Author Topic: Weapons follow? (Read 6796 times)

megamanlan · « **Reply #25 on:** May 12, 2012, 05:07:18 PM »

What about Return to Hand? Do they still follow?

STAMP · « **Reply #26 on:** May 12, 2012, 06:48:54 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 10, 2012, 06:19:10 PM

I see that we are following God's Word carefully:

"...do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..."

Quote from: megamanlan on May 12, 2012, 05:07:18 PM

What about Return to Hand? Do they still follow?

Character goes to your left hand and weapon to the right...unless it's Ehud.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #27 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:01:49 PM »

I was playing a game today where my opponent was useing high places. He placed an enhancement on my hero that I didn't like, so I returned him to my hand. I had no idea what to do with his enhancement, I let my opponent take the card back into his hand.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #28 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:38:15 PM »

Quote from: Jmbeers on May 12, 2012, 07:01:49 PM

I was playing a game today where my opponent was useing high places. He placed an enhancement on my hero that I didn't like, so I returned him to my hand. I had no idea what to do with his enhancement, I let my opponent take the card back into his hand.

The enhancement would actually go to your hand. A card that another person owns can never go to your deck or d/c pile, but it can go to your hand, so it would follow the Hero.

megamanlan · « **Reply #29 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:40:49 PM »

Lol... What if he drops it while retreating to my hand?

Idk either....

Redoubter · « **Reply #30 on:** May 12, 2012, 07:44:35 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 12, 2012, 07:38:15 PM

The enhancement would actually go to your hand. A card that another person owns can never go to your deck or d/c pile, but it can go to your hand, so it would follow the Hero.

I would dispute this based on precedent established in other rulings that cards you do not own can only be added to your hand when a card explicitly states it can. This is a deviation from what I've seen in the past.

Is that something that was actually discussed for this ruling (and, btw, is this ruling final now that it has been finally announced?), or is this something that 'follows' the rule? Because if it is the latter, I would challenge that this flies in the face of precedent without an explicit change in the rules.

SirNobody · « **Reply #31 on:** May 13, 2012, 04:15:27 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Redoubter on May 12, 2012, 07:44:35 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 12, 2012, 07:38:15 PM
The enhancement would actually go to your hand. A card that another person owns can never go to your deck or d/c pile, but it can go to your hand, so it would follow the Hero.

I would dispute this based on precedent established in other rulings that cards you do not own can only be added to your hand when a card explicitly states it can.

Redoubter is correct. When a card is returned to your hand it resets to face value. Face value includes the ownership of the card, so when a card goes to a players hand it goes to the owner's hand by default (even if it is "following" a card that goes to someone else's hand). There is an established exception to this for cards that specifically put an opponent's card in your hand (i.e. Taking Egypt's Wealth).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #32 on:** May 13, 2012, 06:32:25 PM »

I like the professor's explanation better. Any rule that works all the time is better than something with exceptions.

SirNobody · « **Reply #33 on:** May 13, 2012, 06:40:47 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Minister Polarius on May 13, 2012, 06:32:25 PM

I like the professor's explanation better. Any rule that works all the time is better than something with exceptions.

The rules that cards reset to face value when they go to a players hand and the rule that control reverts to the owner when a card resets to face value are established rules. Either explanation requires an exception to one rule or the other.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #34 on:** May 13, 2012, 06:57:16 PM »

Resetting to face value doesn't affect control.

megamanlan · « **Reply #35 on:** May 13, 2012, 07:26:33 PM »

I'm inclined to agree w/ Pol. If I make a card that states 'Return all cards to face value' that wouldn't change the control of any cards.

SirNobody · « **Reply #36 on:** May 13, 2012, 09:43:42 PM »

Hey,

If cards didn't revert to their owner when they reset to face value, then if your lost soul is in my land of bondage when the shuffler is rescued it would get shuffled into my draw pile.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

megamanlan · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2012, 10:05:38 PM »

That's not resetting to face-value, that is returning it to the owner, via what the card says.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #38 on:** May 14, 2012, 12:29:18 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on May 13, 2012, 09:43:42 PM

If cards didn't revert to their owner when they reset to face value, then if your lost soul is in my land of bondage when the shuffler is rescued it would get shuffled into my draw pile.

That is a situation of cards returning to decks (which everyone agrees always go to owner's decks). This is a question of whether going to other players hands is allowed, or whether it works like decks and discard piles. I do see a separation here that could be significant.

If Prof A thinks that they should go to opponent's hands (following the precedent of cards like Abe's Descendants), and Nobody thinks that they should go to owner's hands (following the precedent of the rule about decks and discard piles), then both sides have a valid viewpoint. We should discuss this on the other side and return with a conclusive answer.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #39 on:** May 14, 2012, 04:36:34 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 14, 2012, 12:29:18 AM

If Prof A thinks that they should go to opponent's hands (following the precedent of cards like Abe's Descendants), and Nobody thinks that they should go to owner's hands (following the precedent of the rule about decks and discard piles), then both sides have a valid viewpoint. We should discuss this on the other side and return with a conclusive answer.

If Sir Nobody is correct, then you cannot take this discussion to the "other side."

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #40 on:** May 14, 2012, 05:30:36 PM »

Then clearly he's incorrect

Just to lay it out, the question is to whether have going to had default to owner's and then add an exception for cards that specifically allow for it, or to just have no default and let all cards work as worded. Most cards that return things to had say "owner's hand" anyway, so there's no risk of anything being broken. You've already been able to do this for years since at least one elder thought that was always the rule, and no problems have come up.

Redoubter · « **Reply #41 on:** May 14, 2012, 08:16:35 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on May 14, 2012, 05:30:36 PM

Most cards that return things to had say "owner's hand" anyway, so there's no risk of anything being broken.

Actually, the way the other side of this argument is being presented, it does result in a lot of broken, because those cards target one card, and then anything placed on those cards go to that player's hand.

If I were to return a Hero to my hand that had a placed card on it, by your reading of the rules that placed card would go to my hand as well, and there are no cards that say "return X to owner's hand, and everything placed to owner's hand". This does leave the door open for broken situations.

If a card says that it returns to "owner's hand", then all placed cards should follow the same rule and return to "owner's hand". They should not follow based on player, but owner. They still go to hand, just the correct one.

megamanlan · « **Reply #42 on:** May 14, 2012, 09:25:58 PM »

The Arguement we are making is that owner's hand means each card goes to the card Owner's hand. (ex. I play a card that returns my Hero w/ Destructive Sin on it. Our understanding is My Hero goes to my hand and Destructive Sin goes to the hand of the player that played it. But if I play a card that says, Return a Hero to Hand' it would take both to your hand)

STAMP · « **Reply #43 on:** May 15, 2012, 12:11:50 PM »

I support Sir Nobody's interpretation. It is more consistent and simple.

"return to hand" - return to owner's hand

"return to your hand" - overrides destination, a la "instead" (e.g. Abraham's Descendant and Gleaning the Fields)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #44 on:** May 15, 2012, 03:41:55 PM »

Quote

If I were to return a Hero to my hand that had a placed card on it, by your reading of the rules that placed card would go to my hand as well, and there are no cards that say "return X to owner's hand, and everything placed to owner's hand". This does leave the door open for broken situations.

I don't see how that's a problem. How would you force your opponent to play placed cards he doesn't want to play? The power of placed cards is very high and there's currently little-to-no risk in playing them. I don't see how making a slight downside (mostly involving cards that don't see play at all) is so horrible.

megamanlan · « **Reply #45 on:** May 15, 2012, 04:28:47 PM »

I'd have to agree w/ Pol here, what's the 'big' problem? It seems like it would be a bigger problem the other way.

Redoubter · « **Reply #46 on:** May 15, 2012, 07:35:44 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on May 15, 2012, 04:28:47 PM

I'd have to agree w/ Pol here, what's the 'big' problem? It seems like it would be a bigger problem the other way.

It's not about a 'big problem' being caused, it's about the consistency of the rule.

It is actually is more consistent to have all 'return' abilities follow the same rule. I don't see why there should be a different rule for hand as opposed to other locations, given both precedent and consistency.

Aren't we trying to keep the rules simple and consistent? Or was that just in other threads and I missed where we did an about-face?

megamanlan · « **Reply #47 on:** May 15, 2012, 07:50:17 PM »

The problem is it's not consistent. Because it's not following the 'follow' rule and it makes Place Enhancements 100x worse then they are now.

Red Wing · « **Reply #48 on:** May 15, 2012, 09:56:09 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on May 15, 2012, 07:50:17 PM

it makes Place Enhancements 100x worse then they are now.

That's probably a good thing, because place cards aren't really bad at all.

megamanlan · « **Reply #49 on:** May 15, 2012, 10:33:43 PM »

How's that good? It's bad enough if I have to deal w/ something like Destructive Sin, but now I have to worry that I may give my opponent a chance to take it back and play it again?
I say if it's on a person, it follows to that players hand, like a blessing or Curse.

News:

Author Topic: Weapons follow? (Read 6796 times)