Author Topic: Guard lost soul (Read 6214 times)

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #25 on:** May 19, 2010, 12:40:06 PM »

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on May 19, 2010, 12:23:16 PM

All cards default to play

Does the default apply to cards that specify a location? If so, we need to rethink a lot of cards...

Quote

and do we know its evil? How can we tell? Are you peeking at my cards? CHEATER!

The same way I know that an Ambush'd card is a hero. The card that put it face-down says it is. If it is not, then YOU are the cheater. The same applies to all cards that place EC's on sites.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #26 on:** May 19, 2010, 01:12:28 PM »

Yes but a face down card can not be targeted by cards that don't target out of play/face down cards.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #27 on:** May 19, 2010, 01:23:04 PM »

Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on May 19, 2010, 01:12:28 PM

Yes but a face down card can not be targeted by cards that don't target out of play/face down cards.

Is there a rule that says this specifically?

SirNobody · « **Reply #28 on:** May 19, 2010, 02:05:26 PM »

Hey,

You can add the Evil Character to battle at any time during a battle at the site (similar to when you can use Unknown Nation).

As far as negating the site guard soul, it can only be negated during the phase it was put into a site, after that phase the ability to add the character to battle is unnegateable. Pol is right that it does not have to be the site guard soul in the site for the add to battle to work. If the site guard soul is removed from the site and another lost soul is put there the character can still be added to battle.

Dragon Raid discarding a face down Evil Character on a site has come up before. I ruled that it does not (like Prof U said) but not everyone agreed with me.

I was very excited about this lost soul when it first came out but have found that with the ubiquity of The Garden Tomb it tends to be a liability rather than an asset.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #29 on:** May 19, 2010, 02:10:48 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 11:43:22 AM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 19, 2010, 10:05:10 AM
Dragon Raid targets cards in play.
What makes you say that?

Because this has already been officially ruled on by a PTB.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #30 on:** May 19, 2010, 02:26:18 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 19, 2010, 02:10:48 PM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 11:43:22 AM
Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 19, 2010, 10:05:10 AM
Dragon Raid targets cards in play.
What makes you say that?
Because this has already been officially ruled on by a PTB.

If that is the case, then I don't think Lampstand should stop FA or Mayhem.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #31 on:** May 19, 2010, 02:49:04 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 02:26:18 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 19, 2010, 02:10:48 PM
Because this has already been officially ruled on by a PTB.
If that is the case, then I don't think Lampstand should stop FA or Mayhem.

Lampstand affecting cards that are not in play has also already been ruled on previously in many threads including this one.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #32 on:** May 19, 2010, 03:04:34 PM »

I'm sorry, but could someone please explain to me why DR's location specification is treated differently than Lampstand's?

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #33 on:** May 19, 2010, 03:11:26 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 03:04:34 PM

I'm sorry, but could someone please explain to me why DR's location specification is treated differently than Lampstand's?

Lamp Stand does not specify in play or out of play and neither does DR, so why are they different.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #34 on:** May 19, 2010, 03:55:03 PM »

Did either of you actually READ the thread that I linked to in my last post. If not, then please read it and see if it makes sense to you. It's not a long thread

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #35 on:** May 19, 2010, 03:58:53 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 19, 2010, 03:55:03 PM

Did either of you actually READ the thread that I linked to in my last post. If not, then please read it and see if it makes sense to you. It's not a long thread

I did read it but now I'm all confused and junk and a little bit tired and I think I forgot everything either of the posts said... :sleepy:

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #36 on:** May 19, 2010, 04:02:19 PM »

Quote from: COUNTER_SNIPER on May 19, 2010, 03:58:53 PM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 19, 2010, 03:55:03 PM
Did either of you actually READ the thread that I linked to in my last post. If not, then please read it and see if it makes sense to you. It's not a long thread

I did read it but now I'm all confused and junk and a little bit tired and I think I forgot everything either of the posts said... :sleepy:

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! Face-down cards aren't target-able, but your hand and land of redemption are........... Makes sense (Although I do believe that I have come across an enhancement or 2 that say remove all evil cards including face-down cards placed on a ls

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #37 on:** May 19, 2010, 04:07:16 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 19, 2010, 03:55:03 PM

Did either of you actually READ the thread that I linked to in my last post.

I did. However, it does not answer my question. Do the rules say somewhere that the wording "not in battle" negates the in play default but the wording "in a site" does not? If anything, I would think that it would be the other way around.

Quote from: COUNTER_SNIPER on May 19, 2010, 04:02:19 PM

Face-down cards aren't target-able ...

So, what about poor Blinding Demon?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #38 on:** May 19, 2010, 04:35:21 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 04:07:16 PM

Do the rules say somewhere that the wording "not in battle" negates the in play default but the wording "in a site" does not? If anything, I would think that it would be the other way around.

I don't think it is written in the rulebook, but has definitely been stated by PTB on these boards that LotS targets all cards that are "not in battle", which would include areas that are out of play such as the Land of Redemption and your hand.

It has also definitely stated by PTB on these boards that DR targets only cards that are "in sites", and are also "in play" due to the default conditions for targeting.

If you want to get this ruling changed you're going to need to PM Rob about it and have him state that it's changing, because that's about the only higher authority left that you could appeal to.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #39 on:** May 19, 2010, 04:51:01 PM »

Is anyone else behind me on this?

lightningninja · « **Reply #40 on:** May 19, 2010, 04:59:13 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 04:51:01 PM

Is anyone else behind me on this?

Not really. I don't see the issue. $:-\$

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #41 on:** May 19, 2010, 05:03:56 PM »

Nope. Makes perfect sense to me.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #42 on:** May 19, 2010, 05:04:14 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 04:07:16 PM

So, what about poor Blinding Demon?

Erm, I said placed on lost souls. Blinding demon discards face-down HEROES, but it does not specify placed on lost souls, and only EC's get placed on lost souls anyway...

Professoralstad · « **Reply #43 on:** May 20, 2010, 10:16:44 AM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 04:51:01 PM

Is anyone else behind me on this?

JSB probably would be. He was none too thrilled when the DR ruling was made at the tournament two Saturdays ago.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #44 on:** May 20, 2010, 10:18:12 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on May 19, 2010, 05:03:56 PM

Makes perfect sense to me.

How? How does it make any sense at all? I don't understand...

SirNobody · « **Reply #45 on:** May 21, 2010, 01:50:16 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: BubbleBoy on May 19, 2010, 04:51:01 PM

Is anyone else behind me on this?

There are others (myself included) that don't care for the way Lampstand vs. Falling Away is ruled. That being said, the way Lampstand vs. Falling Away is ruled isn't wrong and isn't a fight I'm interested in starting (again).

When a card says where it's target must come from it is doing one of two things: (1) further limiting the "in play" default or (2) replacing the "in play" default.

Death of Unrighteous, King Rehoboam, and Egyptian Archer are examples of (1). Complaint of Moses, Darius' Decree, and King Menahem are examples of (2).

Dragon Raid is (1) while Lampstand has been ruled to be (2). Lampstand is unique in that it defines what can be targeted based on what cannot be targeted (there are only a couple cards that do this and Lampstand was the first). Since Lampstand does not specify that it can target cards not in play, the "not in battle" phrase could be considered (1) but that's not how it has been ruled. (Kinda like Euclidean and Non-Euclidean geometry, but we'll save that discussion for another time.)

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #46 on:** May 21, 2010, 02:42:46 PM »

Fine! Make Dragon Raid useless! I don't care about this stupid game anyway! *mumblecommunistsgrumble*

D-man · « **Reply #47 on:** May 21, 2010, 03:06:10 PM »

Yeah..most people are only vaguely aware that Dragon Raid has a special ability.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #48 on:** May 21, 2010, 05:10:49 PM »

Quote from: D-man on May 21, 2010, 03:06:10 PM

Yeah..most people are only vaguely aware that Dragon Raid has a special ability.

wyn. it's so true though...

News:

Author Topic: Guard lost soul (Read 6214 times)

Warrior_Monk