Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Wings of Music on May 02, 2010, 01:33:16 PM
-
Hey Guys, :)
My friend and I were playing recently and this question came up during the game. ???
The special ability of the Priestly breastplate artifact in the Priest expasion states, "Negate all ignore and repel abilities on Characters and Enhancements. May be placed on a good Hight Priest when activated."
Does this mean if I place it on a good High Priest, I can activate another artifact in the artifact pile. The reason I ask is because the rule for artifacts state that only one can be active in the pile. Technically, it is not in the pile, so then it gives the possibility to activate another one.
What do you guys think?
~Wings 8)
-
Yes you can have another artifact active in your artifact pile because priestly breastplate is active on a hero.
-
Thank you very much! ;D
-
Actually....you can't.
Because of the wording on it, you have to activate it on the artifact pile and then move it to the High Priest.
rust me, I know...I tried this in my T2 deck but was told I couldn't (not only that, but if you do put it on the priest, the next turn, you have to deactivate it in your artifact pile).
-
Actually....you can't.
Because of the wording on it, you have to activate it on the artifact pile and then move it to the High Priest.
rust me, I know...I tried this in my T2 deck but was told I couldn't (not only that, but if you do put it on the priest, the next turn, you have to deactivate it in your artifact pile).
Ok, now I am confused...
-
Here's the tread with the ruling. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19710.0)
-
Here's the tread with the ruling. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19710.0)
Ok that clears it up a little...but if there is no advantage to it for the activation of other artfiacts, I guess the ability to place it on a high priest is useless...
-
It isn't useless. PB remains active on your High Priest indefinitely..right? Then you could activate a different artifact next turn.
-
It isn't useless. PB remains active on your High Priest indefinitely..right? Then you could activate a different artifact next turn.
Not according to the thread linked to above. I'm not sure if it is the correct ruling since a PTB didn't get involved, but if it's right, then PB is close to useless.
-
Yeah, I was aware of SirNobody saying that arts are active for one round, but I guess I was hoping that PB would somehow still work. Oh well. I guess we'll put on the shelf next to Split Altar. ;)
-
Sir Nobody is not official, and tons of objections have been brought up to how he describes Arts working. I forget what it is now, but there was one example that showed he was just plain wrong. But the PTB have still not actually ruled one way or the other.
-
Wait a minute... so if SirNobody is correct... you can't activate another artifact the same turn you placed it on your priest, and, next turn, you have to reactivate it because it doesn't stay on your priest? Lame...
-
Sir Nobody is as official as they come without being named Rob or Bryon.
He's a playtester, high-level tournament host, writer of the new REG, and moderator of this section.
-
He's less official than Schaef, Rob, Bryon, and Gabe. Last I checked, he doesn't have rubber-stamp authority and I hope he never gets it on account of how often he's wrong.
-
He's more official than you. And as of the current moment he's more official than Gabe. I won't argue Scheaf though. And no he doesn't have rubber-stamp, but until one of the other big guys says contrary to him his ruling should be considered official.
-
I do not agree and will not do so. He's been wrong as often as right, even if he is more official than me (for some reason).
-
You're saying that your word should be considered more official than Tim's? Last time I checked you weren't a playtester, writer of the new REG, or the moderator of this board.
-
I'm not saying I should be more official than Nobody. I'm saying neither of us are official. There's rubber stamp and then there's opinion, no shades of gray in between.
-
Tim is wrong there if an Artifact is active it re-actavates evey round with turning face up or down so i can re-flip a new art but if that's not the case then i'v been doing it wrong for years.
-
...high-level tournament host...
...come again? ???
-
He's hosted multiple state tournaments. He's also judged at nationals.
-
Hosting state is high-level now? Shoot, I should put in a bid for Arkansas next year so I can be official like Nobody.
-
I think thats a wonderful idea, It would be nice to see Arkansas on the map. And in my mind, State is high-level. We only have 5 levels..... So it's right in the middle, and you can only have one per state. So its more restricted then local's and districs.
-
yeah, thats pretty subjective. i really wouldnt consider states high-level...especially nebraska state. :P
if we're ranking the caliber of tournaments, states is average if anything...middle of the road.
-
Fair enough. Even if we remove that he is still more official than anyone else except Bryon/Rob/Schaef, and I'll add Mike Berkenpas to that list.
-
There's only official and not official. He is of the latter variety.
-
Ok, guys! Hold on. I know you are argueing over who's word can verified as a rule, but that still leaves my question lingering in the air...
-
Right now, under the current rules you cannot have PB activated on a priest with another on the pile.
-
i find maly sound enough to officially rule. after all, as rdt stated, he is a playtester, moderater of this forum, writer of the new reg, and pretty much a walking REG. thats really enough credentials in my book.
although, i do understand polarius side...maly is sometimes wrong, and sometimes i feel he could be a bit bias when he makes rulings from the new reg. i do so hate to see him refer to something that we have no hard copy of yet. :)
-
[Tim Maly] is still more official than anyone else except Bryon/Rob/Schaef, and I'll add Mike Berkenpas to that list.
I agree with RDT. When I look at rulings by people over the last several years on this forum, this is my observation:
Rob - right 100% of the time in controversies
Bryon - right 99% of the time in controversies
Berkenpas - right 99% of the time in controversies
Schaef - right 90% of the time in controversies
Maly - right 80% of the time in controversies
All of these percentages are higher than other members of the board, and any ruling by any one of these 5 people should be considered official unless someone above them contradicts. Because this ruling goes against the status quo for Priestly Breastplate ever since it came out, I wouldn't be surprised if a host ruled it differently. But unless someone higher than Tim contradicts Tim, I think his ruling should be taken as official.
-
He's more official than you. And as of the current moment he's more official than Gabe. I won't argue Scheaf though. And no he doesn't have rubber-stamp, but until one of the other big guys says contrary to him his ruling should be considered official.
Or the rules say he is wrong, or general opinion says hes wrong, or one random person does ;) thats just how these boards work
I agree with Pol, Maly is not official, though he is right 65% of the time, he is wrong as well pretty often (I only say this because I have been on both sides of those arguments in being wrong and right) and in so shouldn't be considered as "Oh, Maly posted it must be right". He is VERY good at rulings but maybe its just because of the amount of arguments we've clashed in but I don't consider him official. Its all a matter of opinion though.
-
See, I think the fact that there is argument over whether he is official is a good indicator that he is not. Nobody contests Schaef, Rob, Bryon, or Berkenpas.
-
That's false.
We contest Schaef all the time, Berkenpas so rarely posts that its hard to contest him. Bryon usually stands with Tim, and gets contested on a mildly frequent basis. Rob is the only person that no one actually contests.
-
i contest rob!!!1!!!!!1111!!1!!!1! :)
-
You would.
I'm calling Schaef for a banhammer.
-
Nobody contests that they are official when they make a rubber stamp. However, they tend to not rubber stamp anything until there is a consensus reached. I think that's the #1 reason Malay is a tier below. He does not state his opinion on the issue, let the argument play out, consult the "other" official people, and then make a ruling. He just makes a ruling based on his own understanding and reading of the situation, then half the time it's overturned in the same thread. That's really the big reason I don't consider him official, because he states his opinion as fact.
-
that is eerily true, now that i think about it.
i think there should be a system where at least 2 or more ptb weigh in on the issue, consult each other, reach a decision, then officially rubber stamp it. that would make things simpler.
-
Bryon tends to state his opinions as fact also.
Also keep in mind that there is a whole side-board for the playtesters. For all we know Tim could just be the fall guy.
-
Back to the original discussion, I don't see why placing for artifacts should be any different than any other card, it stays there until its removed by an effect, the only issue with PB is that you couldn't deactivate it. As far as I know this (I think logical and consistent) ruling would only affect the one card (at the moment)
-
Here's the logic behind the ruling:
The rules state that during your preperation phase you can activate one artifact.
They also state that activations last for a round, at which point you must either choose to re-activate the same artifact, or activate a different one.
These rules are of course, overridable with a special abilty, ala Solomon's Temple.
Priestly Breastplate's special ability does not account for any type of 'extra' or 'special' activation, it simply defines an alternative location for it to be placed, It needs to be activated first in order to be moved. Place and Holds are two different abilities.
This is the reason that Solomon's Temple, High Priests Palace, Simon of Cyrene, etc. allow for the second activation of an artifact, because they specifically say to activate the artifact on them, thus overriding the one per turn ruling.
The only card that is a mild contradiction, creating confusion here is Magic Charms. The reason that Magic Charms and Priestly Breastplate are differnt is because Charms has a 'Holds' identifier, while Breastplate has a 'Place' Ability.
In response to ChristianSoldier - Cards stay until removed by effect, or game rule. game rule is that all artifacts deactivate, or get reactivated (thus using the single activation).
-
hey,
I recognize the limitations of a volunteer-based system (Rob is the only one "paid" to make rulings), but I have been curious for a while as to why we haven't implemented some sort of official panel with a structured way of making rulings. Even early on in the game, I was asking "how will the judge rule it at nationals", and it seems it hasn't gotten beyond a game of "who's more official?" as evidenced in this thread. In fact, everyone but Rob is second-guessed and I'm not sure it should be left at this - rather, I think it can and should be improved. Is there some way we could open a discussion on the best way of doing this?
L8er,
Gil
-
You guys forgot Eric Largent. In your list he is more offical than shceaf.
-
You guys forgot Eric Largent. In your list he is more offical than shceaf.
Not at all. Schaef is the visible manifestation of the PTB on the boards. That alone makes him more official than Largent. Largent is on Maly's tier, but below Tim. The problem is we can't decide where that is.
-
Largent has been playtesting sence womens that makes him above Maly even if he never posts.
-
Largent has been playtesting sence womens that makes him above Maly even if he never posts.
No, it doesn't. I respect Mr. Largent very much but he is a playtester, not a ruling official.
-
There's a diffence?
-
Yes. A playtester helps make the cards. Someone who is considered an "Official" in the ruling section has a bit of weight to their opinion because they have proved (On many occasions) that they get ruling questions right.
-
Dear Playtesters,
Please give us an errata to make us useful. :'(
Love,
Priestly Breastplate
and Split Alter
-
In response to ChristianSoldier - Cards stay until removed by effect, or game rule. game rule is that all artifacts deactivate, or get reactivated (thus using the single activation).
Enhancements normally get discarded after battle and "place" overrules that, why not the same thing for artifacts?
And I think "Hold" and "Place" are different and Magic Charms says "May be activated on your Magician" which is different than "May be placed on a good High Priest when activated."
-
Dear Playtesters,
Please give us an errata to make us useful. :'(
Love,
Priestly Breastplate
and Split Alter
I'm sorry that card was not worded correctly.
I appreciate Bryon's apology here, and encourage everyone to stop being upset about Split Altar. Yes it was a mistake, but they have admitted it and apologized. There is no reason to keep bringing it up. Let's just move on.
-
I'm just worried that people not on the boards will come to some high level tournament and get this ruling pulled on them. They will be COMPLETELY miffed b/c the spirit of the card seems like it would let you have another art up.
-
So, I am just wondering if it would be possible to modify the rule somewhat, to make it more consistent with how people have always played it?
So the current rule is:
Each turn, with all active artifacts, you have to deactivate the current artifact in that location, and either
a) Activate a new one, or leave none active in that location
b) Reactivate the same artifact in that location (if allowed by the SA of that location or the location is the Art pile).
What if we added:
c) Keep that artifact active in that location.
That way, Artifacts that say "On activation, do X" can be done every turn using option b). Artifacts that have ongoing abilities, like Priestly Breastplate, can be kept where they are using option c).
This way, there's no errata, there's just a slight rule change that reflects how most people think of the rules regarding artifacts anyway.
Next, maybe we can get errata for Split Altar. That was a huge mistake by the playtesters, and they should apologize for it. It's really inexcusable. ;)
-
I agree with the other Prof on this one. ;D I think that'd make an amazing rule! Honestly I don't see a downside.
-
Wow, I never thought a simple question on the boards would bring up such debates, Lol ;)
-
So let me get this straight...
According to the current rule, every time my turn comes up in a game, all my artifacts are deactived? even ones in a temple?
-
Yes. But they can be immediately reactivated if you choose. So there really is no window of time when they are deactivated, but the rule allows you to use cards like I am Holy (which says on activation) every turn, instead of deactivating it on one turn, and reactivating it the next turn to use it again.
My amendment would simply allow you to keep an Artifact activated at all times if you choose, so that Priestly Breastplate could be used as intended.
-
My amendment would simply allow you to keep an Artifact activated at all times if you choose, so that Priestly Breastplate could be used as intended.
Until this question was asked, I just assumed this was an option. This would be cool, because you could keep limited use artifacts active without them counting as a use. We could also then redefine "use" to make Assyria's Tribute cool like it should be. Cool...
-
Each turn, with all active artifacts, you have to deactivate the current artifact in that location, and either
a) Activate a new one, or leave none active in that location
b) Reactivate the same artifact in that location (if allowed by the SA of that location or the location is the Art pile).
What if we added:
c) Keep that artifact active in that location.
Until a few days ago, that's how I thought it worked anyway...So that sounds great to me. ;)
-
Dear Playtesters,
Please give us an errata to make us useful. :'(
Love,
Priestly Breastplate
and Split Alter
I'm sorry that card was not worded correctly.
I appreciate Bryon's apology here, and encourage everyone to stop being upset about Split Altar. Yes it was a mistake, but they have admitted it and apologized. There is no reason to keep bringing it up. Let's just move on.
I appreciate the apology as well, even though I don't think it's necessary. I think playtesters do an awesome job considering they aren't even paid for it. I expect mistakes in games since that's just the way it is. I honestly don't mind it when cards are given errata/play as, if it actually makes them worthwhile to use, as in these 2 cases. I understand the other position of wanting the cards to play as they read. That is ideal, especially when trying to teach the game to my kids. But the cat's outta the bag.
We do have an errata/play as list, so why not add these 2 cards to it? Split altar and Priestly breastplate asked me again about it last nite. (athough it was kinda muffled because they were in card protectors.) :laugh:
Anyways, My sons are used to me saying, "yea, I know it doesn't say that in the card, but that's how we play it." :D
PS
I wasn't upset about split altar. Split altar was upset about it. :P
-
I think it's silly that a card that targets opponent's artifacts in general do not target artifact piles, because you know that all the cards in your opponent's artifact pile are artifacts (unless he is cheating). I don't think face-down cards should be considered out of play; it doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, obviously you shouldn't be able to target a card for characteristics which you are not sure it has, but you should be able to target it for those you are. For example, if a card says "Discard a male hero," you should be able to discard an Ambush (http://redemptionreg.com/REG/ambush.htm)'d hero, but if it says "Discard a red hero," obviously, you should not. :2cents:
-
Each turn, with all active artifacts, you have to deactivate the current artifact in that location, and either
a) Activate a new one, or leave none active in that location
b) Reactivate the same artifact in that location (if allowed by the SA of that location or the location is the Art pile).
What if we added:
c) Keep that artifact active in that location.
Until a few days ago, that's how I thought it worked anyway...So that sounds great to me. ;)
Same here. I played by keeping them active until I deactivated them. So I totally support Amendment AA (Artifact Activation, Lol ;))
-
I think it's silly that a card that targets opponent's artifacts in general do not target artifact piles, because you know that all the cards in your opponent's artifact pile are artifacts (unless he is cheating).
But are curses in the artifact pile renamed as artifacts?
-
I think it's silly that a card that targets opponent's artifacts in general do not target artifact piles, because you know that all the cards in your opponent's artifact pile are artifacts (unless he is cheating).
But are curses in the artifact pile renamed as artifacts?
Yes. When they are on the Artifact pile, they can be targeted by any card that targets artifacts, as well as any card that targets Curses. So you can use DoN on a curse, and you can also use Phinehas' Spear. However, they CANNOT be targeted as enhancements when they are activated on your artifact pile, nor targeted as artifacts when they are used in battle. They can always be targeted as Curses however.
-
would a solution to being activaited every turn be this?
every turn to keep an artifact active you would have to pay an upkeep price. That price is one counter. A card that has no limit on usage(infinate usage), would not be effected but it would allow them to be kept active indefinaitley on a hero or on what ever. A 2 ussage art afact would only be allowed to 2 counters before discarded.
For all practical purposes there would be no need to put counters on the artifacts but it allows an explination that allows the change without changing limit use artficats.
-
I think it's silly that a card that targets opponent's artifacts in general do not target artifact piles, because you know that all the cards in your opponent's artifact pile are artifacts (unless he is cheating).
But are curses in the artifact pile renamed as artifacts?
Yes. When they are on the Artifact pile, they can be targeted by any card that targets artifacts, as well as any card that targets Curses. So you can use DoN on a curse, and you can also use Phinehas' Spear. However, they CANNOT be targeted as enhancements when they are activated on your artifact pile, nor targeted as artifacts when they are used in battle. They can always be targeted as Curses however.
Thanks for clearing that up =)
-
would a solution to being activaited every turn be this?
every turn to keep an artifact active you would have to pay an upkeep price. That price is one counter. A card that has no limit on usage(infinate usage), would not be effected but it would allow them to be kept active indefinaitley on a hero or on what ever. A 2 ussage art afact would only be allowed to 2 counters before discarded.
For all practical purposes there would be no need to put counters on the artifacts but it allows an explination that allows the change without changing limit use artficats.
I don't understand what the proposal is...
-
Btw, how is a rule amended?
Since I hope for Amendment AA to go through, Lol ;)