Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: 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 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=25952.0) (via GoH or similar) - August 11-14th 2010 (Nationals in Boston) Resolved (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24490.msg416755#msg416755) 4/28/11
2. Thaddeus and other protects protecting from the Numbers on EC's (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=25701.0) - 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 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=25783.0) - 3/9/2011 - 3/18/11 Same Thread
4. Can Far Country can add itself to battle (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24919.0). - 3/11/11 Resolved 6-21-11 in reply 43 and 45 of this thread
5. Who controls a placed enhancement (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17407.90;topicseen) (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 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=26186.0) enhancement - 4-2-11
7. Does Thad protect from enhancements (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/creeping-deceiver-question/15/) 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 (http://Does Thad protect from [url=http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/creeping-deceiver-question/15/) 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.
-
Rulings that need Updating at a future date:
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.
-
This post reserved
-
um...Protection of Angels ruling about numbers discarding? Elders disagreeing... see also Thaddeus.
-
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?
-
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 :)
-
Great Idea Matt!
I've stickied this, and I'll try to edit the first post when we resolve the issues.
-
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.
-
I thought the first one was already ruled on at nats?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
As long as people maintain a constructive attitude ...
Does my building frustration count? ;)
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."
:P
-
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 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.
-
Well, I will put it up there until I can get some solid consensus of two or more elders
-
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.
-
Then is there a consensus that this is not a legal play?
-
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
-
Placed enhancements question added to first post
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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... ::)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19761.0)
Prepare for your brain to hurt when reading it.
-
What was the conclusion?
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dizzydava.com%2Ffwda%2Fimages%2Fpickle.jpg&hash=894300064f5ae36c407754c6ba8f850208e499a6)
-
Clearly I'm the one saying mmmkay.
-
Here: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19761.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=19761.0)
Prepare for your brain to hurt when reading it.
You weren't kidding. :P
-
Im the one up front smiling not saying anything because I dont know what a pickle is and I dont want to sound stupid...
-
I'm the hat that smells like vinegar.
-
#1 has been resolved here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24490.msg416755#msg416755)
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.
-
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/
-
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
-
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.
-
This is a thread that is dedicated to listing the current unresolved rulings.
5. Who controls a placed enhancement (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17407.90;topicseen) (placed by agur & co.) that is given to an opponent 3/24/11
According to this post (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/anb-and-artifacts/msg417597/#msg417597) 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.
-
If that is true that should resolve the Protection of Angels issue as well.
-
Add this:
Does Thaddeus protect from only EC's, or the enhancements played on them as well?
-
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.
-
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?
-
#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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
OR...it could be that mark was mistaken and did not understand or recognize that a precedent had been set already. Both he and John Early chimed in on that thread stating their opinion and others confirmed that Rob has stated that any ruling will not change until after Nats.
Do we have a thread that discusses "Sent to Serve"?
-
There isn't actually a thread about it for some reason, but it's been brought up on most if not all threads about the placers or any thread talking about the ANB/Naz combo.
-
it could be that mark was mistaken and did not understand or recognize that a precedent had been set already.
It is indeed possible that I was mistaken, but if so, then there are at least 3 other elders who also believed that this was still an unresolved issue. We are talking about this on the other side, and I hope that we'll have a definitive answer by Nats.
-
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.
My posting next to this ruling was based on this comment by Gabe. given that Rob has spoken on the ruling, that is good enough for me. I will leave it stated as such with the asteriks until Rob or a majority of elders tell me otherwise.
My comment about you being mistaken was not meant to offend you merely explain what happened at MW regionals. you, John (and others) understood the ruling to be flexible, others understood it to be fixed until Nats. My position is based on the above statement by Gabe concerning Rob's position.
Frankly I see this as the more rational position because I strongly detest major changes just before (or during) major tournament season (aka the highway ruling last year).
-
My posting next to this ruling was based on this comment by Gabe. given that Rob has spoken on the ruling, that is good enough for me. I will leave it stated as such with the asteriks until Rob or a majority of elders tell me otherwise.
Again, I could be mistaken, but I think that Gabe might be reading Rob's comment differently than I am. Throughout the discussion on the other side, I (and others) have been proceeding based on the idea that this is ruled differently in different parts of the country, and that we'll have to pick one way to rule at Nats. Therefore, Rob's comment that we won't "need" a decsion until Nats could mean that he is fine with individual regional judges deciding, but that we'll have to have a consensus ruling for Nats itself. That does NOT necessarily mean that whatever is announced at Nats will be for NEXT year, but rather could be that the announcement will be for how it is ruled at Nats THIS year.
In addition Rob has not stated what the ruling will be, or come down for certain on one side of the fence. At this point the thread continues to progress, and to assume anything one way or another is probably premature. When Rob has officially "spoken on the ruling" he will either do it on this side of the boards, or he will do it clear enough on the other side of the boards that all the elders will know what the ruling is and we'll bring it back to you guys. That hasn't happened yet.
-
Wait, we play a card differently depending on location?!? Can I declare Rochester, NY a "Thadd-free zone?"
-
also i remember another thread that im not sure got a clear ruling on... Fishing Boat and when characters can be taken out of the boat. It specifically states when characters can be taken out oif the boat like Chamber of Angels clearly states:
Chamber of Angels (AW)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set this fortress aside. If holder's angel is being discarded, place it here instead. After two turns, return Hero to the top of your draw pile. • Play As: If holder's angel is being discarded, heal and place it here instead. After two turns, return Hero to the top of your deck. Chamber of Angels may hold any number of angels. • Identifiers: Play to set-aside area. • Verse: Revelation 4:8 • Availability: Angel Wars booster packs (Rare)
Fishing Boat (Di)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set this aside. Each upkeep, you may place a Hero from here beneath your deck to draw X or to give your disciples access to all Sites this turn. • Identifiers: Holds up to 12 disciples. X = # of Heroes here • Verse: Luke 5:4 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
-
This has been ruled on, although I cannot remember where it was. Characters may be added or removed during the prep phase, similar to other fortresses such as KotW and Goshen. From what I understand, this is a game rule and applies generally to any fortress that does not limit this action via its special ability (like Chamber does)
-
The ruling on that is that Fortresses with a Hold ability allow transfer in/out during prep phase unless the fortress specifies the way in which the cards it holds are both added and removed. Chamber specifies both, which is why you can't just put Angels in there or take them out. Boat only specifies how they leave, so you can add/remove Disciples as much as you want during prep phase.
You could even, for example, put all the Disciples but one into the boat, play Pentecost on the one, then bring the rest back before attacking.
-
Whether or not a generic character can enter battle more than one time during a turn is up for debate. There's an inactive discussion taking place but no consensus yet.
Ex: I block with Wandering Spirit (txp) and you play AoCp. WS goes under my deck. I use Gates of Hell to put him back into my territory. Can I now discard Gates to add him to battle (again)?
crustpope, could you add this to the list of unresolved rulings?
-
That's an ongoing discussion? I thought that was resolved ages ago, and was in fact given a very detailed explanation of how the mechanics of it function.
-
That's an ongoing discussion? I thought that was resolved ages ago, and was in fact given a very detailed explanation of how the mechanics of it function.
Maybe it was and I just don't remember. If you can find it would you point me towards the post(s)?
-
I am unsure if this has been resolved or not, but can priestly breastplate be activated from a priest of does it have to be activated from the artifact pile every turn? I know the first turn you activate it it would have to be activated from the artifact pile, but for each turn after that does it have to be activated from the artifact pile or does it remain on the priest until you deactivate it?
-
From the artifact pile, as it's not an identifier.
-
Wool Fleece being a prevent or protect should be added to this list.
-
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.
-
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.
That makes it unresolved doesn't it?
-
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.
That makes it unresolved doesn't it?
No, we have a ruling. It's been in place for a long time. Discussing a change is not the same as not having an official ruling at all.
If this thread was called "Things the Elders are discussing" then it would belong here. ;)
-
Fair enough.
-
Yes, I think people need to understand the difference here. If we have a ruling (even if is is a ruling until Nationals or some other future date) then we have a ruling and nothing is unresolved. Too often people jump on the elders for not having a ruling when they have clearly stated that one exists until such and such time.
I will be the first to say that the Elders need to be sure and keep up with any final rulings that they "postpone" but I have always gone with the idea that if a ruling is in place that MAY be changed later on, it is THE ruling and will be THE ruling until further notice. It should not be treated as an unofficial ruling.
-
Whether or not a generic character can enter battle more than one time during a turn is up for debate. There's an inactive discussion taking place but no consensus yet.
Ex: I block with Wandering Spirit (txp) and you play AoCp. WS goes under my deck. I use Gates of @#!*% to put him back into my territory. Can I now discard Gates to add him to battle (again)?
crustpope, could you add this to the list of unresolved rulings?
It is added. This one is particularly interesting for me because I have at least one deck that abuses this in type 2. Is there a thread on this side of the board that I can link to this thread?
-
2. Thaddeus and other protects protecting from the Numbers on EC's (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=25701.0) - 2/27/11
7. Does Thad protect from enhancements (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/creeping-deceiver-question/15/) played on an evil character. 6/21/2011 *
8. Can Creeping Deciever be negated by enhancements (http://Does Thad protect from [url=http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/creeping-deceiver-question/15/) played on an evil character. 6/21/2011 *
These have now all been officially decided.
#2 - Thad DOES protect from the numbers on ECs
#7 - Thad DOES protect from the EEs played on ECs
#8 - CD can NOT be negated by EEs played on characters.
This will be the ruling both at Nats this summer, and also for the foreseeable future.
-
2. Thaddeus and other protects protecting from the Numbers on EC's (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=25701.0) - 2/27/11
7. Does Thad protect from enhancements (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/creeping-deceiver-question/15/) played on an evil character. 6/21/2011 *
8. Can Creeping Deciever be negated by enhancements (http://Does Thad protect from [url=http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/creeping-deceiver-question/15/) played on an evil character. 6/21/2011 *
These have now all been officially decided.
#2 - Thad DOES protect from the numbers on ECs
#7 - Thad DOES protect from the EEs played on ECs
#8 - CD can NOT be negated by EEs played on characters.
This will be the ruling both at Nats this summer, and also for the foreseeable future.
This would also effectively wrap up the discussion on whether Protection of Angels protects from the numbers on EC's as well. :)
-
This would also effectively wrap up the discussion on whether Protection of Angels protects from the numbers on EC's as well. :)
That is correct. PoA protects from the numbers of EC's and EE's.
-
Muy Bueno!
-
Muy Bueno!
I second what the Frenchman just said! ;)
Carry On,
-C_S
-
Any chance on getting the definition of a played enhancement done before nationals so we can know how it should be played/ruled? It is kinda important.
-
Any chance on getting the definition of a played enhancement done before nationals so we can know how it should be played/ruled? It is kinda important.
It's one of three topics that we're still working to resolve - hopefully before Nationals. I don't expect there to be an announcement until after Nationals though. A REG update will likely take a while longer than that.
-
So if its not resolved I should just play it how I think it should be played...or...? And what if my opponent feels differently?
I don't want to nag but I'm honestly confused about how to handle this.
-
We've somehow done 3 nationals since this huge issue was brought up now. Idk how the rulings go there but it's kind of ridiculous.
-
Play
A card is considered "played" (1) when its special ability activates or (2) when it is put into play – except by a "place" special ability or a "holds" identifier.
From the new reg. Thanks.
-
So, to be clear, we don't have a definition of play yet?
-
So, to be clear, we don't have a definition of play yet?
It's defined in the new REG. We also have a more comprehensive definition that I think is ready but we're waiting on more elders to give their approval before we announce it in case we've missed something.
-
That's what I wanted to clarify; I know something is coming, I just wanted to make sure it hadn't been forgotten since I hadn't seen it yet.
-
We tried hard to get all loose ends tied up before Nationals. We were successful with most of them. But there were a few things that got close but not quite finished. A complete definition of "play" is one of them.
-
We tried hard to get all loose ends tied up before Nationals. We were successful with most of them. But there were a few things that got close but not quite finished. A complete definition of "play" is one of them.
Can we get a list of things that are still being finalized, as well as ones that did get updated?
-
We tried hard to get all loose ends tied up before Nationals. We were successful with most of them. But there were a few things that got close but not quite finished. A complete definition of "play" is one of them.
Can we get a list of things that are still being finalized, as well as ones that did get updated?
I've posted a comprehensive list of all the changes already. I even linked it for everyone in the bottom of every rule change/clarification post I made. :)
As for what else is being discussed, I'm not going to publicize a full list. That would cause more trouble that it's worth. There are topics we discuss that the general public is never aware of. If we decide a topic like that is a non-issue and no change(s) are made we won't hear the end of it from some players. For that reason I think it's best if they just don't know if the first place. :P
Two things that I can tell you we are still discussing for the sake of adding more clarity - the definition of "play" and generic characters entering battle a second time. These have both already been added to the new REG but they could use a little work still.
-
I for one would have appreciated knowing that a deck building change was on the horizon for type 2 so that I could have adjusted my order of the new set accordingly for my personal needs...will I sell the extra complete set? Likely, but it is now another set I have to sell that I did not plan on or budget. For type 2 players that spend a hefty investment in cards it would have been nice to know what's going through the PTB from time to time, especially drastic changes like that.
Just my thoughts....
-
As for what else is being discussed, I'm not going to publicize a full list. That would cause more trouble that it's worth. There are topics we discuss that the general public is never aware of. If we decide a topic like that is a non-issue and no change(s) are made we won't hear the end of it from some players. For that reason I think it's best if they just don't know if the first place. :P
Spoken like a true parent or politician, and I know you're not the latter. ;)
-
I for one would have appreciated knowing that a deck building change was on the horizon for type 2 so that I could have adjusted my order of the new set accordingly for my personal needs...will I sell the extra complete set? Likely, but it is now another set I have to sell that I did not plan on or budget. For type 2 players that spend a hefty investment in cards it would have been nice to know what's going through the PTB from time to time, especially drastic changes like that.
Just my thoughts....
My apologies Brad, we'd been hinting at the change for 2 color cards for quite a while actually, but we didn't do a good job of hinting at the change to 4 per deck instead of 5.
-
I for one would have appreciated knowing that a deck building change was on the horizon for type 2 so that I could have adjusted my order of the new set accordingly for my personal needs...will I sell the extra complete set? Likely, but it is now another set I have to sell that I did not plan on or budget. For type 2 players that spend a hefty investment in cards it would have been nice to know what's going through the PTB from time to time, especially drastic changes like that.
Just my thoughts....
Is the REG going to get updated with the new T2 deck building rules soon?
My apologies Brad, we'd been hinting at the change for 2 color cards for quite a while actually, but we didn't do a good job of hinting at the change to 4 per deck instead of 5.
-
Whether or not an ability granting cbn status with a condition can be negated by a card of that condition. So far we have about one elder on each side.
-
I for one would have appreciated knowing that a deck building change was on the horizon for type 2 so that I could have adjusted my order of the new set accordingly for my personal needs...will I sell the extra complete set? Likely, but it is now another set I have to sell that I did not plan on or budget. For type 2 players that spend a hefty investment in cards it would have been nice to know what's going through the PTB from time to time, especially drastic changes like that.
Just my thoughts....
My apologies Brad, we'd been hinting at the change for 2 color cards for quite a while actually, but we didn't do a good job of hinting at the change to 4 per deck instead of 5.
Actually Bryon had been hinting at Type 2 deck-building changes quite awhile ago, so I wasn't caught off-guard at all. :)
-
btw, #6 has been resolved. "Play" has now been defined :)
-
When characters holding a placed card/weapon are shuffled, is the placed card/weapon discarded? Currently, this is yes, but there's been some murmuring about a change, and I don't want it to fall by the wayside.
-
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/weapons-on-characters-returned-to-hand/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/weapons-on-characters-returned-to-hand/)
-
We have one elder saying something contrary to established rule. I'd say that's "Unresolved"
-
One elder confirming it on that thread, but in the other thread three were no fewer than 3 elders saying they thought the rule already had changed.
-
That's exactly my logic. They thought a rule had been changed, but there was no announcement. Isn't this thread for things like this? I don't want it to come up in two months and have no idea how to rule.
-
We have one elder saying something contrary to established rule. I'd say that's "Unresolved"
Now there are 2 elders confirming. Consider it "resolved" :)
-
We have one elder saying something contrary to established rule. I'd say that's "Unresolved"
Now there are 2 elders confirming. Consider it "resolved" :)
Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!
-
sorry so what is the ruling?
-
When a character is shuffled, the weapon is shuffled as well.
-
Make sure Rob knows or someone at least ask him. Plenty of rulings where he had no idea.
-
When a character is shuffled, the weapon is shuffled as well.
Wasn't the ruling more than just about shuffling? Doesn't the weapon now follow the character in all instances except capture and discard? For example, weapon is also placed on the bottom of the deck when the character is.
-
That is correct, but that has always been the rule. The only difference now is the weird exception for shuffle is gone.
-
Holy cow! Some were treating shuffle as an exception?? In any case, nothing changes for us here in the NW.
-
Well actually, that was the correct ruling until this season. The weapons insert for Kings specified that if a warrior was discarded or shuffled, the weapon was discarded.
-
Maybe I should read that insert one of these days. ::)
Naaaaaa! ;D
-
*Insert pun here*