Author Topic: Unresolved Rulings (Read 13481 times)

crustpope · « **on:** March 17, 2011, 11:18:21 PM »

This is a thread that is dedicated to listing the current unresolved rulings. When rulings become official the reminders will be removed from this thread and Justin (or another elder) will post the new ruling on the "New Rulings" thread. In that way it will also serve as a way to note and celebrate the progress of the committee of elders. I invite anyone to suggest ruling issues that I am not aware of or have forgotten to mention in the posts below. As an extra aid, please also try to link this thread to the thread in question so that elders will not have to look far to find the issues needing to be resolved.

Currently this is how the issues will be listed:

Unresolved Issue - Date issue came to light - Date Issue Solved

1. Healing heroes discarded from the deck (via GoH or similar) - August 11-14th 2010 (Nationals in Boston) Resolved 4/28/11
2. Thaddeus and other protects protecting from the Numbers on EC's - 2/27/11 Resolved 7-21-11 in reply 73 of this thread
3. Negating the "return to hand abilities" on for heroes on Visions of Iddo the Seer - 3/9/2011 - 3/18/11 Same Thread
4. Can Far Country can add itself to battle. - 3/11/11 Resolved 6-21-11 in reply 43 and 45 of this thread
5. Who controls a placed enhancement (placed by agur & co.) that is given to an opponent 3/24/11 Resolved 6-21-11 in reply 43 and 45 of this thread
6. Definition of a Played enhancement - 4-2-11
7. Does Thad protect from enhancements played on an evil character. 6/21/2011 *Resolved 7-21-11 in reply 73 of this thread
8. Can Creeping Deciever be negated by enhancements played on an evil character. 6/21/2011 *Resolved 7-21-11 in reply 73 of this thread
9. Does "Sent to serve" differ from other placers 6-21-11
10. Whether or not a generic character can enter battle more than one time during a turn. 6-26-11

* 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.

crustpope · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:18:46 PM »

Rulings that need Updating at a future date:

Quote from: Gabe on June 26, 2011, 10:21:20 AM

It's still ruled as a prevent. We are discussing the pros/cons of ruling it a protect but no decision has been made on whether or not it will be changed.

crustpope · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:19:28 PM »

This post reserved

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:29:11 PM »

um...Protection of Angels ruling about numbers discarding? Elders disagreeing... see also Thaddeus.

crustpope · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:30:50 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 17, 2011, 11:29:11 PM

um...Protection of Angels ruling about numbers discarding? Elders disagreeing... see also Thaddeus.

You mean about whether protection of Angels protects against the numbers on a card? same question with Thaddeus, whether he protects himself against the numbers on an evil card?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:32:26 PM »

I appreciate Matt's initiative with this thread. As long as people maintain a constructive attitude posting here, this could be a really helpful addition to the forum.

It is a good outlet for people to post their issues if they haven't been resolved within a couple weeks. It is also a good reminder to us Elders to not accidentally let any ongoing ruling issues fall through the cracks. It would help to have links to relevant threads also included in the info on the opening post.

Thanks Matt for starting this, and thank all of you for doing your part to make this game the best it can be for everyone

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:34:21 PM »

Great Idea Matt!

I've stickied this, and I'll try to edit the first post when we resolve the issues.

crustpope · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:52:18 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 17, 2011, 11:29:11 PM

um...Protection of Angels ruling about numbers discarding? Elders disagreeing... see also Thaddeus.

~~If you could please link a thread that has this issue in it. I though this was resolved but this could be just my imagination..~~

nvm.. I found it.

Isildur · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2011, 11:57:16 PM »

I thought the first one was already ruled on at nats?

crustpope · « **Reply #9 on:** March 18, 2011, 12:01:34 AM »

Quote from: Isildur on March 17, 2011, 11:57:16 PM

I thought the first one was already ruled on at nats?

The link shows that the ruling was never made official..or at least does not seem to be official...which probably really stinks for Kirk since it was his deck that was nerfed by that ruling.

SirNobody · « **Reply #10 on:** March 18, 2011, 01:34:48 PM »

Hey,

I have about 5 of these lists buried on my computer somewhere. They always make me sad because they inevitably grow as things tend to be added to the list faster than they get removed from it. Often in the process of resolving one item on the list I end up finding two more things that need to be added. They always end up as a reminder to me that issue creation inevitably outpaces issue resolution which is way to frustrating, so I ignore the lists and just do the best that I can

.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

crustpope · « **Reply #11 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:17:01 PM »

If you dont want to use this then you can use whatever means helps you accomplish your goals. MY goal it to constantly bring to light unresolved issues to ensure that these issues do NOT fall through the cracks and that major issues do not cause huge ruling problems.

STAMP · « **Reply #12 on:** March 18, 2011, 03:44:18 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 17, 2011, 11:32:26 PM

As long as people maintain a constructive attitude ...

Does my building frustration count?

Quote from: crustpope on March 17, 2011, 11:30:50 PM

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 17, 2011, 11:29:11 PM
um...Protection of Angels ruling about numbers discarding? Elders disagreeing... see also Thaddeus.

You mean about whether protection of Angels protects against the numbers on a card? same question with Thaddeus, whether he protects himself against the numbers on an evil card?

Can't wait for the following special ability that should be easy enough to make a ruling:

"Protect opponents' cards from returning from defeat by opponent's neutral brigades regardless of phase it's been played in. Throw card on floor instead."

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #13 on:** March 18, 2011, 10:35:45 PM »

I'm still wondering if Far Country can add itself to battle. So far Tim has said souls can't enter battle, RDT has said it's banned, ProfU said yes, and Justin/Jordan refused to rule on it. Not sure what to make of the situation

.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2011, 10:43:06 PM »

I only said it was banned for the period of time that I was a the tournament

I just didn't want to rule on it either - But I'll probably side with Tim on this one.

crustpope · « **Reply #15 on:** March 18, 2011, 10:44:38 PM »

Well, I will put it up there until I can get some solid consensus of two or more elders

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #16 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:57:26 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on March 18, 2011, 10:35:45 PM

I'm still wondering if Far Country can add itself to battle. So far Tim has said souls can't enter battle, RDT has said it's banned, ProfU said yes, and Justin/Jordan refused to rule on it. Not sure what to make of the situation .

I wasn't really ruling on whether Far Cry could be put into a site during battle as much as I was ruling that IF a LS was put into a site that was in battle that the site would leave battle and go to the LoB.

crustpope · « **Reply #17 on:** March 18, 2011, 11:58:29 PM »

Then is there a consensus that this is not a legal play?

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #18 on:** March 19, 2011, 01:57:45 PM »

If so, is it not a legal play beings there is some rule that souls can't enter battle, or because of the card? :c

crustpope · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:35:54 PM »

Placed enhancements question added to first post

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #20 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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #21 on:** April 03, 2011, 07:46:37 PM »

And it's also horrendously relevant. If I have the CBP LS, do my Horses become CBP or is it what I play from hand? Can make an enormous difference. If I attack with a Hero with a weapon, will Trembling Demon be unable to stall me? If I have placed an Enhancement on a converted Proud Pharisee on a previous turn, then attack with him, do I get to play an Enhancement by his SA or was the placed card played when it entered battle? If I trigger Lifting the Curse or Herod's Treachery, did I play them? As you can see, this is a very important question that's been answered with

for years, even though it applies to many, many situations.

crustpope · « **Reply #22 on:** April 03, 2011, 08:16:17 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 18, 2011, 11:57:26 PM

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on March 18, 2011, 10:35:45 PM
I'm still wondering if Far Country can add itself to battle. So far Tim has said souls can't enter battle, RDT has said it's banned, ProfU said yes, and Justin/Jordan refused to rule on it. Not sure what to make of the situation .
I wasn't really ruling on whether Far Cry could be put into a site during battle as much as I was ruling that IF a LS was put into a site that was in battle that the site would leave battle and go to the LoB.

Is there a consensus that adding a LS to battle is not a legal play?

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 03, 2011, 08:47:31 PM »

At Ohio Natz I asked... Rob, Mike, Kevin (Bryon maybe) said that weapons were not considered played, overuling another judge there who said it was played.

I personally don't think it is that difficult. You put heroes into battle, same as enhancements, you play cards from your hand. Why do we have to make a separate definition that says when you activate a card you play it. According to that rule you technically dont play cards from your hand unless you activate them...you just put them into play...

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #24 on:** April 10, 2011, 02:37:16 PM »

I think Play should be defined as (or at least something like):

When a card enters play (or is placed face down in territory (or fortress or artifact pile)) or is put in a set aside area (whether face up or face down) from hand/deck(and possibly discard pile) from Hand or Deck (and possibly discard pile) it is considered played.

Then when a weapon activates (assuming it was played at a previous time) it isn't "played" it just activates.

Essentially I think a card should have to be played in order for its effect to be activated, but playing doesn't always activate the effect.

The only thing I'm not sure of is whether or not putting a card in storehouse or on something like Table of Showbread should be considered played or not.

News:

Author Topic: Unresolved Rulings (Read 13481 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

TheHobbit13