) this turn. if you converted Proud Pharisee and placed an enhancment on him this turn then attacked, guess what? you played an enhancment this turn. If an opponent attacked you and you blocked with aggrippa holding a weapon banding to proud i would not consider this as playing an enhancment. An enhancement was activated but not played.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 14, 2010, 12:43:39 AM
This is now the second time I am asking you to drop this specious argument.
I don't think Bryon is trying to be specious to you Schaef.  I am also a bit confused here.  I thought you were saying that cards could be played multiple times (ie. an art being activate, deactivated, and then activated again) if it entered play multiple times.  Are you not saying that?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 14, 2010, 01:03:59 AM
I never said that, and when he tried to steer it into that the first time, I very roundly denied it and pointed him back to his own words.  I didn't have time to correct your misgiving cause I was out this evening.  But even after having this specific conversation with him, he continues (repeatedly) to make the same claim.  I invite you to find a more appropriate word.

Immediately before your previous post, I said these things:
"...I never even used the word "again", and since I have accepted from the very beginning of this discussion that your position only suggests that a card is played the first time it meets the condition, and not every time..."
"You were the one who said cards are played once and activated multiple times thereafter."

And on multiple occasions I questioned the logic that suggests that we all accept from the rules that you can't discard a card that's already discarded, and you can't activate a card that's already activated, but for unknown reasons I (alone) should be required to clarify that you can't play a card that has already been played.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 14, 2010, 01:23:52 AM
you can't play a card that has already been played.
Because a card can enter and exit the "field of play", and since your definition of "play" means to enter that field, it was a natural misunderstanding to think that you might view a card as being "played" multiple times.

So if I'm now understanding you, the first time a card enters the field of play or activates, then it is "played".  If it is an artifact that is turned face-down and then back face-up, then that would not be "playing" it again, but rather "activating" it again.  If a character returns from being set-aside, then that would not be "playing" it again, but rather ---

I'm still a bit fuzzy on that last one.  What would you call that?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 14, 2010, 07:02:42 AM
Because a card can enter and exit the "field of play", and since your definition of "play" means to enter that field...

That is not my definition of that term, and many cards that are played never enter the Field of Play.

Quote
...it was a natural misunderstanding to think that you might view a card as being "played" multiple times.

It is not a natural misunderstanding to think something that directly contradicts a common point of agreement, established by that person, and then persisted even after the misunderstanding was resolved.

When you play a card, it has been played.  I'm pretty sure it would just retain that quality until it is returned to face value.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: RTSmaniac on February 14, 2010, 10:35:58 AM
there is a difference between played and coming into play. both terms include the same word (play) and therefore can cause some confusion.

MtG has recently changed thier terms on thier (zones) and now come into play is worded as enters the battlefield.

Are face down artifacts still considered in play? I tryed to find an answer on this but alas to no avail.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 14, 2010, 12:42:14 PM
"in play" simply refers to being in the Field of Play, including the Field of Battle and all players' territories.

The distinction between "in play" as a location, and the notion of "playing a card" was never in question.

If there weren't so many things that needed to continue to hold their value in the Set-Aside Area, or cards that can be "stored" in certain locations without actually being used (and yes, I realize this is the main point of contention right now), then the two would be synonymous, to the point where we could just say playing a card is taking a card out of play and putting it into play.

To answer your question, no face-down cards are in play.  They still have a location value (e.g. territory, Land of Bondage, Set-Aside Area) but are considered out of play.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 14, 2010, 02:49:19 PM
My head hurts.  To use a different tack, how many scenarios are impacted by this currently?  I know there are probably a lot more, but here's some I can think of off the top of my head:

Example 1: Trembling Demon blocks an Agur-type hero that has used its place ability.  Are lost souls protected or not?


Example 2: A converted Proud Pharisee begins a battle after player has placed an enhancement on Table of Showbread in the prep phase.


Example 3: Could I return an enhancement to my hand from Table of Showbread using Stillness?


Example 4: Can enhancements played and discarded during prep phase be returned to play using Lay Down Your Life?


Example 5: If I play Abel's Sacrifice on Table of Burnt Offering, then rescue with Agur and place a negateable enhancement on one of my hero's, doesn't that enhancement become CBI the next turn I use that hero?


Example 6: If I play Book of Jashar as the first enhancement on my hero in battle, does it copy the enhancement I place on Table of Showbread in the prep phase?


Example 7: If I have an enhancement in Storehouse with "Snare" in the title, may I RE-play it with Shadow?

Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 14, 2010, 03:11:50 PM
Example 1: As I see "play", the Enhancement used by Agur would count against Trembling Demon.  As Bryon sees it, Trembling Demon would still work.

Example 2: As I see "play", Proud Pharisee could play an Enhancement.  As Bryon see it, he could not.

Example 3: As I see "play", the card in Table of Showbread would stay because it was placed but never used.  As Bryon sees it, it would return to hand.

I don't think example 4 is relevant because something cannot "remain" in play if it is not in play to begin with.

Example 5: As I see "play", the card could be negated.  As Bryon sees it, it could not.

Example 6: As I see "play", the card on Table of Showbread could not be copied for the same reason as Example 3.  As Bryon sees it, it could.  Interestingly, this card - as written - could copy a TC Enhancement regardless.

Example 7: As I see "play", the Enhancement from Storehouse could be played as expected.  This raises an interesting question, however, as Bryon has insisted cards are only ever "played" once under his definition, and Shadow clearly contradicts that premise.  This same question is raised by other cards that store Enhancements for use, but I think most of them use the term "use" rather than "play" so a loophole exists for explaining those.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 14, 2010, 03:27:09 PM
So... if what happens if you had used an evil Tclass enhancement last? would Book copy it, and become an evil card?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 14, 2010, 03:35:26 PM
So... if what happens if you had used an evil Tclass enhancement last? would Book copy it, and become an evil card?

Quote
This enhancement duplicates (becomes an exact copy of) the previous good enhancement played by holder this turn
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 14, 2010, 03:41:07 PM
Whoops, I missed that in the large amount of text in the one post.  :D
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 15, 2010, 11:28:10 PM
When you play a card, it has been played.  I'm pretty sure it would just retain that quality until it is returned to face value.
THAT is what I was waiting for.  Thank you for finally answering my request (even if it took Mark asking to finally get you to cooperate).  :)

I find it ironic that, according to your definition, a card can be played again as long as it has been reset.  Notice where cards reset: hand, deck, or discard pile.  Looks familiar.  :)

My idea:
As a card comes from hand, deck or discard pile and is put in a location other than those, it is considered played.

Your idea:
As a card enters play by a game rule (and/or activates its special ability) for the first time, it is considered played.

Is this an accurate statement of your definition?  If not, please repair it.

I greatly prefer my definition, since it doesn't require keeping track of which artifacts have been activated or not.  If I have two copies of Holy of Holies in my artifact pile, and one of them has been activated ("played" by your definition) and the other has not, then if I activate a Holy of Holies, how do I know if I am playing a card or not?

You answered my questions for me, but on a few of them, you gave an answer I would not have given:
1.  An enhancement placed by the Augur type hero DOES count as being played.  (Did you misread his question?  It seems like you got those reversed.)
3.  Stillness can't return an enhancement played in a previous phase.  Stillness likewise does not return to hand all the good weapons on the table.
5.  Ongoing abilities only last until the end of the phase (or turn in the case of Abel's Sacrifice).  Abel's Sacrifice expired.  It is the same as if, during battle, you played Abel's Sacrifice, then Eleazar's Sword on a warrior class hero.  Eleazar's Sword is CBI for that battle.  It does not gain CNI for the rest of the game.
7.  You are right that Shadow does not follow the "use" and "as if played from hand" like all the rest of them do.  That is part of the reason that "playing" enhancements has always seemed "somehow different" than the playing of every other type of card.  To be written correctly under my interpretation, it could be, "You may play an enhancement with Snare in the title (or take one into hand from Storehouse and play it instead)."  This better describes what happens anyway.

Stephen, do enhancements placed on Musicians Chambers count as being played?  They are put in play by a game rule, right?  Or do you consider the identifier on Musicians' Chamber a special ability?

Players might think it odd that you consider an enhancement placed on Musician's Chamber played, but an enhancement placed on Storehouse is not.  This is not inconsistent, based on your definition.  It just feels odd.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Kevin Shride on February 16, 2010, 12:04:32 AM
For the record, I like Bryon's definition better, for the reasons that it is intuitive, and that it is easier to keep track of.

Kevin Shride
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 16, 2010, 02:48:22 AM
I find it ironic that, according to your definition, a card can be played again as long as it has been reset.  Notice where cards reset: hand, deck, or discard pile.  Looks familiar.  :)

That's amazing, Bryon!  Why, it is almost as if the two definitions were 98% the same!  If only I had realized that sooner, I might have said so!

Thank you also for confirming that this whole time you were just baiting me for an specific point you already had in your head.  Despite your claim, this does not answer your request because I have not altered my definition one iota just by acknowledging rules that are already in place, that we already apply to similar terms, and which you provided yourself in this same thread.

Here is my definition again, "repaired" at your request:
to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability

Use it, or don't, but stop holding it to its own set of conditions apart from everything else.  I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

Quote
I greatly prefer my definition, since it doesn't require keeping track of which artifacts have been activated or not.

I don't really think mine does either, but whatever.  An Artifact is either active, or it's not.  To stretch it much beyond this is to suppose a hypothetical ability that is so convoluted it would be rather unreasonable in a card.

Quote
1.  An enhancement placed by the Augur type hero DOES count as being played.  (Did you misread his question?  It seems like you got those reversed.)

Trembling Demon says "this battle".  Did you play the Enhancement "this battle" or in the previous phase when you originally placed it?

Quote
3.  Stillness can't return an enhancement played in a previous phase.

Why?  This restriction is not shown on the card, and makes even less sense applied to a card in the Field of Battle at the time.

Quote
5.  Ongoing abilities only last until the end of the phase (or turn in the case of Abel's Sacrifice).

Satan's Seat only lasts until the end of the phase you play it?

Quote
7. That is part of the reason that "playing" enhancements has always seemed "somehow different" than the playing of every other type of card.

It does not seem different to those of us who have consistently viewed "playing" a card as actively using it in some way.

Quote
Players might think it odd that you consider an enhancement placed on Musician's Chamber played, but an enhancement placed on Storehouse is not.  This is not inconsistent, based on your definition.  It just feels odd.

Cards are placed in Storehouse by a special ability.  This is not difficult to understand.  Claims to an "odd feeling" smack of irony when cards are considered "played" in so many other unorthodox circumstances as you define it.

To say my definition is more intuitive may be an unscientific observation, but I should note that my wording only echoes the ones given by nearly everyone else who responded to this thread, including Sir Nobody (albeit he included cards put in play by special ability).  I also think that more players than not will instinctively gravitate towards mirroring my answers if presented with Scott's scenarios, because they are accustomed to the convention of "play" being an active verb implying a use of the card, and not just a fancy, interchangeable version of "place".

Again, use my definition, or don't, but just be mindful of the forthcoming headaches from players who will be asked to go against that instinct.  Either way it goes, it will be an improvement over the proposed definition "put a card from hand into play" from five days ago.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 16, 2010, 10:41:18 AM
I was not baiting you.  I did not understand you definition and said so. 

You went back to your old definition. Now, by that definition, if I put a hero into battle to activate its ability, it is played again.  My definition works EVERY time its condition is met.  Your definition works only the FIRST time the condition is met, but that that clause is not stated as you wrote it.  You might THINK that clause is unimportant, but questions by me and Mark should have made it clear to you that "the first time" needs to appear somewhere in your definition, and it does not need to appear in mine.

"Opponent can't play heroes, fortresses, or artifacts this round."  Don't even pretend this is a convoluted ability.  I've asked a few players here if they would allow a player to put an artifact in a pile if this were written on a card.  They all said no.

1.  The Augur-type hero put the enhancement in play that battle.  That is how I read the question anyway.  If he placed it on a previous turn, then why is this even a question (since the demon specifies THIS TURN)?  He did say that the Augur-type hero was the one in battle, right?
3.  So then, according to you, Stillness would return all good enhancements (weapons, territory class, set aside, and healing) you played that prep phase?  And why stop at phase?  Every good weapon on the table was played at some previous turn, why not return them, too?  In fact, just about every enhancement in the discard pile was played at some point.  Why not return them, too?  This has nothing to do with the "at what moment is a card played" debate, but is an interesting side discussion.  This should be split off if we wish to continue this.
5.  Satan's Seat only lasts to the end of the phase in which it was discarded (unless specified "this turn" which lasts until the end of the turn).  Same as any card with an ongoing ability, including Abel's Sacrifice.  I figured you'd know that, so I was surprised you answered that question for me incorrectly.

Am I correct in deciphering from your non-answer that enhancements placed in Musician's Chamber are played, but the ones in Storehouse are not?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Tracer Burnout on February 16, 2010, 10:58:32 AM
Gosh Zac....see what you started!! ;D :D ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2010, 11:21:13 AM
@Schaef and @Bryon: Thank you for interpreting my first example correctly even though I worded it completely wrong.  It is now fixed.

5.  Ongoing abilities only last until the end of the phase (or turn in the case of Abel's Sacrifice).  Abel's Sacrifice expired.  It is the same as if, during battle, you played Abel's Sacrifice, then Eleazar's Sword on a warrior class hero.  Eleazar's Sword is CBI for that battle.  It does not gain CNI for the rest of the game.

@Bryon: You may not have noticed the special ability on Abel's Sacrifice in Example 5 specifies "turn" [edit] Guess I should have included the quote the first time.  :)  But if we use your argument, then Abel's Sacrifice is a ridiculous card in the very first place.  Stating "this turn" means nothing, especially in my example where it is played in the prep phase.  There are several phases in a turn so I would surmise that Abel's Sac reaches into each phase of the current turn:

"Abel's Sacrifice and all good enhancements played after it this turn may not be interrupted."
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 16, 2010, 11:29:38 AM
I was not baiting you.

You specifically said you were waiting for me to talk about the cards resetting.

Quote
Now, by that definition, if I put a hero into battle to activate its ability, it is played again.

Stop holding this definition to a different standard than other rules AND YOUR OWN WORDS.

Quote
Don't even pretend this is a convoluted ability.  I've asked a few players here if they would allow a player to put an artifact in a pile if this were written on a card.  They all said no.

Now be scientific about it, take a control group, and ask them if that ability would allow them to activate Artifacts that are face-down in the Artifact pile.

Quote
If he placed it on a previous turn, then why is this even a question (since the demon specifies THIS TURN)?  He did say that the Augur-type hero was the one in battle, right?

I may have read that backwards, but I think the idea applies both ways.  Agur would count as playing an Enhancement even though it's contrary to the intuitive use of Trembling Demon, and the Hero holding the Enhancement would NOT count as playing an Enhancement even though THAT is contrary to the intuitive use of Trembling Demon.

It really makes no difference which is which, the final result is the same either way: a difference in how Trembling Demon would play based on the two definitions.

Quote
3.  So then, according to you, Stillness would return all good enhancements (weapons, territory class, set aside, and healing) you played that prep phase?  And why stop at phase?

No.  According to you.  This is your definition of "play", not mine.  And why stop?

Quote
5.  Satan's Seat only lasts to the end of the phase in which it was discarded (unless specified "this turn" which lasts until the end of the turn).  Same as any card with an ongoing ability, including Abel's Sacrifice.

Yes, and the card that was placed was "played" that turn.  Therefore, it cannot be interrupted.

Quote
Am I correct in deciphering from your non-answer that enhancements placed in Musician's Chamber are played, but the ones in Storehouse are not?

I don't understand how explaining to you precisely what I think and why constitutes a non-answer to you.  But on the other hand, I've explained a half-dozen times the precise reason I do not need to alter my definition, and you have not even acknowledged that, let alone responded to it in the affirmative or negative, so I don't know what else I am supposed to say.  You're obviously set in your course and the rest of this is just academic.  I just think that if I'm saying the same thing that three other people said on page 1, and your definition has changed multiple times over the course of the discussion, then the question over which is intuitive and which is not plays out differently than you are supposing with your example.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Minister Polarius on February 16, 2010, 11:36:58 AM
I agree with Schaef.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Professoralstad on February 16, 2010, 11:52:25 AM
I agree with Schaef.

Quoted for future reference... ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2010, 12:19:30 PM
I agree with Schaef.

Quoted for future reference... ;)

Cats chasing dogs again.   :D
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 16, 2010, 02:46:42 PM
Quote
Example 5: If I play Abel's Sacrifice on Table of Burnt Offering, then rescue with Agur and place a negateable enhancement on one of my hero's, doesn't that enhancement become CBI the next turn I use that hero?
Again, Abel's Sacrifice only grants CBI status for the rest of that turn to cards that are played that turn.  In your example, you are talking about allowing the enhancement placed on your hero to STILL have that status from a turn or more ago.  That doesn't work.

It is exactly the same as a green WC hero who uses Abel's Sacrifice followed by a green weapon that the hero keeps after battle.  The Weapon only keeps "Cannot be interrupted" status during the turn it shares with Abel's Sacrifice.  The weapon does not keep CBI status for subsequent turns.  If you played Abel's Sacrifice on one turn, it grants the enhancement that came into play by Agur's place ability CBI status for the rest of that turn.  Once that turn is over, the placed enhancement no longer retains that CBI status (just as the weapon in my example does not retain CBI status).

So far, it looks like we have 3 options for determining at what point a card is considered "played":

1) As a card goes from hand, deck, or discard pile to a location other than those.

2) As a card enters play by game rule (and/or activates its special ability) for the first time (or the first time since the card is reset).

3) As a card enters play.  Also, as an enhancement activates its special ability.

The third option is the best I can state Tim's definition.  According to Tim, a card can be "played" multiple times without reset.  So, a weapon is played as it enters play, and then is played again when it enters battle each time.  An artifact is considered "played" as you activate it after it was face down, no matter how many times it is deactivated and then reactivated.  I don't know his position on characters returning from set aside.  If he considers them played again, then the definition  I suggested is probably sufficient.  If he does not consider them played again, then we'll have to change it to something like:

3) As a card enters play (unless it is returning from set aside and was set aside from play).  Also, as an enhancement activates its special ability.

The first definition allows a card to be played again only if it meets the definition (coming from hand, deck, or discard pile).  
The second definition is similar, since it requires a card to be reset before being played again.  
Tim's allows certain types of cards to be considered "played" at multiple times without reset.

Are there any other suggestions?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 16, 2010, 02:53:49 PM
Again, Abel's Sacrifice only grants CBI status for the rest of that turn to cards that are played that turn.

That's not what the card says.

Quote
2) As a card enters play by game rule and/or activates its special ability.

Fixed.  KNOCK IT OFF.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 16, 2010, 03:02:30 PM
That is not fixing it.  That is making it vague, unless you are changing your position.  Tim's position allows for a card to be considered "played" multiple times without reset.  Are you saying the same as Tim now, or do you stand by your position that it is considered "played" only the first time one of those actions happens to a card?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 16, 2010, 03:15:41 PM
I already explained to you why it is not vague.  I haven't even seen the first clue from you that you even read it.

Why do you waste time asking me to explain my position only to discard the response?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 16, 2010, 04:28:30 PM
1) As a card goes from hand, deck, or discard pile to a location other than those.
Just to clarify, your definition means that if I play a card that discards the top card of your draw pile, then that card is considered "played" (because it went from the deck to the discard pile), even though it never entered play, never activated it's special ability, or really anything else for that matter.

I don't think most people would consider discarding the top card of your deck as "playing" a card.  Do you consider it that way?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TimMierz on February 16, 2010, 04:40:17 PM
Mark, I understood that as something going from hand, deck, or discard pile to something that's not the hand, deck, or discard pile - otherwise every card you draw (going from deck to hand) is instantly played! So a card going from hand to Land of Redemption (GoYS) or from discard pile to the field of battle (False Priests) or deck to set-aside area (Samaritan Water Jar?), for instance, gets played.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 16, 2010, 04:40:23 PM
Actually, I think his definition is that X = deck/discard/hand, and Y = everything else, and "play" is everything that transfers from X to Y, and not from any X to X or Y to Y locations.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Prof Underwood on February 16, 2010, 04:48:52 PM
OK, so discarding a card from your deck is NOT playing it by anyone's definition.  Good :)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2010, 05:00:15 PM
Quote
Example 5: If I play Abel's Sacrifice on Table of Burnt Offering, then rescue with Agur and place a negateable enhancement on one of my hero's, doesn't that enhancement become CBI the next turn I use that hero?
Again, Abel's Sacrifice only grants CBI status for the rest of that turn to cards that are played that turn.  In your example, you are talking about allowing the enhancement placed on your hero to STILL have that status from a turn or more ago.  That doesn't work.

It is exactly the same as a green WC hero who uses Abel's Sacrifice followed by a green weapon that the hero keeps after battle.  The Weapon only keeps "Cannot be interrupted" status during the turn it shares with Abel's Sacrifice.  The weapon does not keep CBI status for subsequent turns.  If you played Abel's Sacrifice on one turn, it grants the enhancement that came into play by Agur's place ability CBI status for the rest of that turn.  Once that turn is over, the placed enhancement no longer retains that CBI status (just as the weapon in my example does not retain CBI status).

Ahh, sorry Bryon.  In my haste to respond to one part of your discussion of Example 5, I forgot what the original question was.  There are actually two parts now to this example based on some of your responses.

Let's look at the first and foremost part which is the original question.  I'll use your "paper-piercing" example from a couple of years ago as an analogy.  Based on the argument you have presented in this thread regarding when cards are "played", in Example 5 Abel's Sacrifice gives CBN status to all enhancements "played" after it during the turn.  In other words, it makes ALL the bullets "paper-piercing".  When it does this none of the other bullets have been fired yet, i.e. activated.  That's an important point to make.  It's like set-asides that give added abilities.  When a card comes back from set-aside it has an added ability that has CBN status.  That ability doesn't activate during that phase but it still has CBN status whenever it eventually gets activated.  The same thing can be said of Abel's Sacrifice.  It activates and all enhancements that are "played" until the end of the discard phase of the player's turn are CBN.  The special abilities don't have to activate during the phase when Abel's Sacrifice is activated.  But they do get CBN status.  They become paper-piercing bullets that can be fired at any time, as long as those bullets don't get reset as regular bullets (i.e. goes to hand, deck or discard).  By your definition of "played", the enhancement that gets placed by Agur gains CBN status.  And something I just thought about, all enhancements the player places in Storehouse during the discard phase would also get CBN status.  Of course 98% of them will probably get reset (player returns them to hand).  But Shadow could play a CBN Snare by this interpretation.

The second part is something I inferred from one of your responses somewhat related to the original example.  Were you implying at any time that if I play Abel's Sacrifice in my prep phase (a la Altar of BO), that the enhancements I play in the battle phase are NOT CBN?  Because that's what I thought you were saying.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: D-man on February 16, 2010, 05:24:49 PM
Somebody just shoot me a PM when this is all over so I know how it ended.  ;) Sometimes it is remarkably hard to tell, even after everything is said and done.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2010, 05:39:38 PM
Quote
Somebody just shoot me a PM when this is all over...

Fixed.   ;)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 16, 2010, 05:50:33 PM
Scott, does a green weapon played immediately after Abel's Sacrifice gain CBI for the rest of the game?

According to current rules, it does not.  Ongoing abilities like Abel's Sacrifice (which is discarded after it is used) stop giving their effects once the phase (or turn in this case) is over.  It is not a permanent gain, like a set aside.

Are there any other suggestions for defining the moment when a card is played?

Should we just make the rule for "playing" enhancements separate from and completely different from the definition of "playing" for all other cards?

Should a card have to go "in play" in order to be considered "played."?

What do you think of the third option?  Do we allow a card to be "played" multiple times without ever returning to hand, deck, or discard pile?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 16, 2010, 06:53:52 PM
By the way, here's another one I forgot to mention earlier:

Your claim:
Quote
I greatly prefer my definition, since it doesn't require keeping track of which artifacts have been activated or not.

Your example:
Quote
"Opponent can't play heroes, fortresses, or artifacts this round."

This example demonstrates nothing about how I need to keep track of which Artifacts have been activated or not.

I don't see a reason to treat Enhancements differently from other card types unless we want to make a distinction to account for the moment they are activated.  In which case, activation becomes a key component of the definition, especially when it is the key difference in allowing cards to be played into the set-aside area.

I don't think a card should have to go "in play" to be played because then we break our Forts.

I am not of a strong opinion regarding whether multiple activations count as new "plays", I find it less problematic than the inverse, counting cards that are placed for storage rather than for use.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2010, 07:13:32 PM
Scott, does a green weapon played immediately after Abel's Sacrifice gain CBI for the rest of the game?

According to current rules, it does not.  Ongoing abilities like Abel's Sacrifice (which is discarded after it is used) stop giving their effects once the phase (or turn in this case) is over.  It is not a permanent gain, like a set aside.

Are there any other suggestions for defining the moment when a card is played?

Should we just make the rule for "playing" enhancements separate from and completely different from the definition of "playing" for all other cards?

Should a card have to go "in play" in order to be considered "played."?

What do you think of the third option?  Do we allow a card to be "played" multiple times without ever returning to hand, deck, or discard pile?


The answer to your first question is obviously no.  But the reason may not be so obvious.  Isn't it a game rule that allows the weapon to be retained?  Does the game rule specify anything about the weapon being a gained ability?  This may not be the best example for you to use.

So let's try another: does Sowing the Seed lose it's CBI status after the turn in which it is played following Abel's Sacrifice? 

What if there were a green enhancement that read, "Place on an evil character.  While this card remains, evil characters of the same brigade are ignored by opponent."  Does it lose it's CBI status after the turn in which it is played following Abel's Sacrifice?

If you say that the Agur-placed enhancement was "played" (even though it hasn't activated yet), questions get asked like the ones I'm asking.  According to the SA on Abel's Sacrifice, played means played.  The placed enhancement starts off CBI but then because it doesn't activate it loses its CBI status?  Do we replace your "paper-piercing" analogy?  A bullet can start of being paper-piercing but then switch back?  So since a bullet can switch then why can't I switch a bullet midstream from non-CBN to CBN?  Even if you say that the bullet firing is when an SA activates, I still can come right back and say that the bullet I loaded into the gun in the first place was paper-piercing.

I'm not saying that I prefer one interpretation over the other, but I'm just here to ask some of the tough questions so that you all can make the best decisions.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 16, 2010, 08:53:29 PM
I am not of a strong opinion regarding whether multiple activations count as new "plays", I find it less problematic than the inverse, counting cards that are placed for storage rather than for use.
I am not strongly opposed to that either, and I find it less problematic than having to keep track of "first times."

Scott, after the turn in which Abel's Sacrifice and Sowing the Seed are both played, Abel's Sacrifice does nothing for it.  Of course, the placement of Sowing the Seed already CBN after the phase in which is it placed. And the decrease/convert can't be negated after the phase in which it is completed (upkeep).  But, if you could somehow play an interrupt during your upkeep phase, you would be able to interrupt it.

Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 16, 2010, 09:05:37 PM
I am not strongly opposed to that either, and I find it less problematic than having to keep track of "first times."

It's not really that hard to figure out.  They're just sitting there on the table.  After making the quip about how similar to your definition you so suddenly and surprisingly discovered it to be, it doesn't sound like it would be that hard for you either.  You didn't even provide an example of something reasonable that would require such tracking.

Abel's Sacrifice doesn't have to do anything for it the turn after.  It did it the turn OF.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: SirNobody on February 16, 2010, 09:21:37 PM
Hey,

For the record, I haven't been (and will continue not to) reading this thread.  It's been a busy few weeks and I just don't have time to read a 12 page thread.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Minister Polarius on February 16, 2010, 09:51:51 PM
That's nice.

I agree, someone lmk when this is over. Schaef seems to be doing a pretty good job of promoting our position, and as long as Bryon doesn't frustrate him into submission this could probably go on for weeks. And to think I used to want to be a lawyer...
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 16, 2010, 10:30:25 PM
It won't go on for weeks.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: YourMathTeacher on February 16, 2010, 10:41:30 PM
Months perhaps, but certainly not weeks.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2010, 11:12:42 PM
I am not of a strong opinion regarding whether multiple activations count as new "plays", I find it less problematic than the inverse, counting cards that are placed for storage rather than for use.
I am not strongly opposed to that either, and I find it less problematic than having to keep track of "first times."

Scott, after the turn in which Abel's Sacrifice and Sowing the Seed are both played, Abel's Sacrifice does nothing for it.  Of course, the placement of Sowing the Seed already CBN after the phase in which is it placed. And the decrease/convert can't be negated after the phase in which it is completed (upkeep).  But, if you could somehow play an interrupt during your upkeep phase, you would be able to interrupt it.

The point I'm trying to make is that Abel's Sacrifice knows nothing about the distinction between playing w/activation versus playing w/no activation.  Thus, Abel's Sacrifice will work exactly the same whether it's Sowing the Seed or Agur-placed enhancement.

Abel's Sacrifice played
Sowing the Seed played and CBN
phase complete
new phase, is Sowing the Seed in play still?  Yes, so Sowing the Seed continues to be CBN.

Abel's Sacrifice played
Agur-placed enhancement played and CBN
phase complete
new phase, is Agur-placed enhancement in play still?  Yes, so Agur-placed enhancement continues to be CBN.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on February 16, 2010, 11:23:17 PM
Isn't that kind of a moot point anyway, as enhancements placed in a prior phase cannot be negated to begin with?  :P
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 16, 2010, 11:31:35 PM
Isn't that kind of a moot point anyway, as enhancements placed in a prior phase cannot be negated to begin with?  :P

Different kind of "place".
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 16, 2010, 11:33:44 PM
Isn't that kind of a moot point anyway, as enhancements placed in a prior phase cannot be negated to begin with?  :P
Yes and No. I prefer Abel's sac + placer. Since a card gains CBI/CBP/CBN when played by bryon's standards, Abel's sac + placer = CBN placed enh.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Bryon on February 17, 2010, 12:06:44 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that Abel's Sacrifice knows nothing about the distinction between playing w/activation versus playing w/no activation.  Thus, Abel's Sacrifice will work exactly the same whether it's Sowing the Seed or Agur-placed enhancement.
And the point I'm trying to make is that Abel's Sacrifice never extends beyond the turn it was played and discarded.  Once a card with an ongoing ability is discarded, its special ability lasts only until the end of that phase.  It is the same for artifacts and forts that are discarded without being negated.  Abel's Sacrifice does not grant ANY card CBI status for more than the turn in which Abel's Sacrifice is played and discarded.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: ChristianSoldier on February 17, 2010, 12:42:16 AM
I agree with Bryon on the Abel's Sacrifice thing, I believe the ruling is that for cards abilities to be given permanently it has to specifically say something like "for the remainder of game" or "while it remains in play" or something like that, or just stay active (like artifacts or placed enhancements.

No character's ability to protect itself remains active after they've left battle (unless it said something about it specifically).
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: Master KChief on February 17, 2010, 03:22:57 AM
I agree with Bryon on the Abel's Sacrifice thing, I believe the ruling is that for cards abilities to be given permanently it has to specifically say something like "for the remainder of game" or "while it remains in play" or something like that, or just stay active (like artifacts or placed enhancements.

No character's ability to protect itself remains active after they've left battle (unless it said something about it specifically).

just, you know, judas...aaron...esther... :)
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on February 17, 2010, 10:38:34 AM
The point I'm trying to make is that Abel's Sacrifice knows nothing about the distinction between playing w/activation versus playing w/no activation.  Thus, Abel's Sacrifice will work exactly the same whether it's Sowing the Seed or Agur-placed enhancement.
And the point I'm trying to make is that Abel's Sacrifice never extends beyond the turn it was played and discarded.  Once a card with an ongoing ability is discarded, its special ability lasts only until the end of that phase.  It is the same for artifacts and forts that are discarded without being negated.  Abel's Sacrifice does not grant ANY card CBI status for more than the turn in which Abel's Sacrifice is played and discarded.
Then what about the rule once a card has CBI (etc.) or not CBI status that status can not be removed, tampered with, or added?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 17, 2010, 11:50:12 AM
Actually Bryon is correct.  I had to go look in the REG in the "cannot be negated" section to verify.  I thought that the rule said something about "cards still in play" after a phase completes.  But it's pretty clear in the REG:

Quote from: REG
Other Abilities > Cannot be Negated
Default Conditions
•      If a card does not have “cannot be negated” status when it is played, then it cannot gain it later.

•      Special abilities completed on a previous turn cannot be negated.

Granted, the bolded REG entry is wrong for the reason it should say "phase" and not "turn", but the part that's important is that it says "Special abilities" and not "cards".
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: The Schaef on February 17, 2010, 01:08:36 PM
Wouldn't that be the special ability of Sacrifice, which granted CBI status to the card in that turn, and completed in the turn it was played, and therefore cannot be negated?
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 17, 2010, 01:38:36 PM
Abel’s Sacrifice
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Abel's Sacrifice and all good enhancements played after it this turn may not be interrupted. • Play As: Abel’s Sacrifice and all good enhancements played after it this turn cannot be interrupted or prevented. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Genesis 4:4

You know, at this point I don't know what to think.  AS gives the CBI to the ENTIRE enhancement, not just the special ability.  The game rule only speaks to activated special abilities that continue past a completed phase.  In this case it's a played card that continues past a completed phase.  Hmmm, now I'm swinging back to what I initially proposed.  At any rate, once it's decided it should be spelled out explicitly in the REG.
Title: Re: Darius Decree
Post by: STAMP on February 17, 2010, 07:42:22 PM
FWIW, there are other card games that put cards on the table that aren't part of deck or discard yet aren't considered played.

Cribbage has a crib.
Pinochle has a kitty.

It's just hard for me to say that a card placed face down on the table from my hand is considered to be played.

I'll shut up for now.   :)
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal