Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: spicynumber1 on July 23, 2011, 11:32:28 PM
-
1.) Does satan's seat negate all protect abilities on opponent's heroes all the time or only when they are rescuing against the site. It was ruled you must rescue against the site for the protect ability to kick in(much to my dismay), Is this true and if so, why?
1a.) If your opponent rescues the first half of the 2 liner, does Satan's seat still discard the hero's?
Satan's Seat (FF)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes. If a Hero rescues a Lost Soul from that Site, discard that Hero. • Play As: Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes. Discard all Heroes that rescue a Lost Soul from that Site. • Identifiers: Play to territory. • Verse: Revelation 2:13 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)
2.) If you have high priests palace in territory with a couple Sadducee's (1/3) and your opponent activates crown of thorns, do you sadducee's live in territory as 1/0's?
3.) Opponent rescues with Thaddeus and has 10 disciples in play, you block with a 9/9. Can you play enhancements to make your evil character bigger then Thaddeus or is the evil character not allowed to have evil enhancements played due the protect of Thad?
Thaddeus (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 8 / 8 • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect all cards in play, set-aside area, Artifact piles, hands, and decks from Evil Characters with toughness X or less. Cannot be interrupted. • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Disciple • Verse: Matthew 10:2-3 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
-
Satan's Seat negates anything anywhere regardless of what site it is on and the status of that site in relevance to that battle.
Saducees live through Crown of Thorns because HPP says Discard. Discard was ruled to cover by game rule (decreasing below 0) or ability ( eg AOCP). Protection from discard abilities would only cover AOCP, etc.
You can play enhancements for numbers against Thad, they just can not effect anything he is protecting.
-
1a.) I think yes.
Sidenote: Is SS an ongoing ability?
-
1.) Does satan's seat negate all protect abilities on opponent's heroes all the time or only when they are rescuing against the site. It was ruled you must rescue against the site for the protect ability to kick in(much to my dismay), Is this true and if so, why?
No it is not, SS's ability says place on a site to negate all protect abilities. as soon as you place it on a site it continuously negates all protect abilities whether they RA at that site or not. The ruling was wrong.
1a.) If your opponent rescues the first half of the 2 liner, does Satan's seat still discard the hero's? No, the LS says it must be rescued twice to count. A half rescue is not a full rescue because the card must be rescued twice in order for the first rescue to qualify as a true Rescue
Satan's Seat (FF)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes. If a Hero rescues a Lost Soul from that Site, discard that Hero. • Play As: Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes. Discard all Heroes that rescue a Lost Soul from that Site. • Identifiers: Play to territory. • Verse: Revelation 2:13 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)
2.) If you have high priests palace in territory with a couple Sadducee's (1/3) and your opponent activates crown of thorns, do you sadducee's live in territory as 1/0's? Yes
3.) Opponent rescues with Thaddeus and has 10 disciples in play, you block with a 9/9. Can you play enhancements to make your evil character bigger then Thaddeus or is the evil character not allowed to have evil enhancements played due the protect of Thad?Currently, in that situation, Thad protects all heroes from the 9/9 EC's SA and any enhancements played on him. The number abilities of the cards do not count toward the overall #'s of the EC so they would not change the protect status of Thads SA.
Thaddeus (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 8 / 8 • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect all cards in play, set-aside area, Artifact piles, hands, and decks from Evil Characters with toughness X or less. Cannot be interrupted. • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Disciple • Verse: Matthew 10:2-3 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
-
Satan's Seat negates anything anywhere regardless of what site it is on and the status of that site in relevance to that battle.
It seemed pretty clear to me that is what is suppose to happen but what do you do when the two of the very experienced players disagree?
I was arguing that since it was saying do X to do Y, once satan's seat was placed on a single color site it did negate all protect abilities on opponent's heroes immediately.
I would like an elder or REP to step in and give me their two cents about these questions. I lost the match due the ruling about satan's seat.
Many lost souls were surrendered due to Thad rescuing at different sites other then Satan's seat and having to deal with a Thad who was protecting from basically everyone.
Sigh :/
-
Satan's Seat negates anything anywhere regardless of what site it is on and the status of that site in relevance to that battle.
It seemed pretty clear to me that is what is suppose to happen but what do you do when the two of the very experienced players disagree?
I was arguing that since it was saying do X to do Y, once satan's seat was placed on a single color site it did negate all protect abilities on opponent's heroes immediately.
I would like an elder or REP to step in and give me their two cents about these questions. I lost the match due the ruling about satan's seat.
I also would like Elder input, since I was the one who made the ruling.
Satan's Seat says "opponent's" which has always been ruled as the person attacking you. It would have to say "opponents' " for it to be all inclusive.
-
1a.) I think yes.
Sidenote: Is SS an ongoing ability?
Yes*.
*If you are referring to the negate clause.
It seemed pretty clear to me that is what is suppose to happen but what do you do when the two of the very experienced players disagree?
You go with the judge, even if he's wrong. I've gotten ruled against when I could have told you all kinds of stuff about the exact thread that ruled on the topic. It doesn't matter. The judge is judge. If that's what they rule, that's what they rule.
I would like an elder or REP to step in and give me their two cents about these questions. I lost the match due the ruling about satan's seat.
I'm sorry you lost because of that. But, currently there's 3 regionals placers/champs in this thread all saying that same thing, so you can safely think that this ruling on SS is correct at the current status quo. I know YMT is your judge, so I know that he did what he thought was best and tried to rule as fairly as possible. I would chalk it up to bad luck (if you are a luck person) or providence (if you are not a luck person).
Satan's Seat says "opponent's" which has always been ruled as the person attacking you. It would have to say "opponents' " for it to be all inclusive.
Right. That would mean in MP, it's only active while you are being attacked by someone. However, in two player (which is what I assume we are talking about), it would always be active because there is always an opponent. Even were I to be wrong on this point (which I may be), it's really irrelevant, because the minute you are in battle with the other player, you have an opponent, and protection is getting negated. SS is not tied to the site it's on; I'm curious why you thought it was. Is there a similar situation you were thinking of at the time or a ruling from the past that came to mind?
-
Right. That would mean in MP, it's only active while you are being attacked by someone.
That is the ruling that I made. Perhaps spicy was talking about something else that I was not a part of, but since he said "two" of us, I thought that what he was talking about the ruling that I had made.
SS is not tied to the site it's on; I'm curious why you thought it was.
The discard would be tied to the site, though, wouldn't it? You would have to have access to that site in order to make a rescue at the site.
-
Right. That would mean in MP, it's only active while you are being attacked by someone.
That is the ruling that I made. Perhaps spicy was talking about something else that I was not a part of, but since he said "two" of us, I thought that what he was talking about the ruling that I had made.
I was under the impression this was about two player. If we are talking about MP, then you would definately be correct in saying that when players A and B battle, player C and his SS don't do anything.
SS is not tied to the site it's on; I'm curious why you thought it was.
The discard would be tied to the site, though, wouldn't it? You would have to have access to that site in order to make a rescue at the site.
Is this question about the discard? Again, I was under the impression it was about the negate. The discard is pretty clearly tied to the site. It says so on the card.
-
The ruling that I made was in a multiplayer game.
-
The ruling that I made was in a multiplayer game.
The question that I asked was during the finals of t1 2p, when my opponent claimed (who was also the judge/host) said that satans seat negate ability was only active when rescuing against that particular site. My recolection was ymt confirmed this as well.
The multiplayer question was also about the negate ability working against all opponents not just the player who was rescueing from the site. I did agree with ymt on this ruling but it is a seperate issue.
-
If for some reason the judge was playing in the category he was judging, that's a HUGE misconduct in the first place. Furthermore, if he used a ruling to beat you in the game for 1st place, that may be a major and blatant enough breech of the tournament rules that you could get the win transferred to you.
-
The question that I asked was during the finals of t1 2p, when my opponent claimed (who was also the judge/host) said that satans seat negate ability was only active when rescuing against that particular site. My recolection was ymt confirmed this as well.
I did not confirm that ruling. Granted I have a horrible memory, but I think I would have remembered that, especially with first place on the line. Are you sure it was not someone else like Josh or Marcus?
-
Satan's Seat negates anything anywhere regardless of what site it is on and the status of that site in relevance to that battle.
It seemed pretty clear to me that is what is suppose to happen but what do you do when the two of the very experienced players disagree?
I was arguing that since it was saying do X to do Y, once satan's seat was placed on a single color site it did negate all protect abilities on opponent's heroes immediately.
I would like an elder or REP to step in and give me their two cents about these questions. I lost the match due the ruling about satan's seat.
I also would like Elder input, since I was the one who made the ruling.
Satan's Seat says "opponent's" which has always been ruled as the person attacking you. It would have to say "opponents' " for it to be all inclusive.
My bad, I assumed that this was in a 2 player game. If it is in a multi-player game, then it would only effect the person attacking you, but they don't necessarily have to have access to that site to fall victim to the negating protection part on heroes, They just have to have access to fall victim to the discard clause. They just have to be attacking you to be your opponent. I also rescind my ongoing ability part. I think it has to reactivate when it is triggered by the beginning of a battle where you are being attacked for the negating of protection to happen.
-
If it has to reactivate for every battle, then does it actually stop Thad at all, since Thad is CBI?
-
The question that I asked was during the finals of t1 2p, when my opponent claimed (who was also the judge/host) said that satans seat negate ability was only active when rescuing against that particular site. My recolection was ymt confirmed this as well.
I did not confirm that ruling. Granted I have a horrible memory, but I think I would have remembered that, especially with first place on the line. Are you sure it was not someone else like Josh or Marcus?
I remember YMT telling me that Satan's seat did not activate either the discard or negate abilitiy unless the opponent had access to the site. This was during the MP game and my opponent (host/judge) agreed. We carried this ruling into t1 2p. YMT claimed due to how opponent's was spelled on satan's seat (as he claimed earlier in the thread) it meant Satan's seat ability
(Negate and discard) didn't activate unless the player had access to the site. I accepted the ruling as both the judge/host and separate judge we in agreement. Either way, the judge who was my opponent claimed this was the ruling and it was final. I disagreed but accepted the ruling since he was the judge. I only referred ruling questions to YMT and RTSmaniac.
-
My bad, I assumed that this was in a 2 player game. If it is in a multi-player game, then it would only effect the person attacking you, but they don't necessarily have to have access to that site to fall victim to the negating protection part on heroes, They just have to have access to fall victim to the discard clause. They just have to be attacking you to be your opponent. I also rescind my ongoing ability part. I think it has to reactivate when it is triggered by the beginning of a battle where you are being attacked for the negating of protection to happen.
This was a 2p game. I don't know how people are confusing this with MP. The ruling was carried into t1 2p and had a strong effect on the outcome of the finals.
-
If it has to reactivate for every battle, then does it actually stop Thad at all, since Thad is CBI?
However, in two player (which is what I assume we are talking about), it would always be active because there is always an opponent.
-
It's always active in both types. The target just changes dynamically.
-
I think the issue here is RTS and YMT must have seen SS as having one ability rather than two.
-
This was a 2p game. I don't know how people are confusing this with MP. The ruling was carried into t1 2p and had a strong effect on the outcome of the finals.
This was a ruling that evidently BEGAN in multi and was carried over into 2 player. Regardless of WHERE the ruling happened I would have dissagreed with the provision that the person had to have access to the site for the protect ability to work
Of the 2 parts of the SA only one requires access to the site. Here is the play as broken up into its two separate parts. The first does not require the hero to have access, the second ability does require the hero to have acess. THey both operate independently and have different triggers as far as I can tell.
Satan's Seat (FF)
1. Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent’s Heroes.
2. Discard all Heroes that rescue a Lost Soul from that Site.
It may be that the ruling was being cocnfused, thinking that the limiting factor of the second also applied to the first, which I cant see how it does based on the wording.
-
The issue here is a misunderstanding of my original ruling. The ruling I made in the multiplayer game was the scenario mentioned earlier by Alex:
When Player A is attacking Player B, Player C's Satan's Seat has no affect on Player A's hero.
That was it. That was my ruling. In the ensuing revelation, I mentioned that the discard could only happen if the hero had access to the site.
The next day, during T1-2P, there was an apparent misinterpretation of my ruling. I never said that the negate required access to the site, because I know that is not true. I was never called over to the table to make or confirm a ruling during the final game between RTS and spicy. For the most part, I spend my time making basic rulings with the plethora of younger players, rather than between experienced players. This appears to be a case where I was not called over for a ruling question, since there was an assumption that my ruling from the multiplayer game somehow carried over to the two-player game.
-
The issue here is a misunderstanding of my original ruling.
This is only part of the issue. The other part, the more important part, was my opponent who is also the judge and host of the event made a ruling in the finals that apparently is not correct which contributed heavily to result of the tournament.
-
The issue here is a misunderstanding of my original ruling.
This is only part of the issue. The other part, the more important part, was my opponent who is also the judge and host of the event made a ruling in the finals that apparently is not correct which contributed heavily to result of the tournament.
I'm not going to disagree with you there, but I wanted all the facts to be known before any overarching decision is to be made.
-
The issue here is a misunderstanding of my original ruling.
This is only part of the issue. The other part, the more important part, was my opponent who is also the judge and host of the event made a ruling in the finals that apparently is not correct which contributed heavily to result of the tournament.
I disagree. RTS was not the judge based upon what YMT was said. He was a co-host and could judge categories that he did not play in, but it sounds like YMT was the main judge, which is how it should have been. It seems like you just didn't call him. Obviously I wasn't there, but I think this is a case of you not calling the ruling authority for teh game in question. It would be akin to playing an elder at Nats and not calling another elder to confirm a ruling just because the elder you are playing made a ruling. You should always second guess it if you aren't sure.
EDIT: Well, YMT didn't contradict, but I think my main point is still somewhat valid.
-
Anyone playing in a category isn't allowed to make ruling decisions for their games. They may have been the host, or a judge for other categories, but if you doubt something they say it's your job to call over someone who is actively judging for that category.
-instaposted by alex-
-
The issue here is a misunderstanding of my original ruling.
This is only part of the issue. The other part, the more important part, was my opponent who is also the judge and host of the event made a ruling in the finals that apparently is not correct which contributed heavily to result of the tournament.
I disagree. RTS was not the judge based upon what YMT was said. He was a co-host and could judge categories that he did not play in, but it sounds like YMT was the main judge, which is how it should have been. It seems like you just didn't call him. Obviously I wasn't there, but I think this is a case of you not calling the ruling authority for teh game in question. It would be akin to playing an elder at Nats and not calling another elder to confirm a ruling just because the elder you are playing made a ruling. You should always second guess it if you aren't sure.
EDIT: Well, YMT didn't contradict, but I think my main point is still somewhat valid.
First of all there was no "clear judge". If I or members from my playgroup had questions would normally ask YMT. When the event started, I overheard YMT thanking RTSmaniac for hosting the event and I interpreted that to mean he had the final ruling on questions. Therefore I accepted RTSmaniac's rulings as the final ruling. I don't see how involving YMT could override the host?
-
I am sorry to say then you had a flawed view of how the system works.
Hosts can play in categories, but they can not judge them - this situation shows why; if RTS was the final verdict, obviously he will want to side with himself if possible. That's why there is an outside judge - in this case YMT - if a host is playing in a category. Because you have most likely never experienced this before (except perhaps in your local playgroup where you guys just figure it out together or whatever), you probably interpreted the host as the judge, and have never seen a host play, because in my understanding YMT graciously hosts and judges but does not participate.
So, basically, yeah, you got cheated, but it was your fault, and unfortunately an argument of ignorance about the rules doesn't work in this situation. Sorry. :-\
-
Therefore I accepted RTSmaniac's rulings as the final ruling. I don't see how involving YMT could override the host?
Well, this was your first major Redemption tournament, so your assumptions are logical. Basically, RTS would have had to accept my ruling whether he agreed with it or not. He cannot make a binding ruling in a game he is playing. That is our system of "checks and balances."
I wish things could have played out differently, but unfortunately they did not. The only remaining question is what happens next. That is a decision only for Elders, so further discussion would be unproductive.
-
Because you have most likely never experienced this before (except perhaps in your local playgroup where you guys just figure it out together or whatever), you probably interpreted the host as the judge, and have never seen a host play, because in my understanding YMT graciously hosts and judges but does not participate.
I actually got to play this time. ;D
This was the first tournament that I played in since 2008.
-
Because you have most likely never experienced this before (except perhaps in your local playgroup where you guys just figure it out together or whatever), you probably interpreted the host as the judge, and have never seen a host play, because in my understanding YMT graciously hosts and judges but does not participate.
I actually got to play this time. ;D
This was the first tournament that I played in since 2008.
And I missed it...!! *Mumbles something about the government making him miss out on so much fun*
Carry On,
-C_S
-
I am sorry to say then you had a flawed view of how the system works.
So, basically, yeah, you got cheated, but it was your fault, and unfortunately an argument of ignorance about the rules doesn't work in this situation. Sorry. :-\
I don't think I got cheated Alex, I had a great time and who could ask for more?
So what If I didn't win and maybe I should have, as you said its my fault and therefore I was not cheated making my loss much easier to accept.
unfortunately an argument of ignorance about the rules doesn't work in this situation. Sorry. :-\
I'm not trying to get change the outcome of the tournament as far as I'm concerned you're right that I'm not aware of the all rules (obviously). It's just a bit frustrating when you have to find out the way I did. YMT is a great tournament host and I would recommend him to anyone. RTSmaniac is a great funny guy and dang good opponent (mental tricks included haha).
-
And I missed it...!!
You didn't miss much. ;)
I had expanded my 56-card deck to a 70-card deck to play some games against my playgroup in advance of the tournament. I was not sure I was going to get to play this time, so I shelved the deck still at 70. When I found out that I would be able to play, I just grabbed the deck and went with it. I was wondering why I wasn't getting my cards as quickly as I usually did. ;D
But it was fun anyway, which is the main goal for me. There were times that I didn't play Falling Away when I could have, since the younger players are so excited about even winning one lost soul in a major tournament. But I was actually very pleased to see my players hold their own against tough decks. I was hoping they would not suffer from a string of 5-0's.
With that said, though, I must admit that I was thoroughly trounced by Rob Anderson's daughter in Booster Draft. She drafted Terrifying Beast, Emperor Nero, and Emperor Claudius. That was just wrong. ;)
-
Yeah, cheated probably wasn't a good word choice, I just didn't really have a better one at the time.
-
if RTS was the final verdict, obviously he will want to side with himself if possible.
Not true. I have always stated that I would rather play by the rules than win. There was another question that came up in one of our many faced games where i attacked with Susanna and he blocks with Archer shooting my Gabriel (in territory). I play He is Risen to interrupt the archers ability and band in Gabe. It was ruled that Archers ability couldnt be interrupted in this scenerio and Gabe was dead. I didnt argue with the ruling because I believe in the rules more than winning.
I remember the ruling on the multiplayer game and agreed with it b/c of the wording on Satans Seat saying opponent's- not opponents'.
I do not remember any other questions concerning Satan's Seat.
-
(mental tricks included haha).
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FJames%2C%2520Son%2520of%2520Alphaeus%2520%28Di%29.gif&hash=a511d8666016e6af27d7bca3e34432ae2cb2fbd1)
You Will Go To NATS! You Will Beat Gabe!
-
There was another question that came up in one of our many faced games where i attacked with Susanna and he blocks with Archer shooting my Gabriel (in territory). I play He is Risen to interrupt the archers ability and band in Gabe. It was ruled that Archers ability couldnt be interrupted in this scenerio and Gabe was dead.
Can an elder confirm or deny this ruling, please? If I was mistaken I would like to know for future reference. My understanding was that "Interrupt the Battle" only interrupts (1) the removal of the hero(es) in battle (if they get initiative), (2) any ongoing abilities, and (3) the last enhancement (if played by the opponent). Archer's ability did not meet any of these conditions IMO.
-
...The other part, the more important part, was my opponent who is also the judge and host of the event made a ruling in the finals that apparently is not correct which contributed heavily to result of the tournament.
This is a very strong accusation you're making in a public forum. I hope you are 100% certain that Clift was both playing in and judging the same event.
It's not uncommon for there to be multiple judges at a large tournament. It's not uncommon for a host to judge some events but play in a different event by allowing other people to judge that event. The host would therefore not be the judge during the event they play in.
I would assume that is what happened for T1-2P. If you feel strongly that is not what happened then I suggest you contact Cactus Games to report the problem. Complaining about it publicly makes it look as if you're a poor loser and slandering your opponent.
There was another question that came up in one of our many faced games where i attacked with Susanna and he blocks with Archer shooting my Gabriel (in territory). I play He is Risen to interrupt the archers ability and band in Gabe. It was ruled that Archers ability couldnt be interrupted in this scenerio and Gabe was dead.
Can an elder confirm or deny this ruling, please? If I was mistaken I would like to know for future reference. My understanding was that "Interrupt the Battle" only interrupts (1) the removal of the hero(es) in battle (if they get initiative), (2) any ongoing abilities, and (3) the last enhancement (if played by the opponent). Archer's ability did not meet any of these conditions IMO.
The archer's discard of Gabriel would not be interrupted by 'He is Risen' because it's a completed instant ability that is not removing a character from battle or causing a losing situation in battle.
-
...The other part, the more important part, was my opponent who is also the judge and host of the event made a ruling in the finals that apparently is not correct which contributed heavily to result of the tournament.
This is a very strong accusation you're making in a public forum. I hope you are 100% certain that Clift was both playing in and judging the same event.
As I've stated previously(which you must have skipped?), I was under the impression that hosts have the final ruling. You know I didn't have to post this question and just accepted what is now proven to be inaccurate. I posted this not just for myself but for my playgroup who are going to nat's and need to know as many of the rules as possible.
Complaining about it publicly makes it look as if you're a poor loser and slandering your opponent.
Gabe, please read my previous posts and you will notice my intentions were purely for clarification purposes.
1.) I'm not looking to change the result of the tournament
2.) I have accepted the loss
3.) I wanted a clarification on what happened (ISN'T THIS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGE BOARDS?)
I have already received apologies from the judge, so obviously there was some justification to what I was saying despite your distant observations.
This is the ruling area of the message boards which would seem to be the appropriate place to ask questions and I will ask any and all questions I have regarding rules and further confirmation.
I can't understand why you would want to discourage me from finding out the rules (especially when I was right).
I don't ever remember complaining just simply asking for rules confirmations and clarifications.
Gabe,
Not everyone is on the boards 24/7 or have been playing since the dinosaurs roamed.
We all haven't had the luxury to be a playtester and have intimate knowledge of the game and tournament rules.
Some of us, need to find out rulings through the message boards (which is about the only way for me to get proper rulings).
-
@RTS: I wasn't accusing you so much as observing human nature.
-
The issue here is a misunderstanding of my original ruling. The ruling I made in the multiplayer game was the scenario mentioned earlier by Alex:
When Player A is attacking Player B, Player C's Satan's Seat has no affect on Player A's hero.
That was it. That was my ruling. In the ensuing revelation, I mentioned that the discard could only happen if the hero had access to the site.
The next day, during T1-2P, there was an apparent misinterpretation of my ruling. I never said that the negate required access to the site, because I know that is not true. I was never called over to the table to make or confirm a ruling during the final game between RTS and spicy. For the most part, I spend my time making basic rulings with the plethora of younger players, rather than between experienced players. This appears to be a case where I was not called over for a ruling question, since there was an assumption that my ruling from the multiplayer game somehow carried over to the two-player game.
Thus the last sentence on my previous post. the more that was revealed, the more it seems that it happened exactly like this. That one ruling was confused with another.
-
OK, I've just read through this whole thread and I call "no foul" here.
YMT made a ruling in a multiplayer game (which was correct), and wasn't consulted later. Therefore, no fault there.
Spicy thought that maniac was the judge because this was his 1st major tournament, and so he accepted his opponent's opinion instead of asking for a ruling. Therefore, no fault there, and lesson learned.
Maniac was playing in a close game and misapplied a ruling from multi-player into a 2-player situation. It was an easy mistake, and Clift has a history of trying to play within the rules. I don't see fault there either, and another lesson learned.
It sounds like all of you had a great tournament (other than YMT getting spanked by young miss Anderson), and everyone is more ready for Nats than they were before. That's what regionals are for :)
-
And I missed it...!!
You didn't miss much. ;)
I had expanded my 56-card deck to a 70-card deck to play some games against my playgroup in advance of the tournament. I was not sure I was going to get to play this time, so I shelved the deck still at 70. When I found out that I would be able to play, I just grabbed the deck and went with it. I was wondering why I wasn't getting my cards as quickly as I usually did. ;D
But it was fun anyway, which is the main goal for me. There were times that I didn't play Falling Away when I could have, since the younger players are so excited about even winning one lost soul in a major tournament. But I was actually very pleased to see my players hold their own against tough decks. I was hoping they would not suffer from a string of 5-0's.
With that said, though, I must admit that I was thoroughly trounced by Rob Anderson's daughter in Booster Draft. She drafted Terrifying Beast, Emperor Nero, and Emperor Claudius. That was just wrong. ;)
Haha, well, just the same, it would have been nice to see you get in on some games after staying out for so long... As for booster draft... that's an insane combination right there!! I feel your pain very much so! Wow, it looks like I surely missed out on some great opportunities, but hey, when duty calls, it's not always at a convenient hour!
Carry On,
-C_S
-
As for booster draft... that's an insane combination right there!! I feel your pain very much so!
To make things worse, she also had Chenaniah and Elhanan. :o
Wow, it looks like I surely missed out on some great opportunities, but hey, when duty calls, it's not always at a convenient hour!
You were missed, but we appreciate your service to our country. If I were in trouble in the ocean or Gulf, then I would have been much happier that you were on duty rather than playing a silly card game. ;D
-
Maniac was playing in a close game and misapplied a ruling from multi-player into a 2-player situation. It was an easy mistake, and Clift has a history of trying to play within the rules. I don't see fault there either, and another lesson learned.
As I said before, I dont remember this coming up in our game. That doesnt mean that it didnt but I dont recall it happening because im sure if i rescued with someone against a Satan's Seat I would have played a MLaMG to get rid of it, as a matter of fact- the only evil fortress I saw was a protect fort that i did promtly discard with MLaMG!
Concerning the judging and playing in the same event, I didnt even realize this was a problem. (I need to read the host guide again)
1. The Judges and Referees
- Each category will be presided over by a judge who may be assisted by any number of referees as needed. A judge may be required to interpret rules and make other determinations during the tournament. Referees will aid a judge by answering rules questions on the floor.
- Judges and referees are not permitted to play in any of the categories that they are officiating.
- A judge and/or referee may compete in a category that they are not officiating, as long as each category has one qualified judge overseeing it who is not playing.
oops! Usually we have smaller turnouts in my area and there usually isnt a problem with the host playing in the tournament. I guess I wont be playing in the future.
-
There was also another question that came up in a different event that I dont remember but I know it was ruled wrong. It was much of the same scenerio where it was ruled by Tim and I said I would go along with the ruling and show the answer later on the boards.
It was in our Type 2 game Spicy vs. me but i dont remember if you could help me out Spicy.
-
oops! Usually we have smaller turnouts in my area and there usually isnt a problem with the host playing in the tournament. I guess I wont be playing in the future.
If you are having a smaller tournament, sometimes it really makes things more fun for everyone if you play. I have heard of cases where a host will actually have a "coin" for a judge in these situations. Basically if a ruling comes up, the most experienced player who is there will tell people what they think the rule is. The players generally accept that as the ruling. However, if either player is unwilling to accept this suggestion, then they flip the coin and let it decide what will happen.
-
There was also another question that came up in a different event that I dont remember but I know it was ruled wrong.
Well, whatever it was, even if I got it wrong...... [insert music] two out of three ain't bad. [/music]
-
As for booster draft... that's an insane combination right there!! I feel your pain very much so!
To make things worse, she also had Chenaniah and Elhanan. :o
Wow, it looks like I surely missed out on some great opportunities, but hey, when duty calls, it's not always at a convenient hour!
You were missed, but we appreciate your service to our country. If I were in trouble in the ocean or Gulf, then I would have been much happier that you were on duty rather than playing a silly card game. ;D
It was rigged I say, RIGGED!!! No, I'm only playing. I've seen some interesting draws in booster draft so I understand! You had no chance it seems!
Well, you might prefer I be on duty, but I... Well, ok, I do like having the opportunity to assist people. :D
Carry On,
-C_S