Author Topic: Witnesses to Creation (Read 3719 times)

BanjoMan · « **on:** June 19, 2017, 12:21:05 AM »

Witnesses to Creation SA: Set one silver brigade Hero aside for seven turns. The next time Hero enters battle he cannot be blocked by humans.

Complaint of Moses SA: Return a Hero from set aside area to owner's territory. Hero is returned to face value. Discard all set-aside cards on that Hero.

I set-aside a silver brigade hero on WtC, then play CoM to return it to my territory. Can the silver brigade hero ignore humans?

The Guardian · « **Reply #1 on:** June 19, 2017, 12:33:03 AM »

No. If a Hero set aside for a specified duration in order to gain a benefit is returned before that duration, the benefit is lost.

BanjoMan · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2017, 12:41:10 AM »

Thank you sir, your reply is appreciated.

Still trying to figure out a way to make WtC applicable outside of booster.

Thanks.

The Guardian · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2017, 12:49:42 AM »

Before the change to ignore, WtC was a pretty strong card. You could combine it with Three Nails and the only options for an opponent to block with were the two animals in the game at the time, Leviathan and The Serpent. I used this strategy to win T2 2P at Nationals in 2007.

However, with the change to ignore and the introduction of other animals and symbolic characters, it's not really that big of a pay-off for something that takes 7 turns to work.

BanjoMan · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2017, 01:09:56 AM »

You're right. Unfortunately, there aren't many broken combos within the game anymore.

Your genius combination reminds me of Prince of this World and Household idols. Since the release of Coliseum it isn't that reliable but at the time it worked well for me.

The Guardian · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2017, 01:29:10 AM »

Yeah, that was a powerful blocking option back in the day.

To be honest though, a defense with Prince of this World, Abaddon the Destroyer, Red Dragon and King of Tyrus combined with a bunch of negates (which Orange has several of) and Household Idols could actually be pretty formidable. An opponent would basically need a battle winner and a negate (or two battle winners) every turn.

spacy32 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 20, 2017, 11:25:55 PM »

Just set aside their strongest angel for 7 turns but make sure you're running demons lol

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #7 on:** June 21, 2017, 12:13:22 AM »

Wait, you could totally play Witnesses in battle to take Michael out for (effectively) the rest of the game!? XD

Josh · « **Reply #8 on:** June 21, 2017, 04:12:40 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on June 21, 2017, 12:13:22 AM

Wait, you could totally play Witnesses in battle to take Michael out for (effectively) the rest of the game!? XD

Or AUTO, or any silver hero giving you problems. Now that set-aside enhancements are discarded when played (they don't follow the set-aside characters), Rehoboam/Gabriel anyone?

everytribe · « **Reply #9 on:** June 21, 2017, 04:27:48 PM »

You can't set aside the opponent's hero's with your good set aside cards. I tried using it in a type 2 deck with a couple green and purple set aside cards and it was ruled a no go.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #10 on:** June 21, 2017, 04:39:55 PM »

That sounds like a rule that may have been in place at one time, but it doesn't look to be the case now. At least if you play the set-asides in battle.

Quote

A set-aside enhancement is treated as a regular enhancement (for whether it stays in play or is discarded once played), and can be played in battle according to the normal rules of initiative. Set aside enhancements can also be played outside of battle during the preparation phase or discard phase if they are played on a character of matching brigade in the player's territory. Set aside enhancements played outside of battle cannot target cards controlled by an opponent (unless the enhancement is a territory class enhancement).

everytribe · « **Reply #11 on:** June 21, 2017, 07:00:09 PM »

No it is the current ruling. I questioned it at the 2017 type 2 only and Gabe, John, and Justin all agreed and used something from the regs to justify it. I used it in battle on my hero and tried to set aside the opponent's hero.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #12 on:** June 22, 2017, 03:30:08 AM »

Sorry to say it but that was a bad ruling based on how things used to be.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2017, 07:27:08 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on June 22, 2017, 03:30:08 AM

Sorry to say it but that was a bad ruling based on how things used to be.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I agree with Aggie that the old rule did not allow you to set-aside your opponents' cards of same alignment. However, as Aggie also pointed out, the new REG does not make this distinction.

Quote from: everytribe on June 21, 2017, 07:00:09 PM

... Gabe, John, and Justin all agreed and used something from the regs to justify it.

Pray tell what the justification from the current REG was....

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2017, 09:12:19 PM »

Perhaps Gabe, John or Justin could clarify the basis of the ruling?

everytribe · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2017, 09:37:36 PM »

I PMed Justin asking him to respond.

The Guardian · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2017, 10:13:10 PM »

This is under review.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2017, 07:14:41 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on June 22, 2017, 10:13:10 PM

This is under review.

I think you are misunderstanding my question. I want to know what justification was used during the Type 2 Only event this year. Wild Bill said that you guys used the REG to make your decision, unless I am the one who misunderstood what happened.

Gabe · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2017, 08:20:59 AM »

It was a year and a half ago. I vaguely remember the situation. I'm not sure I was involved in the decision. IIRC Tim might have been involved as well. I definitely don't recall the ruling, much less the reasoning.

But we are discussing it.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2017, 08:51:39 AM »

Oh, I see. He had said the 2017 Type 2 Only, which I assumed was recent.

As you were.

Gabe · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2017, 09:26:44 AM »

The situation I vaguely recall took place at Northern Heights. That puts it at least 2016. If there was a ruling in 2017 at Rochester I'm pretty sure I wasn't involved. But both Bill and I are getting up there in years. It's hard to tell with these things.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2017, 09:30:19 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on June 23, 2017, 09:26:44 AM

But both Bill and I are getting up there in years. It's hard to tell with these things.

LOL. You don't have to explain the effects of "getting up there in years" to me....

kariusvega · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2017, 09:33:09 AM »

Oh come on you guys 40's the new 20! :-)

I do specifically remember Bill mentioning a rule change from a t2 deck he made which heavily utilized setting aside opponents characters with set aside enhancements made for your own

everytribe · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2017, 11:08:24 AM »

Thanks for sticking up for me kariusvega, we did talk about it at the type two only this year but the ruling was made earlier after I won a local tournament. In Gabe's defence, he was probably busy playtesting and maybe wasn't in on that discussion. Gabe is right, Tim Maley was in on the discussion. A little while after the tournament I was at John Earley's house and Justin Alstad was there along with Tim and John. They informed me that it wasn't legal and it might have been tied to the old regs and the information wasn't put in the new regs by mistake. And the tournament was in 2016 before Nationals because I had to build a new deck right before Nationals 2016. (The older you get the years just all run together)

Again I'm old so my details are a little fuzzy but some things you do remember, like winning a type 2 multi player game at a tournament with a couple Alstad at the table. I was frustrated at the ruling, it didn't make sense to me. Maybe now they will reverse that ruling and I can put that deck back together again adding Witnesses to Creation to it. (If I can remember what cards I had in the deck)

everytribe · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2017, 11:27:00 AM »

Quote from: kariusvega on June 23, 2017, 09:33:09 AM

Oh come on you guys 40's the new 20! :-)

What is 60's?

kariusvega · « **Reply #25 on:** June 23, 2017, 11:35:07 AM »

The new 30! Haha I'm just a kid!!

News:

Author Topic: Witnesses to Creation (Read 3719 times)

kariusvega

kariusvega