Author Topic: The Garden Tomb (Read 9025 times)

CountFount · « **on:** March 11, 2009, 03:33:41 PM »

This past weekend at the local Minnesota Type 2 it was ruled that the Garden tomb could be used by any player in the Game who met its conditions not just the player who owned it and controlled it in his territory. Is there a misunderstanding?

s/a

Quote

If opponent has a Redeemed Soul, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the Mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play.

The Schaef · « **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2009, 03:48:06 PM »

That's the way I read it.

sk · « **Reply #2 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:38:02 PM »

I've heard it ruled that way from several people.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #3 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:41:11 PM »

I'm still struggling to understand why this call way made in this direction. I have read and re-read the SA of every fortress card I can find, and this is the first fortress that can work for my opponent just as much as for me. That really doesn't make sense to me. Though I'm pretty sure that there's no where in the rule book that says so, aren't fortresses ONLY for the player who owns it? Even if it doesn't say "your" whatever, it's still your fortress and you should be the one using it.

The prime example that I've found of fortresses being for the owner only is Storehouse:

Storehouse - Unused enhancements may be placed here face up during discard phase. Any one enhancement from Storehouse may be placed in holder's hand during player's Site phase.

There's nothing in this SA that says "your." It doesn't say "your" unused enhancements, but it is understood that you are the only one to get to use it since it is your fortress. How does TGT differ any from this. It always does not say "your" Salome, Mary Mag, etc, but it should be understood as much because it is your fortress.

The Schaef · « **Reply #4 on:** March 11, 2009, 04:55:09 PM »

Why? The language for your opponent applies only to you, so that is unchanged. The benefit targets characters with a specific name, and that can belong to anybody. Example, Herod Agrippa can capture any Peter, including your own or your opponent's. If by chance you banded to someone else's Salome, are you saying you would not get to use this since that's not your Salome either?

CountFount · « **Reply #5 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:01:41 PM »

Is there another fortress that provides a benefit to an opponent?

The Schaef · « **Reply #6 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:03:28 PM »

Not that I've seen, but the Storehouse "proof" may be the only other Fortress in the entire game that doesn't specify "Holder's" or "Yours". But as i said, the first sentence does refer to "your" opponent, so even this Fortress, in its own way, only applies to you. It's just that the benefit can apply to anyone who happens to be controlling these characters.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:08:18 PM »

But neither of these examples have to do with fortresses. Both these examples use a hero's SA. But TGT is not a hero, it's a fortress. Again, if I can use my opponent's TGT, what is stopping me from putting my unused Enhan. in my opponent's storehouse?

For a different look, think about what a fortress really is outside of Redemption. I think of a castle. Why did people used to build castles? For themselves. For better protection and attacking for themselves. I doubt that there was any group that build a castle and then let their enemy in and said, "Here you go! You can fight from in here and we'll go outside." It seems absurd, but it's very close to the same idea as letting someone else use your TGT.

lightningninja · « **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:10:04 PM »

But that tomb isn't a castle. It's ability applys to heroes, not fortresses. If it says something about your fortresses, then it would only apply to you. But it talks about heroes, and two players can have the same heroes, so the effect is granted to both of them. I don't have any trouble with this, and think it's actually a good counter to Garden Tomb decks, since they typically have small defenses.

CountFount · « **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:13:08 PM »

Quote

For a different look, think about what a fortress really is outside of Redemption. I think of a castle. Why did people used to build castles? For themselves. For better protection and attacking for themselves. I doubt that there was any group that build a castle and then let their enemy in and said, "Here you go! You can fight from in here and we'll go outside." It seems absurd, but it's very close to the same idea as letting someone else use your TGT.

for Scottie_ffgamer

Quote

But that tomb isn't a castle. It's ability applys to heroes, not fortresses. If it says something about your fortresses, then it would only apply to you. But it talks about heroes, and two players can have the same heroes, so the effect is granted to both of them. I don't have any trouble with this, and think it's actually a good counter to Garden Tomb decks, since they typically have small defenses.

Its identified as a fortress. It would follow Schaef's reasoning more easily if it had been an artifact.

The Schaef · « **Reply #10 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:24:55 PM »

I tend to treat Arts and Forts essentially the same in the way they work, and the way they do not. Example, Interrupt the Battle affects characters and Enhancements, not Arts or Forts. Arts and Forts typically don't enter battle, characters and Enhancements typically do. Forts work solely for your benefit because they are worded for your benefit, whereas Arts that apply to everyone are highly generalized (e.g. Three Nails). If J Tower said "No cards may be removed from a draw pile" that would apply to everyone. TGT applies its effect to specific named characters, so it doesn't seem to apply only when one player is using them.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #11 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:35:11 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on March 11, 2009, 05:24:55 PM

I tend to treat Arts and Forts essentially the same in the way they work, and the way they do not. Example, Interrupt the Battle affects characters and Enhancements, not Arts or Forts. Arts and Forts typically don't enter battle, characters and Enhancements typically do. Forts work solely for your benefit because they are worded for your benefit, whereas Arts that apply to everyone are highly generalized (e.g. Three Nails). If J Tower said "No cards may be removed from a draw pile" that would apply to everyone. TGT applies its effect to specific named characters, so it doesn't seem to apply only when one player is using them.

If you go by the wording alone, then you must allow any player to stick enhan. in storehouse as well. As I already said, it doesn't specify, but it's still played only for the benefit of the owner.

Bryon · « **Reply #12 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:52:58 PM »

Quote from: Scottie_ffgamer on March 11, 2009, 04:41:11 PM

Storehouse - Unused enhancements may be placed here face up during discard phase. Any one enhancement from Storehouse may be placed in holder's hand during player's Site phase.

I don't understand where the confusion is. Doesn't Storehouse say that the card can be placed in HOLDER'S hand? Holder means the holder of Storehouse.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #13 on:** March 11, 2009, 05:57:04 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 11, 2009, 05:52:58 PM

Quote from: Scottie_ffgamer on March 11, 2009, 04:41:11 PM
Storehouse - Unused enhancements may be placed here face up during discard phase. Any one enhancement from Storehouse may be placed in holder's hand during player's Site phase.
I don't understand where the confusion is. Doesn't Storehouse say that the card can be placed in HOLDER'S hand? Holder means the holder of Storehouse.

Or does it mean Holder of the enhan. being taken out? If this is the case, it wouldn't be specific to the owner and either could potentially use it.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #14 on:** March 11, 2009, 06:07:58 PM »

If your enhancement is in your opponent's Storehouse, then you are not "holding" it.

FWIW, however, I agree that fortresses should only benefit the holder. Is there any other fortress that's ability is for everyone? Would Stronghold in the Desert work for my opponent?

The Schaef · « **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2009, 06:41:07 PM »

No, because "opponent" defines the ability in your favor, just as it does with the first part of Garden Tomb. It's just that the ignore ability applies to all characters with that name. That is different from Storehouse and from just about every other Fort out there by that virtue alone.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2009, 06:56:56 PM »

You didn't answer my first question. Is there any other fortress that grants its ability to an opponent? We are basically setting a precedent based on a manipulation of semantics. Fortresses have only ever been used to benefit the holder. Why change that now?

If from here on every card will be ruled based on nitpicking the word choice, then there will be other repercussions. For instance, Stronghold in the Desert won't be as useful if my opponent is a female.

Stronghold in the Desert

Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect contents from opponents' cards. While occupied, each time an opponent plays an Evil Character of a brigade he does not already have in play, discard the top card of his deck.

CountFount · « **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2009, 08:15:48 PM »

Quote

You didn't answer my first question. Is there any other fortress that grants its ability to an opponent? We are basically setting a precedent based on a manipulation of semantics. Fortresses have only ever been used to benefit the holder. Why change that now?

That seems to be the most important question. Will semantics decide a precedent? If the card was an artifact then the argument is mute, because artifacts have always been played with the mindset that they could effect both players when played.

However, No fortress has ever been ruled this way and there was certainly no care given to define it as carrying a precedent in the REG when it was created, thus before we begin setting a precedent by letting random semantical arguments determine rulings at tournaments where there is no precendent, I think that TGT should be seen as following the precedents of Fortressess and remain the unique use of the Holder until Rob rules it otherwise.

Scottie_ffgamer · « **Reply #18 on:** March 11, 2009, 08:32:09 PM »

Quote from: CountFount on March 11, 2009, 08:15:48 PM

If the card was an artifact then the argument is mute...

I believe you mean moot.

The Schaef · « **Reply #19 on:** March 11, 2009, 09:22:40 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 11, 2009, 06:56:56 PM

We are basically setting a precedent based on a manipulation of semantics. Fortresses have only ever been used to benefit the holder. Why change that now?

It's not a manipulation of semantics and it's not a change of precedent. The reason Fortresses have only benefitted the holder is precisely because of the wording on the card. Ruling Garden Tomb as we're talking about it here, is consistent with the policy of doing what the card says the way the card says it.

crustpope · « **Reply #20 on:** March 11, 2009, 09:23:37 PM »

I also do not agree with the way this card has been interpreted. With the stronghold in the desert example

Quote

Stronghold in the Desert

Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect contents from opponents' cards. While occupied, each time an opponent plays an Evil Character of a brigade he does not already have in play, discard the top card of his deck.

The second part of that SA can be read from both perspectives. Say Player A puts stronghold in the desert out and sticks his character in it. Well when he puts an EC from a brigade he doesn't allready have in his territory, Player B can say "Due to Stronghold, you have to discard a card from the top of your deck." This was clearly not the intent of this card.

You can say "well, it only works if YOUR Hero is in there", but it does not say that, it only says that it works if it is occupied. ~~But for that matter what is preventing player A or B from placing a Hero in that fort?~~ (answered below)

We need to seriously hammer out how these cards are going to be read and used because I dont want to go into Nats thinking one thing with Stronghold or TGT and having it do something entirely different.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #21 on:** March 11, 2009, 09:52:22 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on March 11, 2009, 09:22:40 PM

It's not a manipulation of semantics ...

It is a manipulation of semantics because the only reason the ruling has been made is because the card doesn't say "your" or "holder's." I would argue that it doesn't have to, based on the rules for whose characters are allowed in fortresses:

Redemption® Rulebook -> Diagram of a Turn -> Preparation Phase -> Fortresses

You may place any number of fortresses on the table as described on the fortress. You may add or remove cards in a fortress as described on the fortress. You may only hold your own cards in a fortress unless a card states otherwise. A fortress may not be used to gain access to an opponent’s sites.

Likewise, the SA of the fortress is intended for the holder, unless the card says otherwise, which it does not. Cards that "say otherwise" specify "all" or "any" or "each players'."

Quote from: The Schaef on March 11, 2009, 09:22:40 PM

... and it's not a change of precedent.

It is setting a precedent. No other fortress has ever benefitted anyone other than the holder.

Quote from: The Schaef on March 11, 2009, 09:22:40 PM

Ruling Garden Tomb as we're talking about it here, is consistent with the policy of doing what the card says the way the card says it.

This policy has been taken to such an extreme that experienced hosts have to keep up daily so as not to miss changed rulings, current hosts have to keep up daily so that they will know how to rule correctly in spite of their own interpretation, and future hosts will have to pour over these threads for hours or face the embarassment of ruling by logic rather than semantics which is now entirely incorrect.

MichaelHue · « **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:15:30 PM »

What I want to know is if this means I can put my enhancements in my opponent's Storehouse

(Yes I know I wouldn't be able to get them back)

This would also be awesome in teams.

I would like some clarification though. The way I read Garden Tomb is that if the opponent of the card's owner has a redeemed soul, then the ability is in effect. If my opponent has Garden Tomb in play and I do not, but I have one redeemed soul and he does not, my Garden Tomb Heroes still ignore, correct?

Gabe · « **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:31:05 PM »

By reading TGT I initially assumed that it only worked for me. I found out I was wrong by sitting down at a T1-MP table with Justin Alstead and Chris Bany and had it used against me. I came back and posted the question here where Bryon and Schaef both confirmed that it was ruled correctly.

Obviously the intent of the card was to allow it to be used against you. It's part of what balances a card that many people have stated is "over powered".

After having it explained I see now why it works for other players. TGT grants an ignore ability to specific characters. It doesn't matter who owns or controls those characters. As long as the condition is met the characters listed on TGT will gain the ignore ability.

I'm a little confused about how the condition works. From who's perspective is the condition "If opponent has a redeemed Lost Soul," read?

For example, I have TGT in a multiplayer game with Joe and Jim. I have a redeemed Lost Soul. Joe and Jim do not. Can Joe use a TGT Hero against me since I'm his opponent or does it only work if he has a redeemed Soul since he's my opponent? What if Joe rescues against Jim since I'm an opponent and I have a redeemed Lost Soul?

egilkinc · « **Reply #24 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:45:40 PM »

This has larger ramifications in the game.
In a multi-player game, if the player to the left of me attacks the player to the right of me, are either one of them my “opponent”?
We have played these Forts & Arts that you can:
-   Unknown Nation (If opponent’s Hero is in battle, you may discard this card to search draw pile for a human Evil Character and add it to battle. Cannot be interrupted.)
-   Madness (If opponent’s Hero is in battle, you may convert this card to an orange brigade Evil Character and add it to battle. Cannot be interrupted.)
-   Pharaoh’s Throne Room (Protect Egyptian Evil Characters in your territory from discard and conversion. While you have an Egyptian king or Pharaoh in play, negate all “ignore” abilities on opponent’s Heroes.)
-   Satan’s Seat (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.)
We have played Raider’s Camp that you cannot:
-   Raider’s Camp (If your human Evil Character captures a Hero, place it here. When opponent makes a successful rescue attempt or battle challenge, instead of surrendering a Lost Soul, release all Heroes from here back to owner. Does not count as redeemed soul.)
I don’t know what the ruling on Judge’s Seat in a multi-player game is. (Each upkeep phase, you may discard an Evil Character with toughness greater than X. Opponent may discard a card of matching brigade from hand or territory instead.) Can the player to my left discard a card matching the brigade of the Evil Character I’m discarding that belongs to the player on my right?
Interestingly, all of the Lost Soul cards clearly state “an opponent” or “each opponent”. Obviously, we should make sure we are consistent with the play-as for all the cards.

News:

Author Topic: The Garden Tomb (Read 9025 times)

The Schaef

Scottie_ffgamer

The Schaef

The Schaef

Scottie_ffgamer

The Schaef

Scottie_ffgamer

Scottie_ffgamer

The Schaef

Scottie_ffgamer

The Schaef