Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: BubbleBoy on October 11, 2009, 09:45:04 AM
-
Can Ithamar, son of Aaron (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Ithamar,%20son%20of%20Aaron%20(Pi).gif) activate a non-tabernacle artifact on The Tabernacle (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/The%20Tabernacle%20(Pi).gif)? I wouldn't think so, but what if Image of Jealousy (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Image%20of%20Jealousy%20(TP).gif) or Spreading Mildew (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Spreading%20Mildew%20(Pi).gif) were placed on The Tabernacle?
-
Unless it is just me, the links to the REG are currently not working. Please post the abilties.
-
Unless it is just me, the links to the REG are currently not working.
mine arent working either.......... odd
-
The REG is down for me too...
-
Unless it is just me, the links to the REG are currently not working.
mine arent working either.......... odd
The REG is down for me too...
We need a reason why.......
-
Strange, it was working for me when I posted the stuff. :scratch:
-
Maybe the big rumored REG update is coming...
-
Can Ithamar, son of Aaron (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Ithamar,%20son%20of%20Aaron%20(Pi).gif) activate a non-tabernacle artifact on The Tabernacle (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/The%20Tabernacle%20(Pi).gif)? I wouldn't think so, but what if Image of Jealousy (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Image%20of%20Jealousy%20(TP).gif) or Spreading Mildew (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Spreading%20Mildew%20(Pi).gif) were placed on The Tabernacle?
To answer your question, no you could not activate a non-tabernacle artifact. While Ithamar allows you to activate an artifact on the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle restricts what kinds of artifacts can be active there.
If Image of Jealosy or Spreading mildew were in play, then no artifact would be able to be active, as all of the effects of the card would be negated.
-
Hey,
Can Ithamar, son of Aaron (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Ithamar,%20son%20of%20Aaron%20(Pi).gif) activate a non-tabernacle artifact on The Tabernacle (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/The%20Tabernacle%20(Pi).gif)? I wouldn't think so, but what if Image of Jealousy (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Image%20of%20Jealousy%20(TP).gif) or Spreading Mildew (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Spreading%20Mildew%20(Pi).gif) were placed on The Tabernacle?
My gut reaction is to say yes. The activate an artifact part of Ithamar's ability isn't clarifying text because it allows you to activate an artifact at a time you normally couldn't. And it doesn't restrict the Artifact to being a temple artifact. I wouldn't be surprised if the other powers that be find a way to limit Ithamar to only activating tabernacle artifacts, but for now I'm going to say he can activate a non-tabernacle artifact there.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Can Ithamar, son of Aaron (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Ithamar,%20son%20of%20Aaron%20(Pi).gif) activate a non-tabernacle artifact on The Tabernacle (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/The%20Tabernacle%20(Pi).gif)? I wouldn't think so, but what if Image of Jealousy (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Image%20of%20Jealousy%20(TP).gif) or Spreading Mildew (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Spreading%20Mildew%20(Pi).gif) were placed on The Tabernacle?
My gut reaction is to say yes. The activate an artifact part of Ithamar's ability isn't clarifying text because it allows you to activate an artifact at a time you normally couldn't. And it doesn't restrict the Artifact to being a temple artifact. I wouldn't be surprised if the other powers that be find a way to limit Ithamar to only activating tabernacle artifacts, but for now I'm going to say he can activate a non-tabernacle artifact there.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Are you saying he can activate one in addition to the one that can already be in there because of The Tabernacle's SA?
-
My gut reaction is to say yes. The activate an artifact part of Ithamar's ability isn't clarifying text because it allows you to activate an artifact at a time you normally couldn't. And it doesn't restrict the Artifact to being a temple artifact. I wouldn't be surprised if the other powers that be find a way to limit Ithamar to only activating tabernacle artifacts, but for now I'm going to say he can activate a non-tabernacle artifact there.
Then what are the rules for that Artifact? Does it stay active until deactivated/discarded? Can you put a Tabernacle artifact in the Tabernacle while the non-Tabernacle Artifact is there (because of the ability of the Tabernacle)? I don't know, it all seems fishy to me.
-
Hey,
Then what are the rules for that Artifact? Does it stay active until deactivated/discarded? Can you put a Tabernacle artifact in the Tabernacle while the non-Tabernacle Artifact is there (because of the ability of the Tabernacle)? I don't know, it all seems fishy to me.
Artifacts are always activated for one round. After that round ends they must either be reactivated or deactivated.
I'm leaning towards saying that "The Tabernacle" in the second sentence of Ithamar's ability is refering to "The Tabernacle" from the first sentence of his ability. Meaning you can only use his ability to activate an artifact on a Tabernacle you just put into play. That would keep you from ever having two artifacts in The Tabernacle, and under normal circumstances, would mean you would only get one turn per game with a non-Tabernacle artifact in The Tabernacle.
It all seems fishy to me too.
Solomon Dedicates Temple has a similar wording. I imagine there might be a precedent from that card (although I'm not sure the precedent would be correct).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I'm leaning towards saying that "The Tabernacle" in the second sentence of Ithamar's ability is refering to "The Tabernacle" from the first sentence of his ability.
I very much disagree. They are two separate abilities clearly distinguished by the ".". It seems it is referring to "The Tabernacle" as in the card by that name, regardless of when it was put into play.
-
Hey,
Can Ithamar, son of Aaron (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Ithamar,%20son%20of%20Aaron%20(Pi).gif) activate a non-tabernacle artifact on The Tabernacle (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/The%20Tabernacle%20(Pi).gif)? I wouldn't think so, but what if Image of Jealousy (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Image%20of%20Jealousy%20(TP).gif) or Spreading Mildew (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/LinkedDocuments/Spreading%20Mildew%20(Pi).gif) were placed on The Tabernacle?
My gut reaction is to say yes. The activate an artifact part of Ithamar's ability isn't clarifying text because it allows you to activate an artifact at a time you normally couldn't. And it doesn't restrict the Artifact to being a temple artifact. I wouldn't be surprised if the other powers that be find a way to limit Ithamar to only activating tabernacle artifacts, but for now I'm going to say he can activate a non-tabernacle artifact there.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Tim,
Not going with you here. Being able to activate an artifact outside of the preperation phase like Ithamar does cannot change the legality of an artifact being activated. The second sentence reads as follows:
You may activate an artifact on The Tabernacle.
The Tabernacle is allowed to hold tabernacle artifacts, as noted in its attributes. Being allowed to activate an artifact there in a later phase than preperation is fine and dandy, but the act of activation still requires that the activation be legal.
-
The whole point of special abilities is that they make things happen that wouldn't happen naturally by game rule. Ithamar just says to activate an artifact on the Tabernacle. It makes no reference to the Tabernacle's ability. I'm glad Tim agrees with me on this one.
-
Why has this game come down to people trying to twist the wording of cards to make them work the way they want them to, instead of the way they are designed and meant to work?
Ithamar is obviously activating a Tabernacle Artifact on the Tabernacle.
-
The whole point of special abilities is that they make things happen that wouldn't happen naturally by game rule. Ithamar just says to activate an artifact on the Tabernacle. It makes no reference to the Tabernacle's ability. I'm glad Tim agrees with me on this one.
What really flabberghasts me is that apparently when card A says do something, then we can simply ignore every other cards effects and attributes because card A says do this.
Ithamar lets you activate an artifact on your fortress The Tabernacle. You are being given an artifact activation effect outside of the preperation phase, and only on the tabernacle. Now, in order for that activation to be a legal play, the artifact must be a Tabernacle artifact, as noted by the fact that the Tabernacle says holds one active Tabernacle artifact in its attribute line.
It's the exact same concept as Ethopian Tresurer letting you play the next enhancement. Since he allows you to play an enhancement outside of the battle initiative, then are we allowed to play a green enhancement on him? You can play an enhancement without an EC in battle, so then we are allowed to ignore the fact that he is a purple hero, right?
-
The whole point of special abilities is that they make things happen that wouldn't happen naturally by game rule. Ithamar just says to activate an artifact on the Tabernacle. It makes no reference to the Tabernacle's ability. I'm glad Tim agrees with me on this one.
What really flabberghasts me is that apparently when card A says do something, then we can simply ignore every other cards effects and attributes because card A says do this.
Ithamar lets you activate an artifact on your fortress The Tabernacle. You are being given an artifact activation effect outside of the preperation phase, and only on the tabernacle. Now, in order for that activation to be a legal play, the artifact must be a Tabernacle artifact, as noted by the fact that the Tabernacle says holds one active Tabernacle artifact in its attribute line.
It's the exact same concept as Ethopian Tresurer letting you play the next enhancement. Since he allows you to play an enhancement outside of the battle initiative, then are we allowed to play a green enhancement on him? You can play an enhancement without an EC in battle, so then we are allowed to ignore the fact that he is a purple hero, right?
very well put. +1. restrictions must still be noted.
-
Why has this game come down to people trying to twist the wording of cards to make them work the way they want them to, instead of the way they are designed and meant to work?
Ithamar is obviously activating a Tabernacle Artifact on the Tabernacle.
:amen:
-
Hey,
Why has this game come down to people trying to twist the wording of cards to make them work the way they want them to, instead of the way they are designed and meant to work?
Because Redemption has a history of doing a less than stellar job of accurately expressing what the card is meant to do on the card. While I have seen many instances of players trying to make cards do something they want them to do that isn't supported by the rules, this is not one of those instances. The playtesters are the ones at fault in this case for wording Ithamar poorly. The players are not at fault for noticing. Of course whose fault it is really isn't all that relevant to the question at hand which is how do we fix Ithamar.
Ithamar is obviously supposed to activate a Tabernacle Artifact on the Tabernacle, but that limitation is not expressed in his ability. I've not yet come up with a good way to explain through the rules that Ithamar can only activate a Tabernacle Artifact on the Tabernacle. If anyone has any ideas on how we can do that the PTB would be happy to hear those ideas.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Now, in order for that activation to be a legal play, the artifact must be a Tabernacle artifact, as noted by the fact that the Tabernacle says holds one active Tabernacle artifact in its attribute line.
The holds statement on the Tabernacle allows you to activate a Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle, it isn't limiting you to activating only Tabernacle artifacts on the Tabernacle.
I can activate Priestly Breastplate on Aaron even though he doesn't say he can hold priestly breastplate.
The Garden Tomb has the identifier "empty!" but that doesn't mean I can't put Image of Jealousy on it.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
It's the exact same concept as Ethopian Tresurer letting you play the next enhancement.
I think this is the best explanation. Just because ET can play a GE at a different time doesn't mean it can be a different color than purple whatever colors are represented by the Good Characters in battle at the time.
-
Hey,
It's the exact same concept as Ethopian Tresurer letting you play the next enhancement.
I think this is the best explanation. Just because ET can play a GE at a different time doesn't mean it can be a different color than purple.
But it can be a different color than purple. I've used ET's ability to play a blue enhancement more times than I've used it to play a purple enhancement.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
The holds statement on the Tabernacle allows you to activate a Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle, it isn't limiting you to activating only Tabernacle artifacts on the Tabernacle.
I respectfully disagree, and your other examples do not sway me. ;D I agree with those that have clarified stated restrictions for The Tabernacle.
The Garden Tomb has the identifier "empty!" but that doesn't mean I can't put Image of Jealousy on it.
You can put IoJ on it, just not in it. ;)
-
But it can be a different color than purple.
Funny, Tim. You know what I meant, but I fixed it anyway :)
-
Hey,
Now, in order for that activation to be a legal play, the artifact must be a Tabernacle artifact, as noted by the fact that the Tabernacle says holds one active Tabernacle artifact in its attribute line.
The holds statement on the Tabernacle allows you to activate a Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle, it isn't limiting you to activating only Tabernacle artifacts on the Tabernacle.
I can activate Priestly Breastplate on Aaron even though he doesn't say he can hold priestly breastplate.
The Garden Tomb has the identifier "empty!" but that doesn't mean I can't put Image of Jealousy on it.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
This is so completely an apples to oranges arguement that it can't hold water.
Placing a card is different than holding a card. Priestly Breastplate allows it to be placed on a High Priest. Definition of Place:
Place
When a special ability instructs a player to place a card on a second card, the placed card remains with the second card until the second card is discarded, returned to the draw pile or hand, or until the placed card is removed by a special ability.
Aaron does not need to have an ability to allow PB to be placed on him because by definition the Place effect puts it on Aaron. However, activating a card into The Tabernacle still must follow the rules of the fortress to be activated. To quote the exact text of the Tabernacle:
The Tabernacle
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Glory of the Lord protects this card and its contents. If you have Solomon’s Temple in play, discard this card (regardless of protection) and transfer its contents to Solomon’s Temple. • Identifiers: Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact • Verse: Exodus 40:34
Note the identifier line. Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact. That is a restriction, a limit if you will. If the Identifier line is not met by the artifact being activated, then the Tabernacle cannot hold the card. You could activate it, but the artifact would not be held by the fortress because it only holds Tabernacle Artifacts.
Now, if Ithamar said place an activated artifact on the Tabernacle, that would be a different story, but it does not, it says activate and artifact. Therefore, you cannot ignore the restrictions that are on the card in play.
In response to your ET comment, If a hero brigade is not represented in battle when you play the enhancement, you cannot play it. PNE lets you play an enhancement that is legal to play given normal rules of playing an enhancement.
Really the point I am trying to make here is that you don't get to ignore the effects of other cards in play just because Ithamar says activate an artifact. You still have to follow the rules of other cards in play when using card interactions, unless specifically told to, on a card such as Plague of Frogs, which allows you to disregard immunity when choosing a target.
-
Hey,
Now, in order for that activation to be a legal play, the artifact must be a Tabernacle artifact, as noted by the fact that the Tabernacle says holds one active Tabernacle artifact in its attribute line.
The holds statement on the Tabernacle allows you to activate a Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle, it isn't limiting you to activating only Tabernacle artifacts on the Tabernacle.
I can activate Priestly Breastplate on Aaron even though he doesn't say he can hold priestly breastplate.
The Garden Tomb has the identifier "empty!" but that doesn't mean I can't put Image of Jealousy on it.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
No artifact says it can be active in The Tabernacle Either, This is Madness!
-
Hey,
This is so completely an apples to oranges arguement that it can't hold water.
Placing a card is different than holding a card.
The definition of a hold ability: "A hold abilities allows a player to place qualifying cards on the card with the hold ability when it is not at it's maximum capacity and allows a player to return cards from the card with the hold ability."
Placing a card isn't different than holding a card.
I realize the whole definition of hold isn't publicly available, but it exists, Mike, Bryon and I agree on it, and I wrote it. So I kinda know what I'm talking about here.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
This is so completely an apples to oranges arguement that it can't hold water.
Placing a card is different than holding a card.
The definition of a hold ability: "A hold abilities allows a player to place qualifying cards on the card with the hold ability when it is not at it's maximum capacity and allows a player to return cards from the card with the hold ability."
Placing a card isn't different than holding a card.
I realize the whole definition of hold isn't publicly available, but it exists, Mike, Bryon and I agree on it, and I wrote it. So I kinda know what I'm talking about here.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Well, then it needs to be public. You are trying to make arguements based on information that is not public knowledge.
Secondly, Place is different than holding, as your very definition says that a card can only be placed there if it is a qualifying card. Are we going to be consistant here or not?
-
Hey,
Well, then it needs to be public.
I agree, and I'm working on it.
Secondly, Place is different than holding, as your very definition says that a card can only be placed there if it is a qualifying card. Are we going to be consistant here or not?
Read my definition again. It says the holds ability can place a qualifying card, it says nothing about prohibiting other cards from placing non-qualifying cards.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
It says the holds ability can place a qualifying card, it says nothing about prohibiting other cards from placing non-qualifying cards.
It doesn't seem in the spirit of the game to allow other cards to put non-qualifying cards on a Hold ability card. Interrupt the battle, draw X cards, and play the next enhancement effects don't let you play an enhancement of a brigade not present in battle, so why should a character be able to place an artifact on a fortress that can't hold it?
-
Why has this game come down to people trying to twist the wording of cards to make them work the way they want them to, instead of the way they are designed and meant to work?
Ithamar is obviously activating a Tabernacle Artifact on the Tabernacle.
Yeah, this is what it really comes down to. My thoughts exactly.
-
Interrupt the battle, draw X cards, and play the next enhancement effects don't let you play an enhancement of a brigade not present in battle, so why should a character be able to place an artifact on a fortress that can't hold it?
Another good example.
The bottom line is that special abilities get to contradict standard game rules as long as they specifically state that they are doing so. Ithamar specifically states that he activates an artifact at a time during the turn when you would not be able to normally do so. But he does not specifically state that he can activate an art in a place where it cannot normally be. Therefore, his special ability overules the standard game rules of timing, but not the standard game rules of location.
-
How is "Activate on your Magician..." different from "Activate an Artifact on your Tabernacle?" You cannot normally activate Artifacts on characters, and no Magician has an identifier allowing him to hold an artifact.
-
I think you just answered your own question. Magicians have no restrictions on what can be placed on them. The Tabernacle does.
-
That's being debated.
-
Especially if IoJ is on The Tabernacle...
-
i was thinking, if it does work the way sirnobody is claiming, what is stopping a player from repeatedly stacking artifacts on the tabernacle?
-
Well Tim Maly said that artifacts would only last a turn because they either re-activate or deactivate.
-
ah. well if ithamar allows any artifact to be placed on tabernacle, then 'solomon dedicates temple' would work the same way.
-
Tim, there's no way this works.
(With the REG down I can't come up with examples off the top of my head, so bear with me.)
A card that has a restriction about what kind of cards it holds can only have that changed by another card that SPECIFICALLY allows that change. For instance, some cards give you the ability to play a card regardless of brigade. Nothing on Ithamar indicates that you can override the restriction on Tabernacle. If Ithamar stated something like "...any artifact, regardless of being a temple artifact..." or words to that effect, then you would be correct. In the absence of those words, the Tabernacle can ONLY hold tabernacle artifacts.
Kevin Shride
-
Well, if The Tabernacle's identifier is going to be changed to a SA, then IoJ will negate its ability to hold an artifact altogether, which I do believe would mean that Ithamar could activate any artifact on it.
And if The Tabernacles's ability is still an identifier, then IoJ on it will allow you to have Solomon's Temple in play as well.
So which is it?
-
I don't know... this sounds like it's going to make things more complicated (making identifiers = abilities). Hypothetically, what if IoJ is removed/negated - would the non-Temple artifact cease to take effect? be discarded? continue to end of phase? What if the artifact is CBN?
I sincerely hope that the plan to change identifiers into SAs was considered, but let go. Identifiers should simply stick and be static unless a SA specifically overrides it (as Kevin stated).
-
Hey,
Kevin, if Simon of Cyrene was a priest, could you put Priestly Breastplate on him?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I would like to re-raise this question as I don't think I ever really got a definite answer.
I'm also not sure about the whole abilifier thing. Is "holds" definitely or definitely not going to be redefined as a SA?
EDIT:
Also, coming back to this old argument:
It's the exact same concept as Ethopian Tresurer letting you play the next enhancement.
It isn't the exact same, because the "restriction" on The Tabernacle is an abilifier...thing. The restriction that stops ET from playing on non-purple enhancement is a game rule. Completely different.
-
How can the women's Great Faith search for an evil card?
b/c Rob thinks that abilities need to work as specifically stated on the card. I cant personally speak for Rob, but i would guess if he had to rule on this situation and he saw an IoJ on the Tabernacle- he would be quite amused that someone would stoop to such dasterdly levels and allow such a play with Ithmar.
+1 bubbleboy
-
Honestly, I don't even see why this would work any better with IoJ in the mix. Ithamar's ability is independent of The Tabernacle's anyway.
-
Frankly, there is no reason why this should not work. Ithamar states that he can add a Tabernacle to play and then place an artifact in it. The reason for the second sentence seems mostly to be directed towards clarifying that the Tabernacle that may have an artifact activated on it is the one just gotten from draw pile, not any random tabernacle.
-
Ok, perhaps I am missing something...but what artifact would be so OPd if it were placed in the Tabernacle for one turn?
-
Ok, perhaps I am missing something...but what artifact would be so OPd if it were placed in the Tabernacle for one turn?
Holy Grail? (not sure if it specifies in territory)
-
I'm going to use Ithamar to activate an artifact on my opponent's Tabernacle.
-
That's specifically limited by Ithamar MJB. The artifact is not.
-
That's specifically limited by Ithamar MJB. The artifact is not.
Really? Please tell me where in Ithamar's SA it it specifies I must activate the artifact on the same exact copy of The Tabernacle I searched for, because I really don't see it.
Ithamar SA Search draw pile for The Tabernacle and put it in play. You may activate an Artifact on The Tabernacle.
-
[Activate an Artifact] targets must be “in holder's artifact pile or hand.” (part of REG draft)
Ithamar has a general target (an Artifact). However, The Tabernacle has an identifier that is more specific. Who is to say we don't create another "The Tabernacle" in the future that does not contain the identifier?
In general, it is better to create cards independent of one another. We can't load every card with every exception. That requires a specific situation and limits future considerations.
In short, (1) you search for The Tabernacle, (2) you read what it says and understand its limitations, (3) you activate an artifact based on what you have learned.
Mike
Ithamar, son of Aaron
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Teal • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search draw pile for The Tabernacle and put it in play. You may activate an Artifact on The Tabernacle. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Tabernacle Priest (House of Ithamar) • Verse: Exodus 38:21 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Uncommon)
The Tabernacle
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Glory of the Lord protects this card and its contents. If you have Solomon’s Temple in play, discard this card (regardless of protection) and transfer its contents to Solomon’s Temple. • Identifiers: Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact • Verse: Exodus 40:34 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Rare)
-
So then The Tabernacle's "hold" is a exclusive identifier and not an SA, correct? That's the only way this will work based on the rules. Ithmar clearly lets you activate an Artifact on The Tabernacle and has no restrictions on what can be activated. SA's overrule other SA's all the time, otherwise I Am Redemption would not get Captured Heroes out of Raider's Camp, since Raider's Camp says they are released when you lose a battle. So with the whole "holds is not an Identifier" argument, Ithmar will have to work.
And to counter the argument you just made, intent is not looked at, only what the card actually says. For example, take Split Altar. Ithmar actually says to activate an(y) artifact on Tabernacle. The only way it can't work, as I mentioned before, is if the "holds" part of Tabernacle is an identifier (or abilifier) that is exclusive in nature.
-
Redemption has come a long way in the past few years to transition to a completely top down rules system instead of a system that uses some top down rules but also has/had many rulings based on individual cards. The former is desireable and much more scaleable. The later creates huge messes over time and as more cards are introduced.
I appreciate Mike's (frisian9) position based on what Ithamar should do. I have to respectfully disagree because I believe this type of ruling to be a step backwards, away from top down rules.
There were many people in the Bible who brought Artifacts into the Temple/Tabernacle. Many of those Artifacts were not Temple/Tabernacle Artifacts. The REG even agrees with this fact. (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/gloss_templeartifacts.htm)
It's not very far outside of the box to think that some day Cactus could release a Ahaz or Urijah the High Priest that activates Altar of Ahaz on Solomon's Temple. Or a Manasseh that activates Ashera Pole on Solomon's Temple.
The bad part is that it's not Biblically accurate for Ithamar to activate any Artifact on the Tabernacle. In retrospect I'm sure that "Tabernacle" would have been added to let us know what kind of Artifact he can activate. Unfortunately it is not there so his ability has a much broader, often times unbiblical, use.
Assuming that the card does what it says, how "broken" is this? Artifacts are only active for one turn, at which time they have to be reactivated. So 2/2 Ithamar enters battle, activates an Artifact and then has to survive the battle before he can do it again. The following turn, the Artifact that Ithamar placed on The Tabernacle is deactivated. The "brokeness" lasts for one round and there are countless ways to stop Ithamar or The Tabernacle.
Apart from being Biblically inaccurate I don't see the problem with Ithamar's ability doing exactly what it says. If TPTB feel it's a problem then we need to consider errata to make the card to what it was intended. Making a ruling based on what the card should do is not a sound solution.
-
I agree with Gabe, if a card is causing an issue or a potential one, then errata it. Making a rules change to try and cover the situation just and another headache for all hosts and players who try to keep up with the rules. Errata is good.
-
Banning is better. Oh wait, nvm, I'll go back in my corner now...
-
Ithamar activates and the following must happen: (1) search for The Tabernacle, (2) activate The Tabernacle (The Tabernacle establishes what it can hold), and (3) you can activate an artifact in The Tabernacle. I see it is a logical procession that results in activating an artifact that conforms with the established restrictions on The Tabernacle. In short, my way of seeing the logical progression is based on (2) coming before (3) and establishing a condition through the "holds" that is now activated. However, I am not opposed to going with the more simple and literal text on Ithamar without consideration of all the steps that will follow as his ability is being carried out. Is that the desired end?
Mike
-
That's not the question. The question is, is "holds" an ability, an identifier, or an abilifier, and if one of the latter, are "holds" abilities exclusive or inclusive.
In other words, if "holds" is an ability, NOTHING stops Ithmar from placing any Artifact on The Tabernacle unless he gets errata. Special Abilities get overruled by other special abilities all the time.
If "holds" is an identifier or abilifier, we have to establish whether it is exclusive or inclusive. An inclusive interpretation would mean that the "holds" tells you what you can put in it under normal circumstances. An exclusive interpretation would mean that the "holds" not only tells you what can go in it, but that ONLY the things on that list can go in it.
So basically, we're not asking on a bottom-up ruling on Ithmar. His SA is very straightforward. We are asking for a top-down ruling about "holds" abilities/identifiers/abilifiers, which will then automatically make the specific Ithmar ruling along with many others.
-
From what I recall after listening to previous arguments concerning "holds" and abilifiers and such, I believe Tim was arguing that "holds" is like a "place" ability, meaning it is instant. If this is the case, then Ithamar can definitely place any artifact he wants in there at any time. However, if "holds" turns out to be an abilifier when it's in the identifier line...well, we haven't really established the precedence for that, so I suppose we will have to do that. In other words, I agree with Pol. :)
-
+1
-
After reading this whole thread, I notice a few things:
1) according to the current rules, it seems to me that this should work.
2) according to precident and intent, it feels like it should not work.
3) this has already been a source of disagreement and I expect hosts could rule this differently if no clear ruling is given.
4) rather than trying some ruling gymnastics, I think it is better to just issue errata for Ithamar.
How about this:
Search deck for The Tabernacle and put it in play. If your The Tabernacle does not have an artifact on it, you may activate a Tabernacle Artifact on it.
"If your The Tabernacle" sounds funny, but I think the point is clear enough. Is there anything I am missing?
-
I agree with everything Bryon said assuming the answer to the following question is "yes".
Does Ithamar really need errata just because he doesn't work as intended?
Also, if the answer to that question is yes, then can we get an errata for Split Altar (also gets Artifact piles) and Seeker of the Lost (give her the correct Luke verse instead of the one meant for Soldier of God)?
-
Does Ithamar really need errata just because he doesn't work as intended?
My silver brigade Ithamar does. ;)
Bah! Nevermind. :-\
{knocks on forehead, McFly! silver...angel...not always equal...hmmm...maybe angel "until" "not in battle"?... ::) }
-
While I wish Seeker of the Lost had a Luke reference, her existing reference really does not cause confusion, so errata isn't needed. If she ever gets a solid gold reprint, though... :)
Split Altar might cause a little confusion, but no where near the amount generated by Ithamar. When we make the prophet who prophesied about the Split Altar, though, I'm sure we will make that card worth including somehow. :)
Ithamar creates confusion, and has him putting things into the Tabernacle that God did not allow. For those reasons, I vote for errata.
-
Search deck for The Tabernacle and put it in play. If your The Tabernacle does not have an artifact on it, you may activate a Tabernacle Artifact on it.
Quick aside. Since the search portion is non-optional, can Ithamar even enter battle if his user already has The Tabernacle in play? Wouldn't that be a direct violation of the no-duplicates-of-uniques play restriction?
"If your The Tabernacle" sounds funny, but I think the point is clear enough.
Yeah! When I am long gone, my descendants will be able to point to an awkwardly worded errata as my contribution to the game. ;)
Does Ithamar really need errata just because he doesn't work as intended?
As a follow up on Gabe's thought, I would like to see some criteria put forward for when a card's not-working-as-intended-ness is sufficient to warrant an errata prior to issuing an errata for Ithamar. I don't see that Ithamar's brokeness raising to the level of the pre-errata'ed Holy Grail, for example. In fact, I don't think Ithamar is more fundamentally broken than Split Altar--but I acknowledge I may be wrong about this.
Ithamar creates confusion, and has him putting things into the Tabernacle that God did not allow. For those reasons, I vote for errata.
Would Ithamar really create confusion if the ruling was simply to play the card as written (meaning "yes any artifact and yes any available The Tabernacle")?
We know people brought all manner of illicit items into the various tabernacle/temples. Asherah Pole and Altar of Ahaz for example.
-
In regards to the proposed errata, I don't like it. We have agreed that this combo works and that it is not incredibly OP, so I really don't see a problem with it besides the fact that it is Biblically inaccurate. Don't you think it's strange that the Warriors Battle Prayer can search for an evil Gold enhancement? Yet it was ruled that way because that is the way it was worded, despite it being an odd effect for a good card. Besides, Tabernacle priests is a theme that currently needs all the help it can get.
-
Ithamar creates confusion, and has him putting things into the Tabernacle that God did not allow. For those reasons, I vote for errata.
Would Ithamar really create confusion if the ruling was simply to play the card as written (meaning "yes any artifact and yes any available The Tabernacle")?
We know people brought all manner of illicit items into the various tabernacle/temples. Asherah Pole and Altar of Ahaz for example.
"Would Ithamar really create confusion?" he asks on the 5th page of a thread. :)
I know evil people brought all manner of illicit items into the Tabernacle, but I don't think we should have a hero do it. If that was Ithamar's only issue, then I might be OK with letting it slide. Maybe. But since he also has the confusion issue, and the differing views among playtesters (Mike and Kevin seem opposed to the idea of letting this happen, though Tim and I seem to think it would work with the current rule set), and since top players differ, too, I think there is value in giving him errata.
I'm looking at 3 cards on the list that will likely cause Ithamar to see more play next year, so there is little reason to give Ithamar this controversial, counter-Biblical ability just so that Tabernacle priests get more help. :)
-
I would vote strongly against eratta. Right now the only cards we have errata'd were insanely OP or FAR more confusing than Ithamar. You point to the length of this thread as proof that he is confusing, but actually most of this thread has been "we know how he works, but is it going to get ruled that way?" and yet more begging for the issue of "holds" to be addressed. There's no confusion about what Ithamar actually does.
Mike and Kevin don't really offer anything from the rules to show why it wouldn't work, they just don't like it. But this isn't the first card with an odd SA. And you say there is little reason to give Ithamar this controversial, counter-Biblical ability just so that Tabernacle priests get more help.
But he already has the ability. There has been no substantial debate about this fact for the entire thread. The question is, whether Ithamar deserves to be added to the tiny list of errata'd cards just because his SA as printed is different than what was intended. And then if so, we ask why a Priests (un?)common with a different SA than intended is more worth an errata to fix than a Nationals promo that's basically worthless or a Salvation Army promo that has the wrong verse.
In other words, don't just screw the players both ways. Either let cards work as printed, or fix all of the major offenders of SA's (verses) that don't say what they were meant to say. But whatever you do, don't take away our cake and feed it to the Communists too.
-
IMO, we've gotten too comfortable with erratas. no errata please.
-
Perhaps banning the card is a better solution. That doesn't require errata or misunderstanding. Reprint it.
Seriously, I don't care what the final ruling is as long as we all move on and end this thread. This one gives me a headache. ???
Mike
-
No banning please, not over something as small as Ithamar.
-
Perhaps banning the card is a better solution. That doesn't require errata or misunderstanding. Reprint it.
Seriously, I don't care what the final ruling is as long as we all move on and end this thread. This one gives me a headache. ???
Mike
no Banning, but if it ain't broken, don't fix it. and Ithamar isn't broken. ANB was. hence the very sad errata.
-
ban it! or let it be. What happened to Lord of the Rings ccg? to much errata killed the game. While were at it ban NJ too.
plug: and i still want to see EC be able to attack Land of Redemption! even if its some kind of new ability!
Armageddon
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: During your battle phase, you may attack opponents Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul. May be used once per turn • Identifiers: None • Verse: Revelation 16:16 • Availability: Promotional cards (2011 National Tournament)
-
ban it! or let it be. What happened to Lord of the Rings ccg? to much errata killed the game. While were at it ban NJ too.
plug: and i still want to see EC be able to attack Land of Redemption! even if its some kind of new ability!
Armageddon
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: During your battle phase, you may attack opponents Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul. May be used once per turn • Identifiers: None • Verse: Revelation 16:16 • Availability: Promotional cards (2011 National Tournament)
super OP'd.
-
ban it! or let it be. What happened to Lord of the Rings ccg? to much errata killed the game. While were at it ban NJ too.
plug: and i still want to see EC be able to attack Land of Redemption! even if its some kind of new ability!
Armageddon
Type: Fortress Brigade: None Ability: None Class: None Special Ability: During your battle phase, you may attack opponents Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul. May be used once per turn Identifiers: None Verse: Revelation 16:16 Availability: Promotional cards (2011 National Tournament)
super OP'd.
I'm not sure...I don't think it's OP, since it costs you a battle to use it. Maybe it should have limited uses though, because I'd bet you anything this would be abused in def-heavy decks. How about...
"During your battle phase, instead of making a rescue attempt you may begin a battle against opponent's Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. Opponent must block with a hero. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul and place it in owner's Land of Bondage. Ability may be used once per game."
-
ban it! or let it be. What happened to Lord of the Rings ccg? to much errata killed the game. While were at it ban NJ too.
plug: and i still want to see EC be able to attack Land of Redemption! even if its some kind of new ability!
Armageddon
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: During your battle phase, you may attack opponents Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul. May be used once per turn • Identifiers: None • Verse: Revelation 16:16 • Availability: Promotional cards (2011 National Tournament)
super OP'd.
I'm not sure...I don't think it's OP, since it costs you a battle to use it. Maybe it should have limited uses though, because I'd bet you anything this would be abused in def-heavy decks. How about...
"During your battle phase, instead of making a rescue attempt you may begin a battle against opponent's Land of Redemption with your Evil Character. Opponent must block with a hero. If you win the battle, fall away one lost soul and place it in owner's Land of Bondage. Ability may be used once per game."
I like that better. and Guardian killz it and Lampy doesn't. all I know is that my games would end 5-0, cuz after I kill all their evil characters, I'll just attack until they have nothing left.
-
What happened to Lord of the Rings ccg? to much errata killed the game.
Wow. That is false.
Lord of the Rings really only issued errata for the first few sets. For the next 16 sets, it simply banned or restricted cards.
What "killed" the game was a combination of factors, including financial hardship for the company which tried to produce far too many games at once (Austin Powers, .hack, Wars, more), the major dip in the CCG industry as a whole at about that same time, and decreased interest in the property a few years after the last movie was out of theaters.
If anything game related contributed to its demise, it might have been the fact that they dropped almost all of the original story-based shadow cultures (really only the ringwraith culture continued to get cards), and replaced them with generic shadow cultures that were based on type of minion, rather than the loyalty of the minion (we got a generic "orc" culture, rather than continuing to develop Moria, Sauron, or Isengard). Suddenly, that part of the story was gone, and instead all that remained were generic minions. Another gameplay factor that may have contributed to its demise was the new unnumbered site path had players jumping all over Middle Earth, starting at Mount Doom if you wanted, going straight to Moria, then to Gondor, then the Shire, stopping by Rohan, and ending back in Moria. The game ceased to make sense and stopped telling the story everyone loved.
Redemption also has a story behind it. It does not make sense to me that Ithamar, one of the faithful priests, would, while he is still faithful, activate Golden Calf on the Tabernacle. That might not sound like that big a deal, but to Jews, that was just about as bad as you can get - even worse than child sacrifice. There were a few instances of idols getting put in the Temple in the Bible, but they were all done by the most evil men, not by a faithful priest. This is not a trite little thing like "Gamaliel would not have used Jael's Nail." Putting an idol in the Tabernacle is a very big, bad deal.
Since Ithamar is years old and no one until now has tried to use it that way, and since the playtesters are currently split on whether the identifer acts as a limiter or not, and since the current wording is ambiguous to the average player, we need to issue a play as or errata to clear it up. I vote for errata.
If you think that kills Tebernacle Priests as a strategy (which would not make much sense since no one even tried to used Ithamar that way until now, but for the sake of argument...), just wait until summer. Good things come to those who wait. :)
-
It doesn't kill Tabernacle priests as a strategy. You can't kill things that were never alive. Playing Tabernacle Priests is like playing blue without Genesis. Why bother? A positive Ithamar ruling would have helped make Tabernacle Priests more playable now and would have support a simple, literal reading of the card. Is that so bad?
-
Playing Tabernacle Priests is like playing blue with Genesis. Why bother?
Did you mean without Genesis? Otherwise I'm confused.
-
I think that Ithamar putting an idol in the temple would be about as odd as Abishai killing David with a spear, which he would do if David happened to be the top card of opponent's draw pile when Abishai attacked with Warrior's Spear on him. Or, as has been mentioned, someone praying a Battle Prayer for God to provide an evil gold enhancement. Or someone having Great Faith to receive an evil enhancement. Yet all of these are possible. I don't see why we can't just go with what's written on the card in this case too.
-
It does not make sense to me that Ithamar, one of the faithful priests, would, while he is still faithful, activate Golden Calf on the Tabernacle. That might not sound like that big a deal, but to Jews, that was just about as bad as you can get - even worse than child sacrifice. There were a few instances of idols getting put in the Temple in the Bible, but they were all done by the most evil men, not by a faithful priest. This is not a trite little thing like "Gamaliel would not have used Jael's Nail." Putting an idol in the Tabernacle is a very big, bad deal.
Bryon, the problem that I see as a judge is that you are going from a fairly bright line standard (i.e., cards are played as written unless they break the game) to a "does this card somehow violate the nature of who it is depicting?" criterion.
How many arguments were spawned by the old "hero-nature" criterion for deciding whether a particular EC's special abilities converted or not? Do you really want to open that can of worms to errata a card whose what-is-written-on-the-card SA cannot--by any stretch of the imagination--be considered OP?
-
Now is the time to broach those arguments because they are writing a new REG.
-
I think that Ithamar putting an idol in the temple would be about as odd as Abishai killing David with a spear, which he would do if David happened to be the top card of opponent's draw pile when Abishai attacked with Warrior's Spear on him. Or, as has been mentioned, someone praying a Battle Prayer for God to provide an evil gold enhancement. Or someone having Great Faith to receive an evil enhancement. Yet all of these are possible. I don't see why we can't just go with what's written on the card in this case too.
Abishai does not kill David in that case, since David was never "alive." And God mentions several times in the Bible that he does use evil people to punish other evil people. So, God answering a prayer by sending an evil card to hurt another evil card is actually more Biblical than not.
If Ithamar so clearly allows you to activate an idol in the Temple, then why has that not been attempted until now, almost 4 years after he was printed? The great thing about issuing errata now (though at least 2 playtesters would call this a play as, since, in their minds, it only lets the card do what it does anyway), is that it doesn't change anything. It maintains the status quo, does what most players assume it does (and have assumed for the last 3.5 years), AND keeps the benefit of a faithful hero not practicing idolatry in the Tabernacle.
All those weigh against having the card do what some view "as written."
In my mind, the balance is heavily in favor of errata.
-
Because sometimes, cards are read, subtle meanings missed, and thrown in the "waste of deck space" pile. Bubbleboy has now come along, with intentions of trying to build a themed tabernacle priests offense, noticed the wording, and asked the question.
Just because we haven't seen this until now does not mean it is less valid.
-
The great thing about issuing errata now ... It maintains the status quo, does what most players assume it does (and have assumed for the last 3.5 years) ...
I didn't know anyone assumed anything, since Ithamar has been considered such a worthless card until now. ;)
In my mind, the balance is heavily in favor of errata.
Well, considering this card is not broken as it is, it helps a theme that is otherwise pretty useless (or even nonexistent), and almost no one likes erratas, I would say just the opposite, but I guess we are all entitled to our own opinions.
By the way, I know (at least I do now) that there will be more Tab. priests coming which will (hopefully) be good enough to make The Tabernacle theme worthwhile. However, I would much rather make an older card more useful than just bombard our inventory with new cards that make the old ones obsolete.
-
Who said there were more Tabernacle Priests coming? I said there would be a few cards to help the theme. Ithamar will be played MORE often, not less often. :)
-
Well, if there aren't more Tab. priest coming, then I would definitely not down-power Ithamar. :P
And even if an errata is appropriate, we really can't make good long-term arguments without knowing about the cards from the next set you are referring to which will make Tab. priests better. Will they be arts, enhancements, doms? Will they be set-asides, battle-winners, number decreasers?
What I'm really trying to say is, please do not make any erratas based on cards from the next set before the next set comes out.
(And if you really want Ithamar to get an errata, you should make the card that will enhance him the first one you write an article on. ;))
-
I just think that the argument of "It's not something a faithful priest would do" is a slippery slope. Would Eli the Priest (the blue one) REALLY seek out an Asherah Pole or Golden Calf? Would Zachaeus REALLY bring forth the Gates of Hell? Most certainly not. However, I used to use Eli for that purpose all the time, and I have seen plenty of Gates players use Zachaeus that way. There are plenty of things in Redemption that are biblically inaccurate, because it is a game that is based on the Bible, rather than one that tells the stories of the Bible accurately.
I'm just in favor of reserving errata for only those cards which are clearly incorrect in what they say (like a Child is Born with cannot not be negated) or cards that are too powerful as written (Holy Grail converting EC's in battle, ANB not letting your opponent play in a game, etc.) Currently, Ithamar is neither. It's just one of those things that should go in the "hmm, it doesn't really make sense biblically, and maybe it should have been written differently, but at least it's just a game" category.
-
I'm just in favor of reserving errata for only those cards which are clearly incorrect in what they say (like a Child is Born with cannot not be negated) or cards that are too powerful as written (Holy Grail converting EC's in battle, ANB not letting your opponent play in a game, etc.) Currently, Ithamar is neither. It's just one of those things that should go in the "hmm, it doesn't really make sense biblically, and maybe it should have been written differently, but at least it's just a game" category.
I agree for the most part. But we don't know if he is broken or not. Give some of the crazy people on this board the opportunity to mix ANY artifacts they want and see what happens. :)
Since his ability has not shown itself broken yet, then the idolatry in the Tabernacle issue alone would not be enough to make me vote for errata. If errata would change status quo, I would not vote for errata. If errata would make him do something different than what most readers of the card would assume he does, I would not vote for errata. The fact that errata preserves status quo, and preserves the intuitive reading (by every player for almost 4 years), gives us reason to consider whether Ithamar activating Asherah Pole in the tabernacle is something we'd want anyway. Three stones on one side of the scale, and one stone (disputed by at least a couple playtesters) on the other.
@ the issue of searching for an "evil" card with the Blue Eli the Priest or with Zaccheus: First, the Blue Eli is NEVER used (silly you'd think that anyone EVER uses a blue card if it doesn't have a Genesis reference. Read these boards. According to some players, no one EVER uses a blue card that does not have a Genesis reference. :)) But seriously, Eli and Zaccheus would not get errata, since that would change the status quo, and would change the card away from what has been intuitively understood by the vast majority of players since it released. There is no "slippery slope" if your three voters are "status quo," "intuitive reading," and "playing it as written." If the votes on those are two to 1, and going with the 2 gives you a chance to keep a hero from practicing Idolatry in the Tabernacle, should we not go with the 2 and simply issue errata?
Players don't like errata when it CHANGES how the card has been played for a long time. Players didn't like the errata on A New Beginning, because they had played it a certain way for YEARS, and now had to use it differently. This is totally different. Errata in this case will go unnoticed by 98% of Redemption players, since they never even considered that it could be used that way, much less played it that way in games for years.
-
I appreciate the poor attempt to address my point without actually addressing it.
The fact is true that if you are building a blue deck, there is no reason to not play Genesis. If you are playing Teal, there is no reason to select Tabernacle Priests over Z Temple priests. I never said that non-Genesis blue is not played. I merely stated that using non-Genesis blue in a blue deck doesn't make sense if you want to have a competitive deck.
-
I really believe using "status quo" as a factor for establishing whether a card receives errata or not is counter-productive. There are plenty of "status quo" issues that have changed over the years. There's no consistency as to which "status quo" issue gets changed or not.
I am a fan of consistency. If Ithamar receives errata, then Gabriel (W), Battle Prayer et al get errata. Otherwise, leave him be until it IS actually broken.
Just my :2cents:
-
Here's an idea: Make an artifact in the next set that would be broken if used in conjunction with another artifact! Then you'll have to errata Ithamar. ;D
-
I really believe using "status quo" as a factor for establishing whether a card receives errata or not is counter-productive. There are plenty of "status quo" issues that have changed over the years. There's no consistency as to which "status quo" issue gets changed or not.
I am a fan of consistency. If Ithamar receives errata, then Gabriel (W), Battle Prayer et al get errata. Otherwise, leave him be until it IS actually broken.
Just my :2cents:
This. In addition, everyone thought Split Altar would shuffle Artifact Piles when it came out. Since it was a Nationals promo it got a lot of attention and the flaw in the wording was quickly discovered, but that doesn't change the fact that it's another card with an intuitive reading that doesn't do what people thought it did and clearly not what was intended. If you errata Ithamar, you must errata Split Altar.
-
And Prince of the Air should be errata'ed to actually allow it to target Chamber of Angels.
And...
The examples presented above are all cases that were discussed--sometimes vociferously--on the boards prior to this. (I wouldn't even care to hazard a guess as to how many more were held in abeyance by the argument "Well if they won't errata XYZ, there's no chance they would errata this card.") Sometimes the best way to keep the worms in the can is to not open the can at all.
-
Sometimes the best way to keep the worms in the can is to not open the can at all.
Not an option in my neck of the woods. ;)
-
If you errata Ithamar, you must errata Split Altar.
Because Split Altar has been played the same way for 3.6 years? Because in 3.6 years, no one ever thought Split Altar would only shuffle the top card? The weakness of Split Altar was discovered within the first days of its release - before it was even tournament legal. Split Altar did not have to get errata to preserve 3.6 years worth of status quo, and 3.6 years of intuitive play. (and from the story standpoint, wouldn't the splitting of an altar only harm... the altar? Why shuffle all the cards?) So, status quo and intuition do not side with giving errata to Split Altar.
I really wish players would drop the Split Altar issue. The rarity of a card has no bearing on whether it "should" be powerful. They give out SoG and NJ and AotL and CM and Burial in every gift set. Gabriel is an uncommon, and Protection of Angels is a common, while Casting Lots is an ultra-rare. Captured Ark is a District Promo, while Frog Demons is a regional promo. Split Altar is the weakest National promo currently (but just wait until that gold-bordered Lost Soul with no special ability releases as the national promo this year!). Weak promos and ultra-rares really are not that big of a deal. Poorer players actually like it when that happens. :)
@ BubbleBoy - Brilliant idea! Genius! :)
-
If you errata Ithamar, you must errata Split Altar.
Because Split Altar has been played the same way for 3.6 years?
So what is the amount of time a card must be played intuitively and incorrectly before it can be given an errata? It appears that you are saying the three months or so for Split Altar is not enough but the 3 1/2 years of Ithamar is enough?
Since we didn't know of this requirement before can re-visit the Every Man's Sword question? Every Man's Sword was played as a site-access stopper for years. Can we get that re-errata'ed so that it plays the way everyone played it for years?
-
Hey,
Since ... the playtesters are currently split on whether the identifer acts as a limiter or not ... we need to issue a play as or errata to clear it up.
I think we (playtesters) need to resolve our difference of opinion first.
If errata would change status quo, I would not vote for errata.
Errata changes the status quo by definition. Either it doesn't change the status quo and it's really a play as, or it does change the status quo but changes it to what was previously a common misconception making most people not realize it changed.
The weakness of Split Altar was discovered within the first days of its release - before it was even tournament legal.
For the record, I noticed the weakness of Split Altar months before it was released, but I was ignored :(
but just wait until that gold-bordered Lost Soul with no special ability releases as the national promo this year!
* gets really excited *
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
just because something is the status quo does not mean it is always right. this game should be played by consistency and the letter of the law, not always by the status quo.
-
just because something is the status quo does not mean it is always right. this game should be played by consistency and the letter of the law, not always by the status quo.
You would be a great motivational speaker for youth. Say "NO!" to peer pressure! ;D
-
STAY IN SCHOOL! EAT YOUR VEGGIES! :)
-
STAY IN SCHOOL! EAT YOUR VEGGIES! :)
That's lame. Only dumb kids do that.
Instead, I am going to climb a tower of wobbly crates. Hope I don't fall and break something...
-
DONT CLIMB TALL MILK CRATES! :)
-
as odd as Abishai killing David with a spear, which he would do if David happened to be the top card of opponent's draw pile when Abishai attacked with Warrior's Spear on him.
Abishai does not kill David in that case, since David was never "alive."
jephthah- who do you think he is killing when you discard the top card?
-
just because something is the status quo does not mean it is always right.
Tell that to the people who think demons should be redeemed. :)
But seriously, maintaining the staus quo is only ONE of the 3-4 factors we consider in issuing errata and rule changes. We have made rulings that have changed the status quo to favor strict adherance to wordings. Many of those have been very unpopular (Remember the fallout when we ruled that the N.T. lost soul protects itself from rescue by Son of God?).
Obviously, players have always assumed Ithamar only activated Tabernacle artifacts on the Tabernacle because the wording on the cards involved make it seem like that is the case. Preserving the status quo on this would not be enough to warrant errata if this question was a common one that we'd had to answer many times over the years. But the fact is, players have never raised this question until now, and even in this thread it did not appear to gain any traction until Tim posted his opinion that it would work.
Of course the creative players here would be excited about the possibility, since it opens up combinations of artifacts/covenants/curses that have never even been considered before, much less tested. Someone is going to come up with some insane combination that will make a tidal wave right about States, and we'll be back here hotly debating if that combo is too strong and whether or not Ithamar should get errata. Or, we could just do it now and save players the headache of working so hard, only to have their strategy ruled illegal when they show up at nats.
Rob is going to have to make the call here.
EDIT: a playtester just remind me of a combination of artifacts that we simply cannot allow. One of them is Holy Grail, and I can't say what the other one is. ;)
As a result, and because of other potential combos both present and future, I do not expect Ithamar to be allowed to activate a non-Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle. Further, it would be too restrictive as we design cards, since we'd always have to consider combos involving multiple artifacts (a consideration we previously only had to consider when designing the Tabernacle/Temple artifacts, or how new artifacts would combine with those).
-
that combo is nowhere near broken. and you can only do it twice, anyways.
-
that combo is nowhere near broken. and you can only do it twice, anyways.
Um. Yes, it is broken. It doesn't require a single character or enhancement and you get to destroy half a typical defense. Further, you can combo the mystery artifact with I Am Patience for even more (unlimited) territory decimation. Players want LESS territory destruction, not rediculously powerful territory decimation. Toss in Jephthah and you'll rarely have to fight. No way, no how.
-
Alright, STOP! Errata Time! OH oh! OH oh!
http://dancejam.com/videos/1054605339-the-dark-side-has-some-new-moves (http://dancejam.com/videos/1054605339-the-dark-side-has-some-new-moves)
-
So players want LESS territory destruction and all y'all decide to work on...
Further, you can combo the mystery artifact with I Am Patience for even more (unlimited) territory decimation.
Thanx for listening. ;)
Working hypothesis: An artifact which doubles the SA of an active artifact. HG could be used twice for 2 ECs each.
-
Further, you can combo the mystery artifact with I Am Patience for even more (unlimited) territory decimation.
I'm not sure what this card is, but it sounds to me like you could do this anyway with Book of the Law.
Players want LESS territory destruction, not rediculously powerful territory decimation.
Players also want LESS pre-block ignore...
-
Further, you can combo the mystery artifact with I Am Patience for even more (unlimited) territory decimation.
I'm not sure what this card is, but it sounds to me like you could do this anyway with Book of the Law.
And by that you mean Book of the Covenant of course.
-
:doh:
-
that combo is nowhere near broken. and you can only do it twice, anyways.
Um. Yes, it is broken. It doesn't require a single character or enhancement...
uh, so? it requires an artifact. that equates to any other card in number that could possibly do the exact same thing. not to mention an artifact slot, which is more restrictive than playing a character or enhancement.
and you get to destroy half a typical defense.
if you meet the requirements, and even further if those valid targets are in play.
Further, you can combo the mystery artifact with I Am Patience for even more (unlimited) territory decimation.
i find it ironic you state this, yet hg + mystery art = brokensauce. you can also combo it with 2 certain territory enhancements, which would accoomplish the exact same thing as the hg + mystery art combo. is this also broken as well?
Players want LESS territory destruction, not rediculously powerful territory decimation.
wrong. players want less TGT and pre-block ignore, not less territory destruction.
-
Territory destruction is what makes TGT so strong. TGT does nothing on its own. TGT is also the most often complained about Pre-block card. Thus, countering territory destruction helps to counter TGT.
-
Players want LESS territory destruction, not rediculously powerful territory decimation.
wrong. players want less TGT and pre-block ignore, not less territory destruction.
I want less of both, personally.
-
Territory destruction is what makes TGT so strong. TGT does nothing on its own. TGT is also the most often complained about Pre-block card. Thus, countering territory destruction helps to counter TGT.
territory destruction was never as hyped about before tgt came along. territory destruction was there, yes, but it didnt win battles completely by itself.
-
Territory destruction is what makes TGT so strong. TGT does nothing on its own. TGT is also the most often complained about Pre-block card. Thus, countering territory destruction helps to counter TGT.
territory destruction was never as hyped about before tgt came along. territory destruction was there, yes, but it didnt win battles completely by itself.
Territory destruction, by its very nature, does not win battles. It wins games.
Women as Snares, Holy Grail, and Jephthah have won many, many more games than TGT.
I predicted this debate would happen. Suddenly we are forced to determine whether certain combos of artifacts and covenants and curses are "broken" or not. The dam is already starting to show cracks and leaks. Let's just errata Ithamar and avoid the mess.
@MasterKC: one of those T-class enhancements has been changed since you saw that list. Only the existing one will be able to be combined with the mystery artifact for max effect.
-
Women as Snares, Holy Grail, and Jephthah have won many, many more games than TGT.
Well, to be fair, many of those games were played with TGT, which probably played a big role in the winning.
-
agreed. i have also never recalled woman or jep being much more than a nuisance pre-tgt. td doesn't win games. buckler wins games.
-
Women as Snares, Holy Grail, and Jephthah have won many, many more games than TGT.
Well, to be fair, many of those games were played with TGT, which probably played a big role in the winning.
I meant historically, as in, eve since the Patriarchs released, those three cards have won a huge number of games. But even in current TGT decks, the territory destruction is what causes TGT to do anything against a mono-color deck. If Women as Snares and Holy Grail were not in the game, TGT decks would not be all that. :)
-
Women as Snares, Holy Grail, and Jephthah have won many, many more games than TGT.
Well, to be fair, many of those games were played with TGT, which probably played a big role in the winning.
I meant historically, as in, eve since the Patriarchs released, those three cards have won a huge number of games. But even in current TGT decks, the territory destruction is what causes TGT to do anything against a mono-color deck. If Women as Snares and Holy Grail were not in the game, TGT decks would not be all that. :)
I can't say much about pre-Patriarch times, but I agree that TD is a powerful strategy, one that in my experiance does win games, and one that is enhanced by TGT (or vice versa).
-
Women as Snares, Holy Grail, and Jephthah have won many, many more games than TGT.
Well, to be fair, many of those games were played with TGT, which probably played a big role in the winning.
I meant historically, as in, eve since the Patriarchs released, those three cards have won a huge number of games. But even in current TGT decks, the territory destruction is what causes TGT to do anything against a mono-color deck. If Women as Snares and Holy Grail were not in the game, TGT decks would not be all that. :)
I can't say much about pre-Patriarch times, but I agree that TD is a powerful strategy, one that in my experiance does win games, and one that is enhanced by TGT (or vice versa).
Agreed. They are a pretty brutal 1-2 punch.
-
The dam is already starting to show cracks and leaks. Let's just errata Ithamar and avoid the mess.
My hope is that instead of an errata we take this opportunity to lessen the future chances of errata by "fixing" certain inconsistencies across the board since a new REG and rulebook will soon be published.
Let's get Ithamar, Gabriel (Wa), Battle Prayer (Wa), Great Faith, et al played like they should by defining an appropriate rule.
Let's clarify current misconstrued definitions such as "cannot be prevented", "negate=interrupt+prevent", "not in battle", etc.
Let's delineate all targeting rules.
And so much more...
-
The dam is already starting to show cracks and leaks.
Break the dam. Release the river
Couldn't resist :P.
-
I predicted this debate would happen. Suddenly we are forced to determine whether certain combos of artifacts and covenants and curses are "broken" or not. The dam is already starting to show cracks and leaks. Let's just errata Ithamar and avoid the mess.
Battle Prayer (wa) is way more broken then Ithamar can possibly be due to the way they are both poorly worded. Therefore, that argument does not hold water.
I don't think it is good to issue errata just because a card doesn't seem Biblical or that it might lead to a broken combo unless Redemption issues errata for ALL of the cards that fall into those two categories. It is a great injustice, otherwise.
Kirk
-
Ithamar already DOES lead to broken combos if not played as he has historically been played. So, he's getting a play as so that he stays that way. Rob already singed off on it. According to Rob, Ithamar cannot activate a non-Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle.
If you think Battle Prayer (wa) is broken, start a thread about it and ask for errata or something. I'll watch as people throw things at you. :)
-
everyone knows no one uses battle prayer anymore.
-
I don't think the official conclusion to this discussion was announced. At least not that I see here. This is Rob's decision.
The identifier on The Tabernacle Reads: Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact. That gives us our answer. Ithamar can't force The Tabernacle to do something it can't do.
-
thank you. that makes sense.
-
I don't think it makes sense, but at least I'm glad we have an answer.
-
makes since to me- why was this such a difficult ruling?
-
That's a load of bull. I guess we'll never see an EC that puts Asherah Pole in Solomon's Temple.
I agree that Ithamar shouldn't do what he says he does, but I disagree with the reasoning of why it shouldn't work. SA's override other SA's and Identifiers all the time.
-
To me it makes just as much sense to say that Gathering of Angels doesn't work on heroes with banding abilities, because their banding abilities restrict them from banding to anybody else. :P
-
SA's override...Identifiers all the time.
such as?
To me it makes just as much sense to say that Gathering of Angels doesn't work on heroes with banding abilities, because their banding abilities restrict them from banding to anybody else. :P
Gathering is a gained ability. it would not be able to band to somebody who has an identifier of "this character may not brought into battle if holder has a hero in battle already." except better wording.
-
To me it makes just as much sense to say that Gathering of Angels doesn't work on heroes with banding abilities, because their banding abilities restrict them from banding to anybody else. :P
My thoughts exactly, just expressed better.
-
I RA with ET and play Reach of Desperation. Can I then play the buckler? Reach says "may play the next enhancement".
At least how I see it. Just because you're allowed to activate an artifact doesn't mean you get to bypass the identifier (or brigade in my ET scenario)
-
Brigades are defined as restrictive. "Holds" is not.
Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?
-
Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?
I didn't think characters had/could have Holds abilities....
-
Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?
I didn't think characters had/could have Holds abilities....
Where does it say that? And even if that's true, does it really affect the argument?
-
Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?
I didn't think characters had/could have Holds abilities....
Where does it say that? And even if that's true, does it really affect the argument?
Well, none have it so far that I know of. And, yes, it negates your comparison.
-
No, what would "negate my comparison" is whether or not the rules say it is impossible for a hero to have a "holds" identifier, not whether one already does. Besides, have you seen Simon of Cyrene?
-
This is bordering on insanity...let it go man...no matter how much you want this to work the PTB have spoken...(coming from someone who can relate)
-
we should just have a vote by the Elders to determine a ruling. Elders please vote for...
1. Ithamar can place an artifact that is not a Tabernacle artifact in The Tabernacle for one turn.
2. Ithamar can only place Tabernacle artifacts in The Tabernacle for game purposes.
3. Other.(post your other)
-
Ithamar already DOES lead to broken combos if not played as he has historically been played. So, he's getting a play as so that he stays that way. Rob already singed off on it. According to Rob, Ithamar cannot activate a non-Tabernacle artifact on the Tabernacle.
If you think Battle Prayer (wa) is broken, start a thread about it and ask for errata or something. I'll watch as people throw things at you. :)
No vote is needed since Rob's decision has been handed down by an Elder...and in my opinion the thread should be locked once a definite answer has been rendered by an elder so as to not bury the answer in and amongst people discussing and then beating a dead horse.
-
Besides, if Rob speaks, I doubt even the unanimous dissent of the elders matters. (I'm sure he takes their input into account, but this is his game, so when he makes a ruling its WoG.)
-
Can we at least see the reasoning as to why the ruling decision was made as it was?
-
I cannot seem to find the original post that quoted an e-mail from Rob that said that Ithamar cannot force the fortress to do something it cannot do...it only holds a certain list of artifacts for the purposes of game play...not biblically...there is a difference...
-
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18243.msg362360#msg362360 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18243.msg362360#msg362360)
-
Thanks so much...I was looking for Bryon posting it, not Gabe...
-
My question is, why does Rob think that The Tabernacle cannot hold a non-Tabernacle artifact? I don't understand where that came from...
-
Because it didn't in real life? Idk....
-
Because that is what the identifyer they chose to print on the card says...L E T I T G O P L E A S E :-[
-
I hear Matthew can't recur AoCp even thought it has a matthew reference in the REG.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc01.deviantart.net%2Ffs6%2Fi%2F2005%2F064%2Fc%2F0%2FBeating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif&hash=30359cfb7c6629f9fe852fd92878844b704f8523)
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc01.deviantart.net%2Ffs6%2Fi%2F2005%2F064%2Fc%2F0%2FBeating_A_Dead_Horse_by_livius.gif&hash=30359cfb7c6629f9fe852fd92878844b704f8523)
For the record, I was agreeing with you.
-
Cool...then the dead horse being beaten is not for you... ;D ;D ;D
-
An official answer was given about The Tabernacle but not about identifiers in general though it seems to be implied. So I think asking for the reason why is important to understand if this rule just applies to The Tabernacle, is a rule about all temples, or some broader standard for identifiers. This has not been stated and while they are talking about a top down approach, the quote only talks about The Tabernacle.
If it is a rule that identifiers inherently restrict what goes in by definition then will it ever be possible to have cards put Asherah Pole or others into Solomon's Temple?
-
An official answer was given about The Tabernacle but not about identifiers in general though it seems to be implied. So I think asking for the reason why is important to understand if this rule just applies to The Tabernacle, is a rule about all temples, or some broader standard for identifiers. This has not been stated and while they are talking about a top down approach, the quote only talks about The Tabernacle.
If it is a rule that identifiers inherently restrict what goes in by definition then will it ever be possible to have cards put Asherah Pole or others into Solomon's Temple?
It's probably about the new definition being given to 'Hold' in the new REG. I'm sure it's something about the card not being able to hold anything that isn't listed in its hold contents list.
Ashera Pole will probably never be put into Solomon's Temple again.
-
I'm not beating a dead horse here. I'm trying to figure out how it died.
-
The owner put it to sleep.
-
The owner put it to sleep.
by reading it this thread..
-
The owner put it to sleep.
For what reason? It was a perfectly good horse as far as I could tell.
-
For what reason? It was a perfectly good horse as far as I could tell.
He knew you wouldn't beat it unless it was dead.
-
The owner put it to sleep.
For what reason? It was a perfectly good horse as far as I could tell.
It had ears to hear but was deaf and eyes to see but was blind.
-
Hey,
SA's override...Identifiers all the time.
such as?
Image of Jealousy on The Garden Tomb? :D
Priestly Breastplate says it may be placed on a priest when you activate it. What if the priest says "Holds one Tabernacle Artifact" in the identifier line? Is it not able to hold Priestly Breastplate then?
I didn't think characters had/could have Holds abilities....
Simon of Cyrene basically has a holds ability.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly