Author Topic: Unresolved Rulings (Read 13617 times)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #25 on:** April 10, 2011, 03:27:15 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on April 03, 2011, 01:23:33 AM

The definition of 'play' needs to be created. At least two threads (my tithe thread and Hobbit's thread) have had questions regarding it recently, and it has come up in the past.

Actually, we don't need to define Play, we need to split apart "Playce" into its two respective categories.

Kor · « **Reply #26 on:** April 11, 2011, 08:21:30 PM »

My suggestion on defining play and such. You just need to split what we currently sometimes might call play into 3 easily defined categories:

1. Play
Whenever you put a card from (hand, deck, discard pile) into (play, set-aside, land of redemption) and it's effect activates immediately(or if it is a card with no effect has the opportunity to) the card is considered played. This would include putting a hero or evil character directly into battle, playing an enhancement in battle, using a dominant anytime, playing a heal anytime, playing a set aside enhancement, playing a territory class enhancement that has an immediate or continual effect, putting out fortresses into play/set aside area, putting sites into play.

2. Place
Whenever you put a card from (hand, deck, discard pile) into (play, set-aside, land of redemption) and it's effect does not activate immediately it is considered placed. This would include putting characters into your territory, putting artifacts into your artifact pile, putting a weapon class enhancement on a character not in battle, putting an enhancement on a character by a special ability to be activated later.

3. Activate
Whenever a card is already in (play, set-aside, land of redemption) and its effect is a trigger based on player action, when that action happens it is considered activated. This would include a character entering battle from territory, weapon class enhancements entering battle while on characters, an return from set aside ability(such as card draw), the activation of a card placed on a character, activating an artifact.

So to sum up:
1. Play: Put out AND Activate at same time
2. Place: Put out only
3. Activate: Already out, activate effect only

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #27 on:** April 11, 2011, 10:41:33 PM »

I've been arguing that line of logic for a while now, and got shut down last time. Lemme find the debate.

*EDIT*

Here: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19761.0

Prepare for your brain to hurt when reading it.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2011, 10:03:55 AM »

What was the conclusion?

STAMP · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2011, 01:03:41 PM »

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #30 on:** April 12, 2011, 04:26:32 PM »

Clearly I'm the one saying mmmkay.

Kor · « **Reply #31 on:** April 12, 2011, 10:04:20 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on April 11, 2011, 10:41:33 PM

Here: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19761.0

Prepare for your brain to hurt when reading it.

You weren't kidding.

crustpope · « **Reply #32 on:** April 12, 2011, 11:34:08 PM »

Im the one up front smiling not saying anything because I dont know what a pickle is and I dont want to sound stupid...

Bryon · « **Reply #33 on:** April 13, 2011, 02:59:26 AM »

I'm the hat that smells like vinegar.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #34 on:** May 04, 2011, 11:34:32 PM »

#1 has been resolved here.

I thought that #2 had also been resolved that Thad was NOT protected from being discarded by the numbers. But I'm not sure where that was. Maybe someone could do a search.

Crashfach2002 · « **Reply #35 on:** May 14, 2011, 04:41:31 PM »

Hey Matt, I've been catching up on the rulings and the original question in this post from was never truly answered! Please ignore this if it has been answered!

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/cbp-vs-cbn/

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #36 on:** May 14, 2011, 04:58:49 PM »

Just a thought towards Ruling Questions being more prevalent than Resolutions:

I have always been taught that rather than simply bringing up a problem or issue by itself, it is much better and easier if you come up with a solution and bring it to the "table" along with the problem. A, it helps things get resolved a lot faster and B, it gives you a better understanding of how the rules and game mechanics work because if you misinterpret/misread an ability, it will surely by "pointed out" by others. Also, I noticed it's much easier for the Elders to simply "I agree" a certain post or interpretation of a cards ability, rather than spend hours battling back and forth with the players and trying to explain it. It seems we (the players) are very good at working that part (The battling) out.

I'm just mentioning this because I noticed things appear to get resolved a lot faster here on the boards when a person brings both the issue and a potential (farily well thought out) resolution to the attention of others.

I'd appreciate some feedback/positive criticism on this if you would like me to further clarify it.

Carry on,

-C_S

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** May 14, 2011, 08:33:47 PM »

Most unresolved rulings are unresolved because there was a huge thread with two different sides advocating two different solutions to the problem. At that point we have to wait on a decision.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #38 on:** May 31, 2011, 01:10:03 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on March 17, 2011, 11:18:21 PM

This is a thread that is dedicated to listing the current unresolved rulings.

5. Who controls a placed enhancement (placed by agur & co.) that is given to an opponent 3/24/11

According to this post in the same thread, this is already ruled on.

I'm also checking again on #2, although I think the current ruling is that Thad is NOT protected from the numbers.

Korunks · « **Reply #39 on:** May 31, 2011, 01:59:46 PM »

If that is true that should resolve the Protection of Angels issue as well.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #40 on:** June 21, 2011, 05:41:26 PM »

Add this:
Does Thaddeus protect from only EC's, or the enhancements played on them as well?

crustpope · « **Reply #41 on:** June 21, 2011, 05:48:38 PM »

There is already a thad question up there (#2) and while this is slighly different (enhancments vs Numbers) I am positive that the answers to both questions will happen at the same time. I will ammend the list however just to be safe.

crustpope · « **Reply #42 on:** June 21, 2011, 05:54:36 PM »

New Questions on Thad and Creeper posted. Currently Thad and Creeper have rulings attatched to them through Nationals so this is basically just for Post-nationals.

Does anyone have any updates for some of the other unresolved rulings?

Gabe · « **Reply #43 on:** June 21, 2011, 06:21:46 PM »

#4 - No, there presently not a card that adds a Lost Soul to battle.. Sites are placed in the Land of Bondage when they hold a Lost Soul, the Lost Soul does not come to the Site. If the Site is in battle, it would leave battle when you choose to to put Far Country there.

#5 - The person who places the enhancement always controls it. This is consistent with all other placed cards (think Destructive Sin or Herod's Treachery). Control of a placed card does not change just because control of the card "holding" the placed card changes.

crustpope · « **Reply #44 on:** June 21, 2011, 06:24:25 PM »

Before I update the first post, are those the official rulings from the other side of the boards or are those your views on those issues?

and is there a thread where I can link this one too (other than this post)

Gabe · « **Reply #45 on:** June 21, 2011, 06:53:51 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on June 21, 2011, 06:24:25 PM

Before I update the first post, are those the official rulings from the other side of the boards or are those your views on those issues?

and is there a thread where I can link this one too (other than this post)

#4 has never been brought up on the other side of the boards and shouldn't need to be. If you look at the game layout that comes with the starter deck it's pretty clear that Sites do not reside in the Land of Bondage, they reside in your territory like Fortresses and Artifacts, right? How, then, do they get into the Land of Bondage? When a Lost Soul is placed in them.

Lost Souls only reside in 4 locations in Redemption 1) deck 2) Land of Bondage 3) Land of Redemption or 4) discard pile. When a Lost Soul is placed in a Site the Site is brought to the Lost Soul, it doesn't work the other way around.

#5 I brought up to Bryon and Tim only because, honestly, all the discussion around the topic muddied my understanding of placed abilities. As two of the three writers of the new REG they both clearly explained to me how "place" abilities work. I summarized that in my previous post.

crustpope · « **Reply #46 on:** June 21, 2011, 07:02:04 PM »

That is what I figured about far country. I am sad to hear about #5. I had some wonderful combos planned for that.

First post updated

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #47 on:** June 21, 2011, 07:54:56 PM »

Quote

Per the same thread as the problem, Until Nationals,The SA on Creeper and Thad are not able to be affected by enhancements played on characters.

Not necessarily. At least one elder has clearly and in no uncertain terms contradicted this notion.

Add to the list the question of whether Sent to Serve differs from other placers because it specifies that the enhancement actives "as a normal Enhancement."

Gabe · « **Reply #48 on:** June 21, 2011, 08:00:51 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on June 21, 2011, 07:54:56 PM

Quote
Per the same thread as the problem, Until Nationals,The SA on Creeper and Thad are not able to be affected by enhancements played on characters.
Not necessarily. At least one elder has clearly and in no uncertain terms contradicted this notion.

Rob himself confirmed this morning that we didn't "need" a decision on this topic until Nationals but said he'd like to wrap up the discussion. He clearly has no intention of changing the ruling this late in the season.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #49 on:** June 21, 2011, 08:04:28 PM »

Mark has directly challenged the assertion that it is "the rule" in the first place. Sure, that's how I've been playing it, and that's how it's being played in Minnesota, but he is claiming the precedent goes the other way in other parts of the country. If that is true, there is no uniform precedent and there does need to be a ruling made.

News:

Author Topic: Unresolved Rulings (Read 13617 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

TheHobbit13