Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: megamanlan on December 13, 2011, 03:44:49 PM
-
I am wondering, If Covenant of Death is active, does that Negate Deafening Spirit when it becomes an EC?
Deafening Spirit
1/4 Orange Evil Enhancement
Mark 9:25, Generic, Demon
Negate and discard the Last Good Enhancement played this Battle. You may treat this card as an Evil Character until the end of battle.
Covenant of Death
2/4 Brown/Pale Green Curse
Isaiah 28:15
Negate Characters. Restrict players from playing Enhancements unless a character is opposed in battle. Cannot be negated.
-
I assume not, otherwise it would create a loop. My thinking is that it turns itself into a character with no special ability, which effectively makes it CBI.
-
Okay. I was wondering if that would work or not...
-
I'm really not sure so you should probably wait for more replies.
-
Okay.
-
I agree with browarod, but I'm 100% sure either.
-
look at the thread titled Doubt. It deals with the same type of question.
-
Not exactly, Doubt is a Dom that becomes a Character w/ no effect. I'm asking how this effects the Enhancement.
-
I know that, but the fact is your wandering if CoD stops this card from becoming a character. Thr answer is No it does not.
-
I'm thinking more of the Negate and Discard the Last Good Enhancement part. But I'm waiting for an Elder or a Tournament Host that can definitively tell me what CoD will do to this, because it is technically a Character w/ an ability. I'm trying to see if they count that as CBI or what.
-
I'm thinking more of the Negate and Discard the Last Good Enhancement part. But I'm waiting for an Elder or a Tournament Host that can definitively tell me what CoD will do to this, because it is technically a Character w/ an ability. I'm trying to see if they count that as CBI or what.
It's not an EC with an ability. The enhancement has an ability, then it becomes an EC.
-
Well, that's not really how I've seen it played.
-
I'm thinking more of the Negate and Discard the Last Good Enhancement part. But I'm waiting for an Elder or a Tournament Host that can definitively tell me what CoD will do to this, because it is technically a Character w/ an ability. I'm trying to see if they count that as CBI or what.
You got what you wanted. Anything else?
-
I think this play needs further review.
-
I agree.
-
Despite me not being a Tournament Host OR an Elder, I hope you're willing to accept my humble opinion. I'm pretty sure I agree with Randall on this one. I think the order is what matters here. The card negates and discards the enhancement, then becomes an evil character. Unless the whole card is going to be negated by Covenant w/ Death (effectively forming a loop), I don't really think you can pick and choose what gets negated on the card and what doesn't. It's not logical.
-
Yes, I know that, but I have Negated it in fun rounds. Mainly because we didn't know if it was CBI or CBN or what. All we knew was that it cannot be Negated as an Enhancement. The Card does have an effect, vs. Doubt which does not, I'm asking what would that be? Is it counted as a CBI card and if so can CoD stop it? CBP so can I negate it afterwards? Or CBN and it was really crazy?
-
I am 100% sure that once played it is CBI as an enhancement (because it is a character by the time it finishes resolving). The thing in question here is whether it retains its ability as a character (and can be negated/interrupted by things that target characters) or whether it become an SA-less character (like Doubt) which effectively makes it completely CBI.
-
Yes, I know that, but I have Negated it in fun rounds. Mainly because we didn't know if it was CBI or CBN or what. All we knew was that it cannot be Negated as an Enhancement. The Card does have an effect, vs. Doubt which does not, I'm asking what would that be? Is it counted as a CBI card and if so can CoD stop it? CBP so can I negate it afterwards? Or CBN and it was really crazy?
You've got two Tournament Hosts, a REP, and another player all in agreement, with no dissent. What more do you want, Rob himself?
-
Yes, I know that, but I have Negated it in fun rounds. Mainly because we didn't know if it was CBI or CBN or what. All we knew was that it cannot be Negated as an Enhancement. The Card does have an effect, vs. Doubt which does not, I'm asking what would that be? Is it counted as a CBI card and if so can CoD stop it? CBP so can I negate it afterwards? Or CBN and it was really crazy?
You've got two Tournament Hosts, a REP, and another player all in agreement, with no dissent. What more do you want, Rob himself?
/Split Altar
-
Yes, I know that, but I have Negated it in fun rounds. Mainly because we didn't know if it was CBI or CBN or what. All we knew was that it cannot be Negated as an Enhancement. The Card does have an effect, vs. Doubt which does not, I'm asking what would that be? Is it counted as a CBI card and if so can CoD stop it? CBP so can I negate it afterwards? Or CBN and it was really crazy?
Actually, I haven't seen a REP's opinion on this yet, and no one has said if they're 100% sure of that or not. That is an assumed completion of the effect. That's why I don't want to leave it at that.
You've got two Tournament Hosts, a REP, and another player all in agreement, with no dissent. What more do you want, Rob himself?
-
What's a REP? And does a REP precede me on rulings? ;)
-
Yes, I know that, but I have Negated it in fun rounds. Mainly because we didn't know if it was CBI or CBN or what. All we knew was that it cannot be Negated as an Enhancement. The Card does have an effect, vs. Doubt which does not, I'm asking what would that be? Is it counted as a CBI card and if so can CoD stop it? CBP so can I negate it afterwards? Or CBN and it was really crazy?
Actually, I haven't seen a REP's opinion on this yet, and no one has said if they're 100% sure of that or not. That is an assumed completion of the effect. That's why I don't want to leave it at that.
You've got two Tournament Hosts, a REP, and another player all in agreement, with no dissent. What more do you want, Rob himself?
Browarod and Chronic are both REPs. And they are right.
-
Here is my issue, 4 peoples opinions where they mentioned that they were not sure on this issue can't be counted as an official ruling. Sorry but that's how life works.
As to REP's, then where is that mentioned? I've never seen that.
-
Here is my issue, 4 peoples opinions where they mentioned that they were not sure on this issue can't be counted as an official ruling. Sorry but that's how life works.
As to REP's, then where is that mentioned? I've never seen that.
5 people have voiced their opinion. Two are tournament hosts, who GIVE RULINGS at tournaments they host. REPs (Real Experienced Players) don't have an official title, but are people who are considered very knowledgeable about Redemption.
Bottom line, that's how it's played. If you want to disagree, that's your right, but it's not how to win friends and influence people.
-
As to REP's, then where is that mentioned? I've never seen that.
The card's ability. It says it becomes an evil character. It doesn't say it is an evil character.
-
Actually it says that it's Treated as a Character. And still, I see that everyone says that they are not sure on the ruling.
-
Actually it says that it's Treated as a Character. And still, I see that everyone says that they are not sure on the ruling.
Funny how Alex and I had no qualms about our ruling. Are we not part of "everyone?"
-
As far as I see, Alec hasn't given an opinion on this ruling and I seem to remember that u said u weren't 100% sure.
-
As far as I see, Alec hasn't given an opinion on this ruling and I seem to remember that u said u weren't 100% sure.
Alex's opinion:
Browarod and Chronic are both REPs. And they are right.
Where did I say I wasn't sure?
-
Okay, u didn't but everyone else did. Once again, this doesn't prove the point. Pls note that no one is sure how this works, and I'd rather know exactly if it is CBI or not instead of assuming something and then it would come back to bite me later.
-
No one but you has said it's CBI. Everyone has said that it becomes a character with no SA. Both Alex and I said without clause that we believed this was so.
-
That's what Scott said, because the card doesn't say it's a no-effect Character. It says that it's treated as a Character (vs. Doubt which says that it's a no-effect card.)
-
That's what Scott said, because the card doesn't say it's a no-effect Character. It says that it's treated as a Character (vs. Doubt which says that it's a no-effect card.)
He said that it was effectively CBI. There's a difference.
-
In otherwords it's like the current ruling on End the Battle cards?
-
I agree with Kittens. Since the part about turning into a character is last, it is a character with no special ability.
-
Remember it's 'Treat as' not 'this card becomes' and my understanding of that is like w/ Curses and Covenants u can treat it as an Artifact or a Enhancement. Either way it still holds it's ability.
-
In otherwords it's like the current ruling on End the Battle cards?
No. This is effectively CBI because the special ability (on the enhancement) is no longer targetable.
-
So what about Negate All cards or negate last enhancement cards?
-
So what about Negate All cards or negate last enhancement cards?
I'm quite sure that in the case of the latter option, if Deafening Spirit does indeed become an evil character for the turn (which should be announced after playing the card), then a negate last enhancement card has no effect on it. Since DS is inherently CBI, negate all cards or interrupt the battle also wouldn't work.
-
That is more of the answer that I was looking for. Because that was questioned in a fun round against a friend, where that came up.
-
That's never been a debate, and there's been a broad consensus about that. What's slightly more up in the air is the first part of the ability, and even then, most of us are relatively sure.
-
Well, the First part is the one that I'm more concerned about, if it's treated as a Character then would CoD stop that? The part of becoming a character makes little difference to me.
-
Well, the First part is the one that I'm more concerned about, if it's treated as a Character then would CoD stop that? The part of becoming a character makes little difference to me.
No, CoD does not stop that. That's what we've all been saying all along.
-
Deafening Spirit
1/4 Orange Evil Enhancement
Mark 9:25, Generic, Demon
Negate and discard the Last Good Enhancement played this Battle. You may treat this card as an Evil Character until the end of battle.
I want you to imagine a similar card...
Non-existent Spirit
1/4 Orange Evil Enhancement
Hezekiah 11:27, Generic, Demon
Negate and discard the Last Good Enhancement played this Battle. This card becomes an Evil Character.
I think we would all agree that if this card survived it's first battle that it would return to territory as an EC with the SA to "negate and discard the last GE played in battle" (which would be nice against Ethiopian Treasurer or a hero with a WC-GE). This indicates to me that when a "card" becomes an EC, then the SA remains on the card (except perhaps the transforming part which would become redundant).
-
So does that mean that CoD negates Deceving Spirits Negate and Discard Ability?
-
In that case Underwood, I would argue that there should be a specific game rule that declares that cards like Deafening Spirit should be CBI, because right now, making a ruling on that assumption, and then having the first half of it be unnegatable, seems extremely inconsistent.
-
I really don't like CBN Negate & Discard abilities, (or CBI) but what he's saying is that becoming a Character is inherently CBI but the Character still keeps that ability.
-
Well I don't agree with the majority; I think Prof U is on the right track.
That's never been a debate, and there's been a broad consensus about that.
That is just wrong. I specifically remember a ruling where a negate last enhancement would work against Deafening Spirit, just like it works against an enhancement in the discard pile. Most negate enhancement cards can't target it because it is now an evil character but negate the last can.
and if Prof U is right then any card that can negate the evil character would also negate it.
-
Now were getting somewhere, I was getting irritated with people just saying things w/o giving any history or at least telling me what the 'official ruling' is on it.
Instead I get people just saying that trying to find the truth is problematic or is not the way to influence people and make friends.
-
That is just wrong. I specifically remember a ruling where a negate last enhancement would work against Deafening Spirit, just like it works against an enhancement in the discard pile. Most negate enhancement cards can't target it because it is now an evil character but negate the last can.
I disagree because negating something in the discard pile is a different scenario. The reason negate last can target discarded enhancements is because it was ruled to target those enhancements even if they leave play. The difference with DS is that it's not leaving play, it's changing its card type. Negate last shouldn't be able to negate DS because of the simple fact that DS is no longer an enhancement. That's how I've had/seen it ruled in the past.
-
I don't know how Negate Last can Negate DS either.
-
I disagree because negating something in the discard pile is a different scenario. The reason negate last can target discarded enhancements is because it was ruled to target those enhancements even if they leave play. The difference with DS is that it's not leaving play, it's changing its card type. Negate last shouldn't be able to negate DS because of the simple fact that DS is no longer an enhancement. That's how I've had/seen it ruled in the past.
It is not a different scenario, at least according to the logic given in the past. It was basically said that regardless of its current status, the last enhancement played is still the last enhancement played. So the fact that DS is no longer an enhancement doesn't matter.
In other words, when you play "negate the last enhancement" you have to see what card meets that definition. It was said that a discarded enhancement or DS still meets that definition. If DS does not meet that definition, then does it go back to the enhancement played before it? That would be kind of odd. Does no ehancement meet that definition even when other enhancements were played that battle? That seems even weirder to me.
-
I've never heard it ruled that negate last can negate DS, so what I said DOES fit with the logic of how I've seen it in the past.
I don't think we're getting anywhere just going back and forth within us. Now, I don't remember all 4 pages of this thread, have any elders posted either way regarding this?
-
Prof Underwood did, it sounded like he was saying the Negate/Discard can be Negated, because it's treated as the CHaracter effect. But becoming a character is CBI.
-
I disagree because negating something in the discard pile is a different scenario. The reason negate last can target discarded enhancements is because it was ruled to target those enhancements even if they leave play. The difference with DS is that it's not leaving play, it's changing its card type. Negate last shouldn't be able to negate DS because of the simple fact that DS is no longer an enhancement. That's how I've had/seen it ruled in the past.
Where does DS say that it is no longer treated like an enhancement when it becomes treated as a character? Is there anything in the REG stating that a card can't have both "Evil Enhancement" and "Evil Character" as identifiers? I think this card has been treated this way for so long that no one even questions why it can't be targeted as an enhancement even after it takes on the "Evil Character" identifier.
Also, the "treat as a character" text from DS' ability sounds an awful lot like something that should be an identifier, not an ability. Saul/Paul has text on Saul's card, but it was ruled to be an identifier, and I don't think the function of DS' characterization ability is any different from Saul's convert ability.
Thoughts?
-
Where does DS say that it is no longer treated like an enhancement when it becomes treated as a character? Is there anything in the REG stating that a card can't have both "Evil Enhancement" and "Evil Character" as identifiers? I think this card has been treated this way for so long that no one even questions why it can't be targeted as an enhancement even after it takes on the "Evil Character" identifier.
Covenants would be the most obvious precedent. They can't be both an enhancement and an artifact, they become whichever you play them as. I doesn't seem a stretch to assume the same is the case with DS, it can't be both a character and an enhancement so when it becomes a character it loses enhancement status.
-
Covenants would be the most obvious precedent. They can't be both an enhancement and an artifact, they become whichever you play them as. I doesn't seem a stretch to assume the same is the case with DS, it can't be both a character and an enhancement so when it becomes a character it loses enhancement status.
Covenants must be one or the other based on game rule, and it is determined by how you use the card. DS can be treated as an evil character because of a special ability, and it is determined by whether or not you choose to treat it as such. I see a big difference between game rules which force your hand into one of two mutually exclusive alternatives and special abilities that are completely optional (and in my view, don't result in mutually exclusive alternatives).
Is not the phrase "You may treat this card as an Evil Character for the remainder of battle" basically just adding "Evil Character" to the list of identifiers for DS? I don't think it can be assumed that the Evil Enhancement identifier goes away, even if that was the intent of the card (see: Split Altar).
Like I said, if someone can show me in the REG where a card cannot have both the Evil Enhancement identifier and the Evil Character identifier at the same time, I'll drop my argument.
-
The burden of proof is not on those saying you can't be an Enhancement and a Character. You need to prove that you can be both.
-
Your Arguement is inherently flawed because it assumes that an EE can also be an EC. It has to be one or the other, this is why Covenants/Curses cannot be negated by a Negate Enhancement card while as an Artifact, or be negated by DoN (or another Negate/Discard Artifact card) while as an Enhancement. As far as I know, if a Card is 'treated as' something (Note: Covenants and Curses are 'Treat as' cards, check the ones from Patriarchs for reference) that means it cannot be what it used to be. That's why Captured Heroes are defined as LS's (with Identifers that note it's really a Captured Hero) not an actual Hero. This is why you can't CM a Captured Hero as well.
Although, it could be that becoming a EC could be an Identifer, so then it is CBN.
-
If you want to make a parallel here between DS and Cov/Curses, then:
A Cov/Curse can be treated as an enh -OR- art (and targeted as such) but remains a Cov/Curse.
Similarly, DS can be treated as an EC (and targeted as such) but remains an EE.
However, I'm not sure that this is the best way to look at it, because I'm inclined to think that something can NOT be both an enh and character at the same time.
At the same time, I continue to think that if you played a "negate the last enh" card that it would cancel both the transforming of DS into an EC as well as the negating and discarding of the last GE.
However, I'm not sure that CoD would affect things at all. It would be the SA of DS AS AN ENHANCEMENT that would negate and discard the last GE, and transform it into an EC. After that point, I would think that it would keep the SA of negating and discarding the last GE, but that ability would NOT reactivate. Therefore, DS would not really be performing any ability AS A CHARACTER, and therefore there would be nothing for CoD to negate.
-
I would see it like a Capture Character. (Since the original cards said Treat as a Lost Soul) so under that it doesn't allow for a card being treated as something else to be treated as it was before.
My main question is the Negate/Discard negated if CoD is up? Because I don't really see how it is treated as CBI. (My thought is more of the becoming a Character should be a Identifier, so that it really just saves time of arguing if it can be negated or not) The main difference I see it as is that it is still in play, so being an EE and turning into an EC but it still can be negated because it still holds it's SA. Just like Covenants/Curses hold their SA no matter how their played (and also how u can negate Inummerable the only other Enhancement that becomes a Character) so that is my thoughts on this.
-
My main question is the Negate/Discard negated if CoD is up?
However, I'm not sure that CoD would affect things at all. It would be the SA of DS AS AN ENHANCEMENT that would negate and discard the last GE, and transform it into an EC. After that point, I would think that it would keep the SA of negating and discarding the last GE, but that ability would NOT reactivate. Therefore, DS would not really be performing any ability AS A CHARACTER, and therefore there would be nothing for CoD to negate.
By the way, it's Covenant with Death so the abbreviation should be CwD. ;)
-
My main question is the Negate/Discard negated if CoD is up?
However, I'm not sure that CoD would affect things at all. It would be the SA of DS AS AN ENHANCEMENT that would negate and discard the last GE, and transform it into an EC. After that point, I would think that it would keep the SA of negating and discarding the last GE, but that ability would NOT reactivate. Therefore, DS would not really be performing any ability AS A CHARACTER, and therefore there would be nothing for CoD to negate.
By the way, it's Covenant with Death so the abbreviation should be CwD. ;)
Otherwise, you just get attacked by fish.
-
Otherwise, you just get attacked by fish.
Or answer the Call of Duty. :P
-
My response is questioning what he just said, besides he also had a completely different opinion before as well.
-
OK, after talking through this thread for a while, I think I've come to a conclusion of just how DS works :)
- It starts as an EE and is played in battle.
- Assuming that it isn't prevented ahead of time, then it's SA activates.
- The SA of the EE negates and discards the last GE.
- The SA of the EE then transforms the card into an EC.
- At this point the card in battle is an EC (not an EE anymore) with 1/4 numbers.
- The SA of the new EC is to negate and discard the last EC however it would NOT activate again because the card is already in battle and character's SA activate when their cards enter battle.
- Because the EE is no longer in play, a regular negate enh won't work because it can't target.
- However a "negate last" enh WILL work because it doesn't care about being in play.
- Because the EC's SA isn't actually doing anything this battle, negating the EC won't matter.
- Therefore Covenant with Death will NOT stop Deafening Spirit.
Deafening Spirit
1/4 Orange Evil Enhancement
Mark 9:25, Generic, Demon
Negate and discard the Last Good Enhancement played this Battle. You may treat this card as an Evil Character until the end of battle.
-
- However a "negate last" enh WILL work because it doesn't care about being in play.
I agree with everything else you said except I'm still just not sure about the above. Whether or not it's in play doesn't matter because it doesn't change locations, it changes types. I'm not saying I disagree per se, I just don't really understand the reasoning behind it.
-
Okay, so then if it would per say be an EC for the rest of the game and go back to territory, then next time it hits Battle then it would be Negated because of CwD?
I'm just putting this out there to try to completely understand the ruling.
-
Okay, so then if it would per say be an EC for the rest of the game and go back to territory, then next time it hits Battle then it would be Negated because of CwD?
Correct. If it survived the battle (which it shouldn't due to it transforming only for 1 battle), then it would have the ability to "negate and discard the last GE". However if CwD was active, then that SA would be negated.
I agree with everything else you said except I'm still just not sure about the ["negate last" part] above. Whether or not it's in play doesn't matter because it doesn't change locations, it changes types.
I understand that we're in some new territory on that part of the ruling, but it just seems to me to be the closest precedent to follow. Even though the card changed types, it still WAS the "last enhancement played". So that's the way I see it. I can understand if you see it differently though.
-
I agree with everything else you said except I'm still just not sure about the ["negate last" part] above. Whether or not it's in play doesn't matter because it doesn't change locations, it changes types.
I understand that we're in some new territory on that part of the ruling, but it just seems to me to be the closest precedent to follow. Even though the card changed types, it still WAS the "last enhancement played". So that's the way I see it. I can understand if you see it differently though.
Actually the precedent that may need to be used is the one regarding the scenario when a player attempts to negate Gold Shield. I don't remember the ruling on that on what brigade could be used. I think that example is more analogous to this one.
-
Actually the precedent that may need to be used is the one regarding the scenario when a player attempts to negate Gold Shield. I think that example is more analogous to this one.
I don't think so. The ruling with Gold Shield is that you would have to negate Gold Shield with a negate of the NEW brigade. But that is because the card which is trying to PLAY the negate has changed. This is really just an extension of the rule that you can only play enhancements on characters of the same brigade.
This situation is one where the card that is being TARGETED has changed, which is why I think it is more similar to the "negate last" situation. "Negate last" has already been defined as something which targets based on what something was in the past (ie. in play, is an EE) even if it isn't anymore (ie. in discard pile, is an EC).
-
Actually the precedent that may need to be used is the one regarding the scenario when a player attempts to negate Gold Shield. I think that example is more analogous to this one.
I don't think so. The ruling with Gold Shield is that you would have to negate Gold Shield with a negate of the NEW brigade. But that is because the card which is trying to PLAY the negate has changed. This is really just an extension of the rule that you can only play enhancements on characters of the same brigade.
This situation is one where the card that is being TARGETED has changed, which is why I think it is more similar to the "negate last" situation. "Negate last" has already been defined as something which targets based on what something was in the past (ie. in play, is an EE) even if it isn't anymore (ie. in discard pile, is an EC).
I respectfully disagree. It's a combination of both. Yes, the targeting in each is a different type of targeting: one targets a card on which to play a negate (game rule), the other targets a card on which to negate (SA). However, in each the card remains in play. It's just a different card.
-
I respectfully disagree.
I'm not sure that you understood my post. I think the key difference that is whether the card that is playing changes, or whether the card being targeted changes.
With Gold Shield, the card that wants to play has changed (brigades). So now the changed card can't negate Gold Shield in the old brigade because the hero is the wrong brigade.
With DS, the card that you want to target has changed (card types). So you can still play your negate card on your hero because it is still the right brigade. Only the target has changed, and the "negate last" terminology reaches back in time to affect the targeted card in its previous state.
-
I understood your point completely. And while I agree that it provides an analogy and therefore a possible precedent, I respectfully disagree that it is the best analogy and precedent. :)
You're focusing on a consistency in action: targeting.
I am focusing on a consistency in state of cards in the game: a card's state changes and no action can be made with it's previous state.
-
I understood your point completely. And while I agree that it provides an analogy and therefore a possible precedent, I respectfully disagree that it is the best analogy and precedent. :)
You're focusing on a consistency in action: targeting.
I am focusing on a consistency in state of cards in the game: a card's state changes and no action can be made with it's previous state.
That then would mean that CwD would Negate CD then,
-
If you really mean DS rather than CD, then no. What I am saying in both cases is that no action may be taken on a former state of a card that remains in play.
For Gold Shield example, the action of playing a negate cannot be performed on the previous state (brigade) of the hero.
Likewise for the Deafening Spirit example, the action of targeting cannot be performed on the previous state (enhancement) of the card.
-
I understood your point completely. And while I agree that it provides an analogy and therefore a possible precedent, I respectfully disagree that it is the best analogy and precedent. :)
That's reasonable. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You're focusing on a consistency in action: targeting.
I am focusing on a consistency in state of cards in the game: a card's state changes and no action can be made with it's previous state.
But that is my point is that there are certain cards in the game that DO affect a "previous state". These include "negate last", which reaches cards that are out of play as if they were still in play, and "interrupt", which reaches during special initiative to a game state before the removal from battle (to tie this into our other recent ruling thread). I understand that you aren't a big fan of either of those rules though, so it is good to see that both of us are being consistent in trying to fit this ruling into our overall understanding of the rules :)
-
But that is my point is that there are certain cards in the game that DO affect a "previous state". These include "negate last", which reaches cards that are out of play as if they were still in play, and "interrupt", which reaches during special initiative to a game state before the removal from battle (to tie this into our other recent ruling thread). I understand that you aren't a big fan of either of those rules though, so it is good to see that both of us are being consistent in trying to fit this ruling into our overall understanding of the rules :)
I see we are using card "state" to mean two different things. This would definitely lead to our two points of view. So, yes, I agree we disagree. :)
-
I agree with Prof U's post on the previous page about how DS works.