Problem Solved? - 2007/09/01 15:46Can The Problem Solver (when played by Gallente, of course) return a card that is not in play to its owners' hand?
For example, using a recent game...
Player 1 plays Veteran's Premature Retirement. Player 2 plays a Damage Control to counter it. Player 1 plays The Problem Solver to return Veteran's to his hand.
Question #1- is this legal? Nothing in the cards against it.
Question #2- Can this be used to get the effect from a news card twice? I.E., I play the Veteran's, then stack Problem Solver on top of it. Problem solver returns Veteran's, which then goes off as normal, be it in the hand or no?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Bombadidaloo
User Cruiser
Posts: 125
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/01 20:49You wouldn't be able to get the effect from a news card twice, as once the Problem Solver resolves on the stack, Veterans is no longer 'being played' to resolve it's ability. Otherwise all news you'd ever try to counter would resolve after you counter them....
But I do believe Problem Solver can save news from cards like Damage Control to be played again.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/02 03:49RedX wrote: Can The Problem Solver (when played by Gallente, of course) return a card that is not in play to its owners' hand?
For example, using a recent game...
Player 1 plays Veteran's Premature Retirement. Player 2 plays a Damage Control to counter it. Player 1 plays The Problem Solver to return Veteran's to his hand.
Question #1- is this legal? Nothing in the cards against it.
Question #2- Can this be used to get the effect from a news card twice? I.E., I play the Veteran's, then stack Problem Solver on top of it. Problem solver returns Veteran's, which then goes off as normal, be it in the hand or no?
1) yes it is legal, however your initial comment is not correct. Problem Solver cannot return a card that is not in play. In your example, Veteran's is in play, on the Pile, waiting to resolve. You could not use Problem Solver to return Veteran's from an out-of-play area (such as the scrapheap).
2) No. See above - the reason you can return the news from the pile is the fact that the news has not resolved yet - it is in play but unresolved. Once it resolves (assuming it has no duration), it will go out of play (to the scrapheap) and no longer be targettable.-Ryuteki, Owner of the Rules! We're playing Monday evenings in IL, see www.games-plus.com for the address or email me at ryuteki AT gmail DOT com.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
RedX
User Cruiser
Posts: 130
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/02 23:48Ryuteki wrote: RedX wrote: Can The Problem Solver (when played by Gallente, of course) return a card that is not in play to its owners' hand?
For example, using a recent game...
Player 1 plays Veteran's Premature Retirement. Player 2 plays a Damage Control to counter it. Player 1 plays The Problem Solver to return Veteran's to his hand.
Question #1- is this legal? Nothing in the cards against it.
Question #2- Can this be used to get the effect from a news card twice? I.E., I play the Veteran's, then stack Problem Solver on top of it. Problem solver returns Veteran's, which then goes off as normal, be it in the hand or no?
1) yes it is legal, however your initial comment is not correct. Problem Solver cannot return a card that is not in play. In your example, Veteran's is in play, on the Pile, waiting to resolve. You could not use Problem Solver to return Veteran's from an out-of-play area (such as the scrapheap).
2) No. See above - the reason you can return the news from the pile is the fact that the news has not resolved yet - it is in play but unresolved. Once it resolves (assuming it has no duration), it will go out of play (to the scrapheap) and no longer be targettable.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... the Veteran's is IN PLAY before it resolves? Does this mean that a ship, for example, is in play before it resolves and... comes into play?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
DTee
User Cruiser
Posts: 222
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/03 13:01 Problem Solver cannot return a card that is not in play. In your example, Veteran's is in play, on the Pile, waiting to resolve. You could not use Problem Solver to return Veteran's from an out-of-play area (such as the scrapheap).
I've been playing the card the same way but I really don't like the suggestion that "The Pile" is "In play". The way I've always understood the zone system* The Pile is a zone for cards that have not yet resolved but it is not part of the in play area (which would include regions, assembly, your dock and an area for news with a duration).
I'd really like to see an offical line on this. I think we can all agree that it'd be wrong for a card in your scrapheap to be considered friendly (as it needs to be under your control) but the Pile is far more debatable.
DTee
* From other games, nobody has tried to add zones to the Eve rules yet
Post edited by: DTee, at: 2007/09/03 13:10
The administrator has disabled public write access.
rorik36
User Frigate
Posts: 56
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/03 14:13DTee wrote: Problem Solver cannot return a card that is not in play. In your example, Veteran's is in play, on the Pile, waiting to resolve. You could not use Problem Solver to return Veteran's from an out-of-play area (such as the scrapheap).
I've been playing the card the same way but I really don't like the suggestion that "The Pile" is "In play". The way I've always understood the zone system* The Pile is a zone for cards that have not yet resolved but it is not part of the in play area (which would include regions, assembly, your dock and an area for news with a duration).
I'd really like to see an offical line on this. I think we can all agree that it'd be wrong for a card in your scrapheap to be considered friendly (as it needs to be under your control) but the Pile is far more debatable.
DTee
* From other games, nobody has tried to add zones to the Eve rules yet<br><br>Post edited by: DTee, at: 2007/09/03 13:10
From the Glossary: Play a card > You play a card by paying the price of a card in your hand, revealing it and placing it on the pile. So yes, it looks like a card "on the pile" is also "in play".
I really need to re-think how things work in this game. I also really think we need a comprehensive rulebook.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Ryuteki
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 679
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/03 16:21rorik36 wrote: From the Glossary: Play a card > You play a card by paying the price of a card in your hand, revealing it and placing it on the pile. So yes, it looks like a card "on the pile" is also "in play".
*nod* The next line is "If cards "come into play" in any other way, they are not considered "played."
Also note the last line of "The Pile" under advanced rules: If many pending abilities come into play at the same time, the active player chooses in which order they are placed on the pile.-Ryuteki, Owner of the Rules! We're playing Monday evenings in IL, see www.games-plus.com for the address or email me at ryuteki AT gmail DOT com.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
DTee
User Cruiser
Posts: 222
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/03 17:21rorik36 wrote: From the Glossary: Play a card > You play a card by paying the price of a card in your hand, revealing it and placing it on the pile. So yes, it looks like a card "on the pile" is also "in play".
I don't follow your logic here. Just because a card has "been played" does not mean it's "in play". In games with similar timing rules The Pile is a kind of limbo between your hand and play area (or scrapheap as appropriate).
Fortunately, we're debating the reasoning behind a ruling not the actual ruling. I'm happy to consider a card on the Pile "under your control" and therefore "friendly"* making it a valid target whilst anything in your scrapheap is not under your control.
I also really think we need a comprehensive rulebook.
I couldn't agree more. It was marginal with one set, there's a very clear need with two and by the time it gets to a third we'll be lost without one.
DTee
*Friendly has a glossary definition but it doesn't really resolve the issue as it refers to the definition of control which is rather vague.
Post edited by: DTee, at: 2007/09/03 17:21
The administrator has disabled public write access.
RedX
User Cruiser
Posts: 130
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/03 18:40Ryuteki wrote: So yes, it looks like a card "on the pile" is also "in play".
It appears to me that cards on the pile "have been played", but have not yet "come into play". Otherwise, you would, say, draw the card from Bantam even if it had been Exiled from the Empire. Or Hired Enforcers would always, always work- no anti-news could stop it from giving its target ship +2/+4. There's got to be a gap in time between the two, otherwise there's really no point to having two separate terms to describe it!
Edit: Also, are we sure that Problem Solver can target only things in play?
Post edited by: RedX, at: 2007/09/03 18:42
Post edited by: RedX, at: 2007/09/03 18:49
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 514
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/04 04:23There are a great many assumptions floating about concerning how certain abilities work, and when you can and cannot play them. For instance, a card's text can only apply when it's resolved, but many cards change the legal definition of what it means to play a card, even when those cards are not in play. This shouldn't be possible if the rules are interpreted strictly. There are some other notable concerns, such as whether Martial Law can be targeted while still on the pile. Most assume not, but others argued that since the card hadn't resolved yet, the immunity wasn't in effect yet. Lots and lots of assumptions.
Unfortunately, your "there's no point in having two separate terms to describe it" isn't valid, given the proliferation of places we're getting multiple terms to describe the same thing. Why use "halt" when you already have "stall"? Why say "goes back to be assembled again" when you already have "reassemble"? <shrug> Consistency just isn't the top feature of the game right now.
I'm not sure what anyone would expect to be added to the Exiled rules sheet to make it comprehensive, but I'd love a consistent and complete set of rules.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Bombadidaloo
User Cruiser
Posts: 125
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/04 06:04Buhallin wrote: There are a great many assumptions floating about concerning how certain abilities work, and when you can and cannot play them. For instance, a card's text can only apply when it's resolved, but many cards change the legal definition of what it means to play a card, even when those cards are not in play. This shouldn't be possible if the rules are interpreted strictly. There are some other notable concerns, such as whether Martial Law can be targeted while still on the pile. Most assume not, but others argued that since the card hadn't resolved yet, the immunity wasn't in effect yet. Lots and lots of assumptions.
Unfortunately, your "there's no point in having two separate terms to describe it" isn't valid, given the proliferation of places we're getting multiple terms to describe the same thing. Why use "halt" when you already have "stall"? Why say "goes back to be assembled again" when you already have "reassemble"? <shrug> Consistency just isn't the top feature of the game right now.
I'm not sure what anyone would expect to be added to the Exiled rules sheet to make it comprehensive, but I'd love a consistent and complete set of rules.
Good points, though I'd wish you'd add something other than complaints that could help resolve this situation. Even a hypothetical suggestion for a future rule change; you've obviously thought this bit over more than most of us.
I think this game needs to take a more MTG-akin approach to rules concerning cards in play and on the pile, and their targetability. A start could be rewording cards like Mind Control to something like "Destroy target news on the pile or in play."
That route would require many revisions though
The administrator has disabled public write access.
stevetheone
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 540
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/04 14:54Return target friendly ship to its owner's hand.
The friendly target may be of any card type.
Thought I'd print the text of the card before adding my 2p worth. Problem Solver could send either Veterns or Damage Control back to the hand. The reason for this is that while both are on the pile they have left the hand and can be effected by news card put on the pile. There is nothing in Problem Solver that says that they have had to have resolved first (in fact the oppersite is true when you consider the first line of the card and ships in dock). It can also be used to send news cards back to the hand if they have a duration, eg Remnant of Vak'atioth.
It is a pretty potent card all in all and will see a lot of play I think
Post edited by: stevetheone, at: 2007/09/04 14:56We shall seed the stars with our scions and reap that harvest.
No expect the Spam, spam, spam, spam...
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 514
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/04 15:58Bombadidaloo wrote: Good points, though I'd wish you'd add something other than complaints that could help resolve this situation. Even a hypothetical suggestion for a future rule change; you've obviously thought this bit over more than most of us.
Sorry, I thought the solutions to the problems were obvious... For starters, be obsessive about what you call game terms. For another, do something to explicitly clarify what card texts and effects are usable in non-standard places.
Unfortunately, your last statement is dead on. The problems which are becoming more prevalent are not necessarily rules issues, they're card issues as well. These might be fixed by a lot of rules that try and catch all of them (i.e. "Any ability which affects whether a card can be targeted is always active" or "Any ability which allows a card to be played from the scrapheap is always active"), but that's going to be very, very messy. The only other alternative would be to set up classes of ability and errata all the affected cards. Given the level of effort which CCP seems to be putting to this game right now, expecting such a massive effort seems unrealistic.
That aside, I disagree that pointing out problems isn't positive, however fashionable it is to try and dismiss people as purely negative whiners. Identifying problems and discussing their impacts is inherently positive, even though it's something people may not want to hear. In the end, though, fixing problems is far harder than identifying them, and I'm not getting paid for this, nor do I have the control of the project.
The EVE team has shown very little interest in dealing with the fundamental issues in this rules set, and my attempts to raise major rules issues here recently have been shouted down. It seems the preference around here is for a rules set where everyone pretends it all works as it should, rather than one which really works. That may suffice for a first set, and maybe an expansion or two, but over time the number of possible interactions grows exponentially. That's going to get harder and harder to keep control of without a precision this game lacks so far. It's only going to get worse if they continue attempting to draw players with big money. I point these things out because I believe it's critical for a solid game - the money players will exploit it because it means they'll get paid.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
RedX
User Cruiser
Posts: 130
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/04 17:16Okay, interesting. Problem solver does not require the card to actually be "In Play". Does this mean it can return any card from the scrapheap to its owners' hand?
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Buhallin
User Battlecruiser
Posts: 514
Re:Problem Solved? - 2007/09/04 17:47There are a number of other restrictions which descend from "in play" - for instance, a ship card is a card while in your hand, and only a ship once it's been played, so something which targets a ship can only do so if it's in play. I think DTee is correct from above, for the same reason - a ship can only be friendly if it's controlled by you, and only controlled by anyone if it's in play... So in a very roundabout sort of way, no, you can't use it on a card in your scrapheap.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
