View Full Version : The Black Lantern Object, question
soldiersoul13
09/04/2010, 21:50
The judge where I play thinks that the black lantern object can only be used by the person who brings it to play. Is this true? If it is not where can I find it to show him (he may insist if it is not shown to him).
Tell him to look at his rule book:
BN, pages 17 and 18:
SPECIAL OBJECTS
Special objects are objects (either tokens or 3-D objects) marked with the [gear] symbol. They represent items on the battlefield that create special effects or grant characters carrying or using them special abilities. Regardless of which player places a special object, any player can use its abilities, and all players are subject to its effects.
traitorarmor
09/04/2010, 21:56
The judge where I play thinks that the black lantern object can only be used by the person who brings it to play. Is this true? If it is not where can I find it to show him (he may insist if it is not shown to him).
Here is one example of Normalview answering this Q. (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275657&highlight=lanterns)
normalview
09/04/2010, 22:54
Just posting to say that the link provided is still correct. From pages 17-18 of the rules:
SPECIAL OBJECTS
Special objects are objects (either tokens or 3-D objects) marked with the [gear] symbol. They represent items on the battlefield that create special effects or grant characters carrying or using them special abilities. Regardless of which player places a special object, any player can use its abilities, and all players are subject to its effects.
UltraMANOS
09/26/2010, 20:05
once used do you remove the object (the special lantern objects) from the board? why does it say continual?
normalview
09/26/2010, 20:16
once used do you remove the object (the special lantern objects) from the board? why does it say continual?
Continual only means that whatever special effect the object has also functions when it is carried; a non-continual object, if carried, is just considered a regular object with no special effects.
So the Black Lantern can still heal characters even when it is being carted around by a character with Super Strength.
And, no, using the Lantern to heal does not cause it to be removed from the game. If it is used to attack, then it is removed per the normal 'objects in combat' rules on page 18 of the rule book.
soldiersoul13
09/26/2010, 20:34
lol, he still doesn't believe it. He thinks that because the card says, 'you' it overrides what's said in the rulebook.
robedestroyer
09/26/2010, 20:56
lol, he still doesn't believe it. He thinks that because the card says, 'you' it overrides what's said in the rulebook.
He still doesn't believe normalview? Is English your judge's 2nd language because it's not that hard to understand. Also, it's like the Dumpster or Generator or any other 3-D object. Anyone on the board can use it.
lol, he still doesn't believe it. He thinks that because the card says, 'you' it overrides what's said in the rulebook.
Yeah, he's wrong.
Tell him to look at his rule book:
BN, pages 17 and 18:
SPECIAL OBJECTS
Special objects are objects (either tokens or 3-D objects) marked with the [gear] symbol. They represent items on the battlefield that create special effects or grant characters carrying or using them special abilities. Regardless of which player places a special object, any player can use its abilities, and all players are subject to its effects.
lol, he still doesn't believe it. He thinks that because the card says, 'you' it overrides what's said in the rulebook.
Did he not read the part I quoted from the rulebook above :confused:? It doesn't get much more clear than that.................
Did he not read the part I quoted from the rulebook above :confused:? It doesn't get much more clear than that.................
The judge has been presented with the quote directly from the rulebook.
He has had confirmation from one of the rules deputies.
He still refuses to accept the truth.
My guess is that we have one of two things going on.
1) The judge is stubborn and just doesn't want to concede the fact that he was wrong.
2) The guy playing the Black Lantern is good friends with the judge.
Honorable1
09/27/2010, 08:30
Sounds like he shouldn't be a judge.
Sounds like he shouldn't be a judge.
I wouldn't go that far based on one bad call. The unwillingness to relent when faced with the facts does speak volumes, of course, but does that punishment fit that crime on one blown rules call?
RedDragon
09/27/2010, 11:31
I wouldn't go that far based on one bad call. The unwillingness to relent when faced with the facts does speak volumes, of course, but does that punishment fit that crime on one blown rules call?
i'm sorry harpua but i would. some people just can't be wrong no matter what. & those people should not be judges. keyword judge, means put your personal & political views on the shelf and interpret rules, laws, codes of conduct. & if you can't do this with admitting that hey i didn't even know that. then you shouldn't be a judge. we are too PC about everything nowadays. if someone is wrong or right it shouldn't matter who they are friend or foe. or just plain old i really hate so & so. i have had to retrack many of my post on threads & give rep. & post a apology that i was wrong & others were right. did i like it? did it feel? NO to both, but i did it because it was the right thing to do.
i'm harpua...
Not the last time I checked. :grin:
RedDragon
09/27/2010, 11:37
Not the last time I checked. :grin:
LOL i want to be harpua. jk bad typing i get ahead of myself sometimes. when back & fixed it.
i'm sorry harpua but i would. some people just can't be wrong no matter what. & those people should not be judges.
Right, but hearing one story of this guy doing this one time, in my opinion, doesn't make him unworthy of judging.
Hero_guy
09/27/2010, 12:20
Right, but hearing one story of this guy doing this one time, in my opinion, doesn't make him unworthy of judging.
I agree with RedDragon on this one. One blown call, in itself, shouldn't disqualify someone from being a judge, but knowing that the information is in the rulebook and having it confirmed both yourself and Normalview and still saying that all of that (the rulebook and both RD's) are wrong? I'm sorry but there's no excuse for that kind of stubborness. Sure its a judge's duty to interpret the rules when they are unclear, but in this instance it is crystal clear and there is absolutely no way that the judge should be refusing to rule it correctly.
I would really love to know the judge's reasoning for ruling it incorrectly.
I agree with RedDragon on this one. One blown call, in itself, shouldn't disqualify someone from being a judge, but knowing that the information is in the rulebook and having it confirmed both yourself and Normalview and still saying that all of that (the rulebook and both RD's) are wrong? I'm sorry but there's no excuse for that kind of stubborness. Sure its a judge's duty to interpret the rules when they are unclear, but in this instance it is crystal clear and there is absolutely no way that the judge should be refusing to rule it correctly.
I would really love to know the judge's reasoning for ruling it incorrectly.
You forget the part that says Judges have the final say so on all rules. So if he wanted he could throw out the whole rule of 3 if he wanted.
You forget the part that says Judges have the final say so on all rules. So if he wanted he could throw out the whole rule of 3 if he wanted.
Bingo.....
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.