Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Gohanick on March 02, 2010, 08:15:59 PM
-
Can emperor Augustus return your N.T. heroes from Potter's Field?
Emperor Augustus
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Grey • Ability: 10 / 11 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: All N.T. humans in set aside areas must return to owner's territories. All opponents with a N.T. human in territory must discard a card from hand without using it. • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Emperor (Rome), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Luke 2:1
Potter's Field
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set this site aside. Holder's Heroes to be discarded are instead placed in this Site. Treat them as discarded Heroes. • Play As: Set this fortress aside. Holder's Heroes to be discarded are placed here instead. • Identifiers: Holds any number of discarded Heroes • Verse: Matthew 27:7
If Chariots of Fire is able to target discarded heroes, why can't Emperor Augustus? The heroes meet his criteria of being in set aside and the fortress is not protecting them from effect.
-
.... I should hug you
-
I never realized this WHY!?
You sir are a genious. ;D
-
well, it would only target nt human heroes...so its pretty much only good in either tgt decks or gold nt lady decks...
-
It's a good way to not lose Paul since the "instead" means that the hero was never discarded, therefore does not reset.
-
Amazing! Can a Potter's Field deck prosper? It now becomes tested... ;D
-
Hubba hubba.
-
Quick, ban RDT! ;)
-
Lol, Too late :D Not that I would actually do anything with this.... Or would I ;)
-
Lol, Too late :D Not that I would actually do anything with this.... Or would I ;)
O:-) Course not. We're not insane.
-
But we may be the lunatics that they're looking for ;)
-
But we may be the lunatics that they're looking for ;)
I was just singing that...
(Would Augustus' ability work when converted?)
-
Yes, I see no reason that it wouldn't (what standard are we going by now? I keep forgetting.) Regardless I think it satisfies all of the conditions we've used over the years.
-
He doesn't say "hero" or "evil character" at all in his SA, so I see no reason why it wouldn't still be usable after conversion.
-
(Would Augustus' ability work when converted?)
The current standard for determining whether convert works or not is whether or not it harms a hero. Is forcibly returning a hero from set aside considered "harm?" I could be persuaded either way.
-
wow, Potters field becomes useful. paul becomes more than just Martyr bait. Hmmmm, how many NT prophets are there....
-
(Would Augustus' ability work when converted?)
The current standard for determining whether convert works or not is whether or not it harms a hero. Is forcibly returning a hero from set aside considered "harm?" I could be persuaded either way.
This is a circular argument.
The current definition (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/gloss_harm.htm) of harm says that only cards not of the same alignment can cause harm. By that standard, no Hero can ever harm another Hero so all abilities convert. ::)
-
(Would Augustus' ability work when converted?)
The current standard for determining whether convert works or not is whether or not it harms a hero. Is forcibly returning a hero from set aside considered "harm?" I could be persuaded either way.
This is a circular argument.
The current definition (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/gloss_harm.htm) of harm says that only cards not of the same alignment can cause harm. By that standard, no Hero can ever harm another Hero so all abilities convert. ::)
That's nice, Gabe. Since you obviously feel I've given the wrong criterion for determining whether an EC's SA converts, would you care to tell us what the correct criterion is?
-
That's nice, Gabe. Since you obviously feel I've given the wrong criterion for determining whether an EC's SA converts, would you care to tell us what the correct criterion is?
You've given the correct critera using the current standard. All I'm saying is that the current standard doesn't work as we've defined it.
The new REG currently says this:
A converted card always maintains its special ability and if the special ability is consistent with the nature of the type of card the converted card has become it can activate normally, but if that special ability goes against the nature of what the converted card has become it does not activate even if a game action is performed that would normally cause the ability to activate.
That seems like a step backward to the "good ol' days" when everything was open for debate about what constitutes the "nature" of a Hero.
-
I've noticed that flaw in the "harm" argument as well, lol.
Why don't we go back to a list of abilities that are not allowed to work if they convert? I mean, lets see... any ability on an EC that:
Discards a hero.
Captures a hero.
Removes a hero from the game.
Reduces a hero's abilities. */*
Shuffles a hero in play back into the deck (do any ECs even do this?).
Convert a hero to an evil character.
Poision/disease/paralyze a hero.
Cause the coverted EC to ignore/be immune to heroes.
Negates a hero specifically (FBTN is not included)
Is there anything I'm forgetting? A very simple list of specific TYPES of abilities that do not work would fix this nicely.
-
That would be straight forward and logical, We can't do that here are you CRAZY!! ;)
-
The new REG just made me smile. SA ON CONVERTED(to ec) HEROES WHOO!
-
That's nice, Gabe. Since you obviously feel I've given the wrong criterion for determining whether an EC's SA converts, would you care to tell us what the correct criterion is?
You've given the correct critera using the current standard. All I'm saying is that the current standard doesn't work as we've defined it.
OK. I thought you were saying that it had changed yet again, and I missed it.
A converted card always maintains its special ability and if the special ability is consistent with the nature of the type of card the converted card has become it can activate normally, but if that special ability goes against the nature of what the converted card has become it does not activate even if a game action is performed that would normally cause the ability to activate.
Yuck. Just yuck.
Is there anything I'm forgetting? A very simple list of specific TYPES of abilities that do not work would fix this nicely.
Any SA that directly mentions the original card alignment (e.g., banding to an evil character).
Any SA that indirectly mentions the original card alignment (e.g., "when blocking").
-
The new REG just made me smile. SA ON CONVERTED(to ec) HEROES WHOO!
That quote isn't the entire section on conversion in the new REG.
-
The new REG just made me smile. SA ON CONVERTED(to ec) HEROES WHOO!
That quote isn't the entire section on conversion in the new REG.
I figured but the wording of "character" gives me hope.
-
Hey,
The Convert entry of the new REG is one of the entries that still needs the most work. It has several statements that are "filler" elements until I get a chance to discuss them with Bryon and Mike; the part Gabe quoted is one such filler element.
In a perfect world (in my opinion) there would be an "identifier" on each character saying whether or not it worked when converted or not. That would allow us to use the "nature of a hero" idea without having any gray areas. Realistically, that's a time consuming project and I'm not sure it will ever happen.
I have seen Emperor Augustus converted several times, and we've always allowed his ability to work when he's a hero.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Sorry to rain on your parade...
Potter's Field
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set this site aside. Holder's Heroes to be discarded are instead placed in this Site. Treat them as discarded Heroes. • Play As: Set this fortress aside. Holder's Heroes to be discarded are placed here instead. • Identifiers: Holds any number of discarded Heroes • Verse: Matthew 27:7
If captured heroes <> heroes Then discarded heroes <> heroes
...unless, of course, I am overruled by this mythical new REG. ::)
-
If It won't work for potter's field, would it work for Raider's camp although be kinda half-backwards?
-
If It won't work for potter's field, would it work for Raider's camp although be kinda half-backwards?
No, for two reasons: RC is not in set-aside and the characters inside are captured heroes.
-
But Augustus doesn't say Heroes. He says humans. Since discarded characters don't lose their identifiers, I'd say it would still work. I am not sure if this combo will become too popular, as it depends too much on Augustus, and most of the benefits can be achieved using Chariot + Lampstand, but I would definitely say that it is legal.
-
If It won't work for potter's field, would it work for Raider's camp although be kinda half-backwards?
No, for two reasons: RC is not in set-aside and the characters inside are captured heroes.
Here is the catch though:
All N.T. humans in set aside areas must return to owner's territories
Humans.... not Heroes. So I dont think it matters what "State" the hero is in, all you need to check for is that it is a human.
Instapoted by Prof
-
Doesn't matter. When targeting a character:
captured humans <> humans
discarded humans <> humans
captured Babylonians <> Babylonians
captured/discarded character of any qualification <> character of any qualification
-
Rescued demons <> Redeemed Soul?
Haha, just kidding. But now that you put it that way, I agree with you based on previous rulings. So Potter's Field will go back to being useless. Sad day.
-
This seems to be Inconsistent because:
Human <> Human Hero
Human <> Human EC
yet we can target both with captures that say a human. Why does it work one way and not the other?
-
Rescued demons <> Redeemed Soul?
Haha, just kidding. But now that you put it that way, I agree with you based on previous rulings. So Potter's Field will go back to being useless. Sad day.
:rollin:
You made my day!
-
This seems to be Inconsistent because:
Human <> Human Hero
Human <> Human EC
yet we can target both with captures that say a human. Why does it work one way and not the other?
Slightly incorrect. Human Hero ∈ Humans; Human EC ∈ Humans.
-
<>
What does this symbol mean?
And this one?
∈
-
A <> B means A is greater than or less than B, so A is not equal to B. It's basically the lazy man's way of saying this: A ≠ B.
A ∈ B means that A is an element of the set B. So I was saying that a Human hero is a human, and a Human EC is a human.
-
A <> B means A is greater than or less than B, so A is not equal to B. It's basically the lazy man's way of saying this: A ≠ B.
A ∈ B means that A is an element of the set B. So I was saying that a Human hero is a human, and a Human EC is a human.
Correction: lazy programmer's way (of course, depending on the language you use. ;) )
-
Well why aren't:
Discarded NT Humans ∈ Humans?
*by the way where did you get that symbol from? It may make my questions clearer :)
-
Because they are dead now, and when you can bring them back to life they are either like the Frankinstein monster or Zombies (Like Eric Largent)! :D
-
Try Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_mathematical_symbols) about half way down. Or you could copy it from this thread. :)
And here's where it gets confusing: Discarded NT humans are humans, but they can't be targeted as humans. So if a card said: "If you have an NT human in set-aside area, do X" you could do X by a hero in PF. But you can't target them with a card that says human unless the targeter says discarded human/human in discard pile.
I didn't make the rule, I just report on it.
-
This seems like an odd ruling, why was this done?
-
Chaos, pure unadulterated chaos.
-
Chaos, pure unadulterated chaos.
Truth.
To be honest, I have no idea why it is. But that's how Arioch was ruled, so I assume that the same principle could be applied here.
-
Hey,
If captured heroes <> heroes Then discarded heroes <> heroes
...unless, of course, I am overruled by this mythical new REG. ::)
I don't have a new REG quote on this topic :(
To the best of my knowledge discarded heroes are treated like normal heroes because they are normal heroes, they've just been discarded. I have always assumed that "Treat them as discarded heroes" on potter's field is just an instance of the really poor wording we used on a lot of old cards. The REG seems to support this assumption since that sentence is removed from the play as of Potter's Field (although the identifier "holds any number of discarded heroes" was added).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
So...can has combo?
-
I don't know. If we let Tim make that decision, you might quit the game... ;)
-
I am in favor of the combo for what its worth, although I know I scrape the bottom of the list when it comes to opinions that actually count ;)
-
I don't know. If we let Tim make that decision, you might quit the game... ;)
My problem is where he comes down when a ruling can go either way based on the rules, not making sure everyone understands the very obvious one.
-
So this would not impact the Arioch Ruling? It seems the Arioch ruling may not apply here, are NT and human considered identifiers?
-
There was a thread earlier about Potters Field: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17439.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17439.0)
The discussion randomly ended and I had asked a pretty prevelant question, so I'll bring that up here since it fits right in:
Ok so, I just realized something.
You all said Potters Field only holds "Discarded Heroes" correct? Well, how do any of the cards that mention Potter's Field work?
Example:
Return all silver brigade Heroes from all discard piles and Potter’s Fields to their owner's territories.
You said we cant place enhancements on heroes in PF because they are "Discarded Heroes"... how do all these cards work then when they target "heroes"?
-
So this would not impact the Arioch Ruling? It seems the Arioch ruling may not apply here, are NT and human considered identifiers?
Arioch was ruled unable to discard a captured hero for his ability.
-
So this would not impact the Arioch Ruling? It seems the Arioch ruling may not apply here, are NT and human considered identifiers?
Arioch was ruled unable to discard a captured hero for his ability.
Worse than that, even, as far as Emperor Augustus is concerned. Arioch was ruled unable to discard a male human who had been captured.
The Arioch ruling is flawed on so many levels.
-
The Arioch ruling is flawed on so many levels.
Than perhaps we should endeavor to fix it now. :)
It does seem inconsistent that we can target Discarded heroes by Identifier in PF, but not captured Heroes in RC.
-
The Arioch ruling is flawed on so many levels.
Than perhaps we should endeavor to fix it now. :)
Endeavor all you want, but it's been tried before.
It does seem inconsistent that we can target Discarded heroes by Identifier in PF, but not captured Heroes in RC.
Not really inconsistent, if this is how it is ruled. It just means that there is no such thing as a discarded hero as distinct from a regular hero, and the wording on PF just adds unnecessary confusion. Captured heroes work differently, for various reasons (Christian Martyr isn't able to discard an RC hero, etc.).
-
Great combo. It works.
Captured heroes are not heroes, and cannot be targeted as Heroes. They can only be targeted as Lost Souls or Captured Heroes.
Discarded heroes ARE heroes. They are targeted as Heroes by any card that searches your discard pile for a hero. :)
-
Captured heroes work differently, for various reasons (Christian Martyr isn't able to discard an RC hero, etc.).
I understand that captured heroes work differently because captured heroes are not heroes. What I have a hard time wrapping my head around is that captured male humans somehow cease to work the same as regular male humans.
-
I think because we don't treat Lost Souls as humans.
For a very brief time, we actually had a card on the list for the 2010 set that targeted a female Lost Soul. We decided that would be too difficult to determine in some cases, but I think there is more to it than that. How can I have a female lost soul that is not also considered a human? Can I target a Lost Soul when a card says "discard a human"?
I think it is best to just treat lost souls and captured characters as nothing but Lost Souls and Captured characters.
We DO still look at the references on the Lost Souls. "captured Genesis heroes" still works, as does "a N.T. lost soul." But I don't see any other labels working beyond that.
-
Whatever.
But I sense an "I told you so" in the future. So since I'm not sure where I'll be in the future I'll submit a preemptive, "I told you so!", just for good measure.
- Signed,
Your friendly, neighborhood STAMP
;)
-
I think because we don't treat Lost Souls as humans.
OK, that is fair enough. It does raise the question, however, why are we treating certain Lost Souls as Prophets when it comes to the first half of Arioch's SA?
-
The future is NOW! ;)
Well, maybe...
Royal Protection
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place this enhancement on any good King not in battle. The King is healed and protected from harm. Discard Royal Protection when King enters battle. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: II Kings 11:2
So based on some current rulings in this thread and others, I can use Royal Protection to target good kings that are also out of play, i.e. discard pile, face down, etc. So based on that I could heal and provide protection to my King David that was discarded a few turns ago, right? Can I also give the protection to a face down good king even if he doesn't need to be healed?
-
FD cards lack identifiers, cept male human or angel.
-
Cards in deck are also face down but we just learned recently that they retain their identifiers.
-
There are a few places where I could put this, but I'd just like to say that I never thought face-down characters should be treated as being out of play if they are in an area that is considered to be in play for all other purposes. They can be treated as face-down characters, meaning cards that target specific kinds of cards cannot affect them, but I think that a card like Abomination of Desolation that does not specify card type in any way should be able to get rid of a face-down hero (or even an art from the art pile).
-
Unless specified otherwise, placed cards target cards "in play". This is going to be part of the new REG.
Although Royal Protection does specify otherwise, the targeted card has to be able to accept a placed card (face up). Placing on a face down card (or in a deck) seems rather twisted.
Mike
-
Unless specified otherwise, placed cards target cards "in play". This is going to be part of the new REG.
Although Royal Protection does specify otherwise, the targeted card has to be able to accept a placed card (face up). Placing on a face down card (or in a deck) seems rather twisted.
Mike
I would agree with you. However, keep in mind that the point I was trying to make is that if we go by what Bryon says that heroes in the discard pile or Potter's Field are just "heroes", then any card that targets a "hero", and can do so in those locations, will work. That's why I started the other thread about special abilities that state "not in battle". Due to the Lampstand ruling, any special ability can target cards that are out of play if they state "not in battle". If there was a card that says, "Capture any hero not in battle.", I would be able to pull one out of the discard pile. BUT, if we went with my proposition that they are "discarded heroes", we wouldn't have that problem.
-
What are you driving at? I don't mean that in a negative way, I'm simply trying to figure out what is driving this. There must be some situation that is beneficial, or it wouldn't be considered.
Why would any rules allow me to place a card on a character in a draw or discard pile? Capture a card in my discard pile? I guess we could declare particular restrictions for every special ability in the "default conditions" section of the REG to better define legal areas for targeting. But is that really necessary?
Mike
-
This is the same, old same old that has occurred with every ruling recently that someone didn't like. It spurs the desire to exploit the ruling in as many ways as possible. I admire Bryon, Schaef, Tim, and you (Mike) for all the hard work you put into this game, but I would never want to be in your shoes. To know that everything you say will be notpicked to death and manipulated into some convoluted combo would be too frustrating for me to endure.
-
To know that everything you say will be notpicked nitpicked to death and manipulated into some convoluted combo would be too frustrating for me to endure.
Fixed.
-
Psst, STAMP! You're retired.
Sorry guys. Carry on.
-
To know that everything you say will be notpicked nitpicked to death and manipulated into some convoluted combo would be too frustrating for me to endure.
Fixed.
Ha! I had myself a good chuckle with this one.
Anyway, my biggest complaint is how 'not in battle' is interpreted. I was distraught the first time I learned that Lampstand stopped Falling Away, and saddened when I realized that Mayhem shared the same fate. I think that an artifact protecting the Land of Redemption or hand just by inclusion of the phrase 'not in battle' is just as absurd as placing a card on a King in my deck.
This is the same, old same old that has occurred with every ruling recently that someone didn't like. It spurs the desire to exploit the ruling in as many ways as possible. I admire Bryon, Schaef, Tim, and you (Mike) for all the hard work you put into this game, but I would never want to be in your shoes. To know that everything you say will be notpicked to death and manipulated into some convoluted combo would be too frustrating for me to endure.
The people who volunteer their time and efforts to make this a better game should certainly be admired. But at the same time, we all want the game to have a ruleset that is consistent and intuitive (whenever possible). If one card behaves one way, then why wouldn't the similar wording on a different card work the same way? I remember the first time I learned that Ethiopian Treasurer could play an enhancement before being blocked, instead of just being able to play the first enhancement in a battle. I was like, whoa, who thought of that? Whoever thought of that was someone who pushed the limits of what a card said beyond any other precedent in the game, and based on consistency with other play next abilities (Reach, Words), Redemption had it's first ever pre-block enhancement play (whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion).
I don't think anyone tries to 'nitpick' just to make anyone's life more difficult. Rather, it is a desire to understand what a card means when it says something, and what all the applications of that something are. At least I know that's the case with me when I argue for or against a ruling. And I'd bet that's the same with most of the 'nitpickers'. Even grumpy old fishermen.
-
This is the same, old same old that has occurred with every ruling recently that someone didn't like. It spurs the desire to exploit the ruling in as many ways as possible. I admire Bryon, Schaef, Tim, and you (Mike) for all the hard work you put into this game, but I would never want to be in your shoes. To know that everything you say will be notpicked to death and manipulated into some convoluted combo would be too frustrating for me to endure.
Once upon a time you could place multiple set asides on a character. That was the long standing rule and the rule was good. There was another rule for a special classification of SA called "human actions" that caused much confusion, so the PTB decided to do away with the human actions ruling in favor of and "all special abilities must complete" rule. The funny thing is eight or nine months later it was realized that requiring all special abilities to complete means you could no longer use multiple simultaneous set asides. The original rule of long standing was replaced (because of an unanticipated consequence) by a different rule.
Once upon a time Every Man's Sword stopped characters with site access SA's from initiating a battle if all the opponent's lost souls were in sites. That was the long standing rule and the rule was good. Meanwhile there was a lost soul that you could place under your deck "if a lone hero begins a rescue attempt." There was much discussion of what this meant and a ruling was issued. It wasn't recognized until literally years later that the ruling for that lost soul meant the sword couldn't work as it had forever. The original rule of long standing was replaced (because of an unanticipated consequence) by a different rule.
Now we have a new ruling about what the words "in battle" means. People are in the process of going through trying to uncover the consequences of this new ruling given that there are a number of other cards that contain exactly the same wording. It seems rather unfair to label this as nitpicking or manipulation. In terms of avoiding hurt feelings it is much better, IMO, to do things this way rather than have a judge at a local overturn a long standing ruling and have it take six months for that ruling to percolate up.
-
People seem to be hung up on the "not in battle" part of the Lampstand ruling. To me, it is all about the "protect" part.
I always thought that "protect" was different than most abilities in that it also protected cards in set aside area and Land of Redemption.
It seems intuitive that way. If I have a card that protects my prophets from capture, it seems like you should not be able to capture my prophet in a set aside area (if there were a capture that could do that).
Royal Protection has a "place" ability that targets a hero "not in battle." To me, that means "in a territory."
Bravery of Priscilla has a "protect" ability that shields all heroes "not in battle." To me, that means "in territory or set aside area" (it would include Land of Redemption, too, but heroes don't go there (only rescued captured heroes do :)).
I don't see that as inconsistent. I just see that as a unique feature of the protect/immune/ignore/rock abilities.
Then again, I am not going to live or die by it. It just seems intuitive that protect/immune/ignore should extend to set aside areas and Land of Redemption.
Protection extending to hands is another story.
-
I think because we don't treat Lost Souls as humans.
OK, that is fair enough. It does raise the question, however, why are we treating certain Lost Souls as Prophets when it comes to the first half of Arioch's SA?
That is a good question. While "human" is not a neccessary ingredient of a prophet (see Gabriel and Captain of the Host), it does seem odd that we would allow a captured prophet to be spotted as a prophet, if we don't allow a captured human to be targeted as a human.
-
People seem to be hung up on the "not in battle" part of the Lampstand ruling. To me, it is all about the "protect" part.
I guess I assumed 'protect' targeted cards like any other abilities, so that the targets default to in play unless specified otherwise (and I've always thought 'not in battle' should mean 'anywhere in play not in battle').
Protection extending to hands is another story.
But if this is all that is changed, I would be satisfied. At least Mayhem would then work.
-
i completely agree, protect/immune/etc should operate as any other function and default to in play when not specified. doing this would take some much needed oomph out of lamp.
-
I've always thought 'not in battle' should mean 'anywhere in play not in battle'
Just to give my opinion, I think that this definition is the most intuitive.
Normally cards target cards that are in play. Adding an exception ("not in battle") should further limit the targets (removing cards in battle from the choices) instead of increasing the targets (to include set-aside, hand, deck, discard pile, etc.)
-
i completely agree, protect/immune/etc should operate as any other function and default to in play when not specified. doing this would take some much needed oomph out of lamp.
Personally, I don't think Lampstand is especially OP, but...
-
i completely agree, protect/immune/etc should operate as any other function and default to in play when not specified. doing this would take some much needed oomph out of lamp.
Personally, I don't think Lampstand is especially OP, but...
I don't think it's OP at all.
-
i completely agree, protect/immune/etc should operate as any other function and default to in play when not specified. doing this would take some much needed oomph out of lamp.
Personally, I don't think Lampstand is especially OP, but...
But... the resulting relative strengths of a card should not effect the ruling. I am not saying that you were thinking it should, I just make that point so everyone is aware of it. We don't go around saying "That would be a good ruling because it would make such and such card more balanced." If there is a problem with a card, we'll look to errata for that card before a rule change for the whole game. When making a rule change, three of the important factors to consider are:
(1) the current ruling (we don't want to change things too much or too often, or hosts can get out of the loop really quickly),
(2) consistency (we want words and phrases to mean the same thing regardless of where it appears as much as possible), and
(3) clarity and intuitive interpretation (we want cards to do what most players would assume they do at first read).
Often those conflict with each other, and something has to give.
-
I don't think anyone tries to 'nitpick' just to make anyone's life more difficult.
Although I agree with most of what you said, I disagree with the above quoted statement in this situation specifically. My impression (which may still be incorrect) was that an extraordinary effort was put into making a ruling fail miserably so it would be overturned, or at least seem foolish. That is not "discovery" in my dictionary.
-
If there is a problem with a card, we'll look to errata for that card before a rule change for the whole game. When making a rule change, three of the important factors to consider are:
(1) the current ruling (we don't want to change things too much or too often, or hosts can get out of the loop really quickly),
(2) consistency (we want words and phrases to mean the same thing regardless of where it appears as much as possible), and
(3) clarity and intuitive interpretation (we want cards to do what most players would assume they do at first read).
Often those conflict with each other, and something has to give.
Wow. That's a powerful montra that I endorse fully. We should have a stamp made up.
Mike
-
If there is a problem with a card, we'll look to errata for that card before a rule change for the whole game. When making a rule change, three of the important factors to consider are:
(1) the current ruling (we don't want to change things too much or too often, or hosts can get out of the loop really quickly),
(2) consistency (we want words and phrases to mean the same thing regardless of where it appears as much as possible), and
(3) clarity and intuitive interpretation (we want cards to do what most players would assume they do at first read).
Often those conflict with each other, and something has to give.
Wow. That's a powerful montra that I endorse fully. We should have a stamp made up.
Mike
God already took care of that. ;)
-
.... one of a kind, highly collectible one too. ;D
-
.... one of a kind, highly collectible one too. ;D
You're too kind. :)
I'm also one of a very popular group of board members with a highly attractive wife. ;)
-
.... one of a kind, highly collectible one too. ;D
You're too kind. :)
I'm also one of a very popular group of board members with a highly attractive wife. ;)
:rollin: I forgot about all of YMT's "my wife is hot" jokes... good times, good times.
-
I forgot about all of YMT's "my wife is hot" jokes... good times, good times.
Jokes? Who said I was joking? My wife is hot! :o
-
I guess I assumed 'protect' targeted cards like any other abilities, so that the targets default to in play unless specified otherwise (and I've always thought 'not in battle' should mean 'anywhere in play not in battle').
Protection extending to hands is another story.
But if this is all that is changed, I would be satisfied. At least Mayhem would then work.
-professoralstad
I agree with these statements and i thought that cards always defaulted to in play unless otherwise stated. If this is not in the rules then it needs to be.
-
The thing about saying that something is so unless stated otherwise is that apparently people have different opinions on what "stating otherwise" means.
Currently, the PTB have taken the position that any time a location of a target is mentioned at all, the "in play" default is removed, or at least this seems to be the case when we look at the "not in battle" wording of Lampstand and how we play that. However, from what I have gathered, some people (the good Professor and others) believe that the "in play" default should not be removed uless the card with the target ability specifically mentions an area besides the "in play" area.
Personally, I like Lampstand, so I would rather not change to the latter point of view.
-
will we hear anymore on this subject or will this thread just disappear over time until someone says "I remember something posted on that but it seems to be purged."
I think this is a something that needs to be put in stone so that other rulings can have a foundation to build upon.
-
Personally, I like Lampstand, so I would rather not change to the latter point of view.
I like Lampstand too. It's nice not having to worry about an Artifact in your Artifact pile getting nuked by DoN, or having your opponent not be able to bury the 2-liner after having you rescue it twice. I just think it's a stretch to say that it protects your hand or LoR when no other cards (except maybe the ones STAMP mentioned in the other thread) could do so without specifically saying that they can.
will we hear anymore on this subject or will this thread just disappear over time until someone says "I remember something posted on that but it seems to be purged."
I think this is a something that needs to be put in stone so that other rulings can have a foundation to build upon.
At present the ruling is that Lampstand renders every Evil Dom except Doubt and Christian Martyr ineffective. I know that there is at least one playtester who agrees with me, and since he is one of those responsible for the new REG, things may change.
I'm also one of a very popular group of board members with a highly attractive wife. ;)
And in less than three months, I will be joining that group. ;D