Make your 2013 Redemption National Tournament travel plans now! Free booster packs for pre-registering!
Hold the presses! Intent factors into legality now? So if I accidentally leave a LS in my opponent's deck, then I don't have to forfeit?
Also, why have a rule that a player can be forced to break unbeknownst to him instead of a rule that can only be broken intentionally?
You're proposing a system that would make it possible to have a rule broken, then have a contingency. I am supporting the system in which the rule can't be broken short of outright (accidental or intentional) cheating. Furthermore, your system is more complicated since it has one set of procedures for optional abilities and another for non-optional, while the existing system is universal.
With all due respect Chris, I humbly disagree. I don't care if every elder in the game has played it that way, I would like a logical explanation as to why it should work. Never before was I able to remove a hero that had a enhancement on him, (say palsy for example) with another copy in my hand. IF Sam's ability said must, I could agree that you can swap duplicate characters out, but it says may meaning that a target must be valid. It's not, thus you can search for David or Saul but they stay in your hand until they are discarded. And that will remain my judgment until it is established as a true rule (which this one is controversial enough that not even two elder's in agreement in sufficient in my opinion).
I just want to reemphasize that it is the existing system. You might have your opinion right now Mark, but the current precedent is that you can pull a David if another David is in play. That's how the vast majority of people have been playing it
Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 24, 2012, 02:39:04 AMI just want to reemphasize that it is the existing system. You might have your opinion right now Mark, but the current precedent is that you can pull a David if another David is in play. That's how the vast majority of people have been playing itYour perspective on this is biased by your location in the country. If you were playing in California or Minnesota or Kentucky there would be different precedents. This is why the elders are currently discussing this, and we'll have to return with an official decision.But for now, my ruling is equally valid of a precedent as what you are saying.
It seems that your area is pretty consistently doing things differently than the rest of the country. This happened with Thad's protection, too. Why is that?
Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 24, 2012, 05:49:23 PMIt seems that your area is pretty consistently doing things differently than the rest of the country. This happened with Thad's protection, too. Why is that?Whose "your" are you referencing?
Bump! I have several tournaments coming up soon and wanted to see if there is an update. Currently in my region We will have conflicting rulings, due to different host ruling differently on this and we need a ruling to settle this. We are getting close to late season where all the big important tourneys are and we still have no answer.
Even though this is still being hashed out, at this time you can search for David with Samuel while you have a copy of David in play.
We'll return with an official decision later. But for now, I do plan on ruling this at tournaments the way that I have stated.
But for now, my ruling is equally valid of a precedent as what you are saying.
Unfortunately, just because a majority of players do it one way doesn't make it right. Neither does intention or anything else that makes the rules more fluid in this game.You say:Quote from: adotson85 on March 14, 2012, 03:31:31 AMEven though this is still being hashed out, at this time you can search for David with Samuel while you have a copy of David in play.An Elder says:Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 23, 2012, 07:52:31 AMWe'll return with an official decision later. But for now, I do plan on ruling this at tournaments the way that I have stated.That way is to NOT allow such activity as you described. He continues:Quote from: Prof Underwood on February 24, 2012, 08:01:13 AMBut for now, my ruling is equally valid of a precedent as what you are saying.So how can you say that you can? This is the problem, and as pointed out, there are many tournaments coming up, including States and Regionals (not to mention Nationals). It is really important to have some sort of unified rule that almost everyone will argue isn't right for some reason but will have to follow it.I know I have different opinions on this than other tournament hosts in my area. If I host a Local or District in 2 months, why should the players in our area have to deal with my interpretation when the month before at a different Local or District it was the exact opposite?I want to let the process play out, but we really need a ruling here Please?
Three elders seem to agree that this is how it has been ruled for awhile now and as far as I know I have not seen any overwhelming evidence to overturn this rule.
What I'm saying is that there is disagreement among the elders, and we have been told that at least one will rule differently at tournaments. There is a debate on their side of the forum. Until it is resolved, however, we have elders on different sides, saying they will rule differently, which is uncomfortable given the need for a steadfast rule (especially in tournaments).They wouldn't be debating if there was one.
Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 23, 2012, 08:30:51 AMThe biggest "you're wrong" I can think of is in the case of deck discard. According you you, a player can't use an optional ability that would put duplicates in play, but that's not always possible to determine before the fact.I see a difference between purposefully breaking the "no duplicate characters" rule by going through your deck and choosing to put a duplicate character in play (which I would rule as illegal) and discarding the top card and being surprised to find that it is a duplicate character (which I would rule as legal).One is trying to break the rules, and the other is doing it accidentally. In cases of accidentally breaking the rules, we have a rule to cover what to do (discard 1 of the duplicates), but there is no reason to allow people to break rules on purpose.
The biggest "you're wrong" I can think of is in the case of deck discard. According you you, a player can't use an optional ability that would put duplicates in play, but that's not always possible to determine before the fact.
I completely agree. It is very frustrating to know that it is knowingly being ruled differently. Even if it is being debated on the other side, we should have a clear cut ruling in place until a final ruling is announced.
Players who had been playing ROOT (like my brother and myself) were exposed to it. We took it as a given that it worked, especially with multiple elders using/approving of it.
The problem is MJB is when you have a host who might think one way, but has players who judge other events (that the host plays) who think the other way, there is not consensus and it becomes the luck of who's judging for the players...
Different rulings in different parts of the country?