Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: everytribe on February 27, 2010, 12:10:45 AM
-
In a Multi Player game. Player A attacks with a Provisioned Hero causing player B to defend with a evil character he has nothing to play on. Player C reveals an evil character from The Darkness but also has Wall of Protection up. Can player B use the Evil charactor revealed in The Darkness?
The Darkness
Type: Fortress • Special Ability: Place an Evil Character from hand face down here. If an opponent begins a rescue attempt and chooses a blocker (or is unblocked), you may reveal this evil character. Blocking player may add it to the battle. Otherwise return it face down.
Wall of Protection
Type: Fortress • Special Ability: Place this site in your territory. No character in your territory may be brought into battle by an opponent. • Play As: Place this site in your territory. Characters in your territory are protected from being brought into battle by an opponent.
-
I'll stand by what I said before: I think the character can still be brought into battle, because the ability on The Darkness is not on an opponent's card, and thus no character in your territory is being brought into battle by an opponent.
-
I would say yes but due to the wording on Darkness some one higher up might say else wise.
-
I would say yes but due to the wording on Darkness some one higher up might say else wise.
Anyone might say otherwise, but then they would be dumb. :)
-
I would say no. the Darkness says "Blocking player may add it to battle" and Wall says that "No character in your territory may be brought into battle by your opponent." and if the blocking player is technically your opponent, then he can't bring him in.
-
It seems to me that the choice itself is up to the blocker, but the effect bringing it into battle is on Darkness. As such, I would think that the character could enter that battle.
-
Well, I certainly would not have even thought about my own WoP if I flipped my own character in The Darkness, but I would have to agree with Ring Wraith. The Darkness says "Blocking player may add it to the battle," and WoP says "Characters in your territory are protected from being brought into battle by an opponent." In this case, the blocking player is an opponent (key word "an"), so I would rule that the EC could not be brought in.
-
I would rule the opposite, Your opponent is not bringing them into battle, you are placing them into battle using your abilities. WOP does not stop you from adding EC's to battle.
-
I would rule the opposite, Your opponent is not bringing them into battle, you are placing them into battle using your abilities. WOP does not stop you from adding EC's to battle.
yes, your opponent is the one bringing them in. "Blocking Player may add to battle" thus your opponent is the one who adds it to battle. he is able to add it to battle because of your card, but the blocking player is ultimately the one who chooses to bring it to battle.
-
I would rule that you can use the Darkness to give your EC to an opponent even if you have WoP up. I base this on the first part of YMT's first sentence.
Well, I certainly would not have even thought about my own WoP if I flipped my own character in The Darkness,
This is the first time I have ever heard any question whether or not the Darkness works when you have WoP flipped up, and I have seen this combination used repeatedly in T2-MP. I would hate to see that we have been playing this wrong for years--especially given that if true it makes Darkness virtually useless in T2-MP.
On the other hand, I understand that tradition and personal preference are not the best bases for a ruling.
-
I gotta say since the ability was activated by the owner of wop he is the one who is placing it into battle.
-
Let me put it this way: Would Jerusalem Tower prevent a card that says "opponent must discard the top card of his deck"?
-
The Darkness says "Blocking player may add it to the battle," and WoP says "Characters in your territory are protected from being brought into battle by an opponent." In this case, the blocking player is an opponent (key word "an"), so I would rule that the EC could not be brought in.
YMT is correct.
-
"Protect" does not protect from actions; it protects from abilities. Your opponent is not using an ability to bring your character into battle, you are, because your card is the one being used. The blocker must agree whether to use the ability, but that does not make it his ability.
-
"Protect" does not protect from actions; it protects from abilities. Your opponent is not using an ability to bring your character into battle, you are, because your card is the one being used. The blocker must agree whether to use the ability, but that does not make it his ability.
the blocker is the one using the ability. at least, the second part of it.
-
I'm pretty sure that for Redemption purposes, no one can technically use the ability on an opponent's card. A player can only use his cards, and no one else can use the ability on your cards, no matter how oddly they are worded. I'll bring up my previously completely ignored example once again:
Would Jerusalem Tower prevent a card that says "opponent must discard the top card of his deck"?
-
I'm pretty sure that for Redemption purposes, no one can technically use the ability on an opponent's card. A player can only use his cards, and no one else can use the ability on your cards, no matter how oddly they are worded. I'll bring up my previously completely ignored example once again:
Would Jerusalem Tower prevent a card that says "opponent must discard the top card of his deck"?
The Darkness would be an exception to the rule. it's an allowence, not a force play.
-
I'm pretty sure that for Redemption purposes, no one can technically use the ability on an opponent's card. A player can only use his cards, and no one else can use the ability on your cards, no matter how oddly they are worded. I'll bring up my previously completely ignored example once again:
Would Jerusalem Tower prevent a card that says "opponent must discard the top card of his deck"?
The Darkness would be an exception to the rule. it's an allowence, not a force play.
Would be?
-
I'm pretty sure that for Redemption purposes, no one can technically use the ability on an opponent's card. A player can only use his cards, and no one else can use the ability on your cards, no matter how oddly they are worded.
Cards like Garden Tomb, Asherah Pole, and Golden Calf would indicate otherwise.
I'll bring up my previously completely ignored example once again:
If you want a faster response, then post the abilities.
Would Jerusalem Tower prevent a card that says "opponent must discard the top card of his deck"?
No, it would not. This would be true also for "place" cards that have a similar ability (Pagan Sacrifices, I think).
-
I'm pretty sure that for Redemption purposes, no one can technically use the ability on an opponent's card. A player can only use his cards, and no one else can use the ability on your cards, no matter how oddly they are worded.
Cards like Garden Tomb, Asherah Pole, and Golden Calf would indicate otherwise.
I hope you realize that these are bad examples without me having to explain it.
-
I hope you realize that these are bad examples without me having to explain it.
Nope. You'll have to explain it.
If you have Asherah Pole active and rescue with an OT hero, then my evil enhancements are CBN. How is that not me using your card's ability?
Asherah Pole
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When blocking any O.T. Hero, evil enhancements cannot be negated. Discard if Gideon, King Asa, King Hezekiah, or King Josiah enters battle. • Play As: When any player is blocking an O.T. Hero, evil enhancements cannot be negated. Discard if Gideon, King Asa, King Hezekiah, or King Josiah enters battle.
-
+1 YMT
-
I hope you realize that these are bad examples without me having to explain it.
Nope. You'll have to explain it.
If you have Asherah Pole active and rescue with an OT hero, then my evil enhancements are CBN. How is that not me using your card's ability?
You are not using my card. I am using my card to affect your cards. There is a tremendous difference. Regardless of whether my ability is helping you ultimately, it is still my ability, and you are not the one using it.
According to your logic, using an enhancement to discard an opponent's character would be considered them using your ability.
-
Better way to explain: His card gives all of X an ability, since it doesn't specify who it works for everyone.
-
I still don't get why the "Opponent may" doesn't solve this problem right now... clearly, the card is allowing you to let your opponent use it.
if Bryon or Mike could chime in, it'd clear up a lot...
-
They don't need to. I found it finally (well hidden) in the current REG:
• The Evil Character in The Darkness is not protected by Wall of Protection. It can be brought into battle by an opponent according to the special ability on The Darkness because the Evil Character is only revealed and not flipped over (put into play). The Evil Character is not protected unless the protect card specifically targets cards that are “face down”.
So, all along the key word was "reveal." WoP does not protect the EC in The Darkness because it is not in play. It is revealed, but not "played" (is that the right word? ;) ) until it enters battle (as if from hand). By then, WoP can do nothing.
-
ahh. that makes sense...
-
They don't need to. I found it finally (well hidden) in the current REG:
• The Evil Character in The Darkness is not protected by Wall of Protection. It can be brought into battle by an opponent according to the special ability on The Darkness because the Evil Character is only revealed and not flipped over (put into play). The Evil Character is not protected unless the protect card specifically targets cards that are “face down”.
So, all along the key word was "reveal." WoP does not protect the EC in The Darkness because it is not in play. It is revealed, but not "played" (is that the right word? ;) ) until it enters battle (as if from hand). By then, WoP can do nothing.
The REG is correct.
;)
-
But the REG is in another persons territory (their server), and therefore it is illegal to band to it during this battle (argument), so that means YMT must be disqualified from this ruling tournament for cheating.
....
;)
-
Also, that's the old REG. So what it says is irrelevant.
-
Also, that's the old REG. So what it says is irrelevant.
Professoralstad is correct.
-
;)
STAMP is correct.
-
YourMathTeacher is correct.
-
YourMathTeacher is correct.
I'm not completely sure if this is in relation to the above post, or the whole REG quote... but this thread was funny anyway!
again, I'd still argue that it cannot.
-
• The Evil Character in The Darkness is not protected by Wall of Protection. It can be brought into battle by an opponent according to the special ability on The Darkness because the Evil Character is only revealed and not flipped over (put into play). The Evil Character is not protected unless the protect card specifically targets cards that are “face down”.
Well I think this is how it is, unitil the new REG comes out and changes this to the opposite.
-
it does make sense...
-
Also, that's the old REG. So what it says is irrelevant.
There is no old REG until it is replaced with a new one. It has not been replaced yet. What is posted is a draft put out for comment. We are still working on the replacement.
Mike
-
FWIW, I think the Professor was poking fun at me, not the REG.
-
Hey,
• The Evil Character in The Darkness is not protected by Wall of Protection. It can be brought into battle by an opponent according to the special ability on The Darkness because the Evil Character is only revealed and not flipped over (put into play). The Evil Character is not protected unless the protect card specifically targets cards that are “face down”.
I was actually going to reply and say this, but I wasn't going to bother looking it up in the REG I was just going to say it :) The new REG will not change this ruling. I do have an idea for improving how we handle face down cards :) but it won't be in the new REG and it wouldn't change this ruling anyway.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
So say I am playing in a MP game, Can I use any opponents Character in the darkness, or does the owner have to initiate the placement.
-
Well the REG is wrong, plain and simple. But it doesn't matter.
Wall of Protection
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place this site in your territory. No character in your territory may be brought into battle by an opponent. • Play As: Place this site in your territory. Characters in your territory are protected from being brought into battle by an opponent. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Kings 9:15
If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.
-
As much as I agree with STAMP, I want it ruled the other way beings my deck needs both Wall and Darkness. >:c
-
If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.
I thought the point was that the face-down card is not a "character," it is just a card.
-
If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.
I thought the point was that the face-down card is not a "character," it is just a card.
If it's not a character how can it be banded into battle in the first place?
-
If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.
I thought the point was that the face-down card is not a "character," it is just a card.
If it's not a character how can it be banded into battle in the first place?
How can any card in my hand be banded into battle? The card "becomes" a character when it enters battle.
-
If Lampstand can protect LoR (out of play), Wall can protect face-down (out of play) since it is in territory.
I thought the point was that the face-down card is not a "character," it is just a card.
If it's not a character how can it be banded into battle in the first place?
How can any card in my hand be banded into battle? The card "becomes" a character when it enters battle.
then how can cards in your draw pile be banded into battle? the card is a character. it's an identifier.
-
I have not read the whole identifier/ability/abilifier thread and I'm not going to. Too many people are jumping off the deep end with whatever ruling was made. I think this is silly, so there is no need for me to respond. Until the new REG is released, I will rule by what the current REG says and my interpretations justify.
-
I have not read the whole identifier/ability/abilifier thread and I'm not going to. Too many people are jumping off the deep end with whatever ruling was made. I think this is silly, so there is no need for me to respond. Until the new REG is released, I will rule by what the current REG says and my interpretations justify.
so you're ruling that some things in the identifier line can be negated? :-\
-
so you're ruling that some things in the identifier line can be negated? :-\
You'll have to quote where I said that, otherwise you are just spreading rumors.
-
so you're ruling that some things in the identifier line can be negated? :-\
You'll have to quote where I said that, otherwise you are just spreading rumors.
Until the new REG is released, I will rule by what the current REG says and my interpretations justify.
the old REG states that identifiers only tell what something IS. (i.e. male, king of judah... blah blah blah) and some fortresses have S.A. in the identifier line (like holds certain artifact), which are negated when cards such as Image of Jealousy are played.
-
I never brought identifiers into this ruling. You did. You're just trying to draw me into the stupid "identifiers in the draw/discard pile" argument which I refuse to be a part of. So, to answer your unnecessary question:
so you're ruling that some things in the identifier line can be negated? :-
No. I'm ruling that Wall of Protection does not protect the card in The Darkness. That's it. Fini. Any peripheral rulings that you want to tie into this (just to vent about the Lampstand ruling) is completely irrelevant to me.
-
I never brought identifiers into this ruling. You did. You're just trying to draw me into the stupid "identifiers in the draw/discard pile" argument which I refuse to be a part of. So, to answer your unnecessary question:
so you're ruling that some things in the identifier line can be negated? :-
No. I'm ruling that Wall of Protection does not protect the card in The Darkness. That's it. Fini. Any peripheral rulings that you want to tie into this (just to vent about the Lampstand ruling) is completely irrelevant to me.
you mentioned abilifiers. which is the "hold" discussion. I thought that your post was referring to both the abilifiers ruling and this one. the Lampstand ruling wasn't a part of my post. sorry.
-
you mentioned abilifiers. which is the "hold" discussion. I thought that your post was referring to both the abilifiers ruling and this one. the Lampstand ruling wasn't a part of my post. sorry.
I didn't mention "abilifiers" since I have no idea what they are.
With regard to Lampstand, I meant that the other threads were venting about Lampstand (albeit indirectly), not you specifically, so I am sorry for the miscommunication.
-
I have not read the whole identifier/ability/abilifier thread and I'm not going to.
I see an abilifier there... just saying.
and I believe that jumping off the deep end wasn't a bad thing. negating things in the identifier line is just plain messed up.
-
Well I know how I'd rule it.
Just warning everyone. In case I ever host again.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthm-a03.yimg.com%2Fnimage%2Fb92fd66083a1e7bc&hash=d1dfd667e544bc2aeace9126bc96f1061c995e90)