Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: EmJayBee83 on June 25, 2009, 08:01:12 PM

Title: MN State Ruling
Post by: EmJayBee83 on June 25, 2009, 08:01:12 PM
This came up at MN States...

Player A placed Glory of the Lord in his Territory.  Player B wanted to know if player A's GotL protected his (player B's) Tabernacle and artifact therein. GotL is very specific that it only applies to holder's Solomon's Temple. The Tabernacle, however, nowhere makes this distinction, and GotL's SA doesn't come into play in this case. (See below.)

Glory of the Lord  SA  Place in territory. Holder's Solomon's Temple and the artifact in it cannot be discarded or negated by an opponent. Discard this card if Asherah Pole is in holder's Solomon's Temple.

The Tabernacle  SA  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.

Title: Re: MN State Ruling
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on June 25, 2009, 08:03:00 PM
A lot of rulings came up at Minnesota state.... I would say this flies.
Title: Re: MN State Ruling
Post by: Lurch on June 25, 2009, 10:28:52 PM
i thought that tabernacle said that it also protected holders tabernacle?
Title: Re: MN State Ruling
Post by: Cameron the Conqueror on June 25, 2009, 10:37:36 PM
I would rule that GotL DOES protect everyone's Tabernacle, but not everyone's Temple.  I expect a play as to change this.
Title: Re: MN State Ruling
Post by: BubbleBoy on June 26, 2009, 07:33:39 AM
The real question is, when Tabernacle says "GotL protects this card..." does it mean this physical card, or does it mean all copies of this card in play?
Title: Re: MN State Ruling
Post by: CountFount on June 26, 2009, 09:02:41 AM
 ;D Hey, All you whiny cry babies! What Matt says Goes! Unless you are older and bigger than Matt (or may rule against me in a tournament), Matt's rules are always dead on.  :police:

I got your back Matt. 8)
Title: Re: MN State Ruling
Post by: EmJayBee83 on June 26, 2009, 09:07:51 AM
Thanx, Count.

At the State tourney, I ruled against GotL protecting an opponent's Tabernacle. This is because

1) The player with Tabernacle was asking out of curiosity and didn't really care a whole lot
2) The intent is fairly clear and I am loathe to vote against clear intent on the spot.

Fair warning, though, in a future tournament I would have to rule the opposite way.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal