Author Topic: Flood Survivors (play test deck)  (Read 9312 times)

Offline RedemptionAggie

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+38)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #50 on: April 01, 2018, 04:54:56 PM »
0
Great explanation RedemptionAggie! I'm not sure if you were responding to me or the other posts... but I'd still like to throw it out there again as to what happens to old search abilities and anti search cards? Do we now just have a complicated blob of "play as" in the REG for each old card?

Unless if this was changed in a previous REG update and I just missed the boat on the change then please ignore the old fossil over here ;)
The first part (about exchange and other things from deck) was an indirect response to you - since search is already partially integrated into a lot of abilities, this just does the same with take - some takes are searches, some aren't, it just depends on where the target is. The rest was in general.

We do have a document called the ORCID, which has Play As for all of the cards, trying to bring them to the current wording. Here's an article about it on Land of Redemption.

Search is not it's own thing. Sometimes we can't state it (exchange) or we don't state it (discard from deck, banish from discard pile, top/underdeck from Reserve, etc.). But the search still happens.

Prior to Fall of Man, we were down to 3 situations where we actually used the word "search" (X is a searchable location, Y is what you search for):
- "Search X for Y (and add it to hand)", which has been replaced with "Take Y from X" (which works because of a different change that allows you to take cards you do not control, not just opponent's cards)
- "Search X for Y and put it in play" or "Search X for Y and play it", which has been replaced with "Play Y from X" (Sample)
- "Search opponent's X for Y and put it in play" (where Y is usually a Lost Soul), which is Shem's Wife. (And it is clunky, IMO.)

Basically, since we can't always state the search, we never state the search.
Can't you change "give it to opponents territory" to the older "put it in play?" Or have I missed "put" becoming a keyword? Are we trying to avoid unstated default language?
Once you take a card, you control it - so "put it in play" would put in your territory, and "put it in their territory" would leave the card under your control, which I don't think we want.

Offline Red

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • *****
  • Posts: 4789
  • It takes time to build the boat.
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #51 on: April 01, 2018, 06:10:20 PM »
0
Great explanation RedemptionAggie! I'm not sure if you were responding to me or the other posts... but I'd still like to throw it out there again as to what happens to old search abilities and anti search cards? Do we now just have a complicated blob of "play as" in the REG for each old card?

Unless if this was changed in a previous REG update and I just missed the boat on the change then please ignore the old fossil over here ;)
The first part (about exchange and other things from deck) was an indirect response to you - since search is already partially integrated into a lot of abilities, this just does the same with take - some takes are searches, some aren't, it just depends on where the target is. The rest was in general.

We do have a document called the ORCID, which has Play As for all of the cards, trying to bring them to the current wording. Here's an article about it on Land of Redemption.

Search is not it's own thing. Sometimes we can't state it (exchange) or we don't state it (discard from deck, banish from discard pile, top/underdeck from Reserve, etc.). But the search still happens.

Prior to Fall of Man, we were down to 3 situations where we actually used the word "search" (X is a searchable location, Y is what you search for):
- "Search X for Y (and add it to hand)", which has been replaced with "Take Y from X" (which works because of a different change that allows you to take cards you do not control, not just opponent's cards)
- "Search X for Y and put it in play" or "Search X for Y and play it", which has been replaced with "Play Y from X" (Sample)
- "Search opponent's X for Y and put it in play" (where Y is usually a Lost Soul), which is Shem's Wife. (And it is clunky, IMO.)

Basically, since we can't always state the search, we never state the search.
Can't you change "give it to opponents territory" to the older "put it in play?" Or have I missed "put" becoming a keyword? Are we trying to avoid unstated default language?
Once you take a card, you control it - so "put it in play" would put in your territory, and "put it in their territory" would leave the card under your control, which I don't think we want.
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate the effort to become precise in wording even if it makes the English minor cringe.
Ironman 2016 and 2018 Winner.
3rd T1-2P 2018, 3rd T2-2P 2019
I survived the Flood twice.

Offline Reth

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #52 on: April 01, 2018, 06:46:30 PM »
0
This becomes more and more interesting and tempting! Still not sure where this new set the meta will be shifting to (with RoJ I first was expecting Angels rising and maybe Martyrs - but after all those test plays and the article about Coney it became more and more obvious that this was not the case).

But one thing I find irritating: The usage of "give" where we used "place in ..." or "take into ..." before. So when it is constituded by the definition of control-handover I wonder how this worked so far when cards have been "placed" into anothers player's territory like hopper lost soul or when things like "convert and take it" happened where also a control-handover takes place?

For me it looks as if we introduce another keyword for topics which have been handled more or less unquestionable while not replacing any of the already existing keywords or reducing the overall amount of keywords at all!

What is the benefit in introducing this new keyword? For me it looks for now like making the entire gameplay more complex and confusing without any need (when considering the already existing control-handover scenarios where at least during the game play experiences I could paticipate there have never been considerable/reasonable questions or [mis-]interpretations)?

Offline RedemptionAggie

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+38)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #53 on: April 01, 2018, 07:23:13 PM »
0
But one thing I find irritating: The usage of "give" where we used "place in ..." or "take into ..." before. So when it is constituded by the definition of control-handover I wonder how this worked so far when cards have been "placed" into anothers player's territory like hopper lost soul or when things like "convert and take it" happened where also a control-handover takes place?

For me it looks as if we introduce another keyword for topics which have been handled more or less unquestionable while not replacing any of the already existing keywords or reducing the overall amount of keywords at all!

What is the benefit in introducing this new keyword? For me it looks for now like making the entire gameplay more complex and confusing without any need (when considering the already existing control-handover scenarios where at least during the game play experiences I could paticipate there have never been considerable/reasonable questions or [mis-]interpretations)?

Give is already a keyword, first appearing in Kings (King Abijah) - but it appears on less than 10 cards, so it's not as well known (Canaan is probably the most played). Hopper should have been a give (and has been given errata to be a give). I don't understand the question about "convert and take it", because take puts a card into your control, so it's only changing control the once.

In the original "search opponent's deck for a Lost Soul and put it in play" wording, the player using the ability never gained control of the LS, so there was no need to give it back to the owner.

Offline Reth

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #54 on: April 02, 2018, 05:09:58 AM »
0
Regarding the Hopper Errata - I could not find it yet in forum/subfora. Where has this been published?

Ok, the "convert and take" resp. "take into" have been wrongly chosen - just wanted to emphasise that the control-handover stuff we have seems to be working for me without (re)emphasising a rarely used keyword.
But there are also other examples where cards are placed with/without control handover like ABom (without control handover) or Gibeonite Treaty  (is this using control-handover? - Gibeonite Treaty:"Holder's human Evil Character may be converted to a Hero in brigade of choice, or may be placed in opponent's Land of Bondage and treated as a Lost Soul.") or The Amalekites' Slave (is this including control-handover? - "If blocking, you may place this card in opponent's Land of Bondage to search your deck for a human Evil Character and add it to battle.").

Things like these are used for quite a long time now and are working fine IMHO. I fear reamphasising the give-keyword might lead to some more confusion or interruption of game-flow.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2018, 09:39:30 AM by Reth »

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #55 on: April 02, 2018, 10:07:40 AM »
0
Nothing is really changing about how the old cards are played--we are simply trying to streamline the wording.

If I "place" a LS into opponent's land of bondage, I no longer control that LS (which everyone understands from years of playing that way), but since we have a rule that says placed cards are controlled by the player who placed them, that is actually inconsistent. In order to surrender control of a card to an opponent, we need a different keyword and "give" is the optimal choice since we've had "give" cards since Kings as Aggie pointed out.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Red Wing

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2378
  • Set rotation shill
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #56 on: April 02, 2018, 10:14:03 AM »
0
Regarding the Hopper Errata - I could not find it yet in forum/subfora. Where has this been published?
Quote from: ProfA
Lost Soul "Hopper" (II Chronicles 28:13) (Kings) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.
http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510
Kansas City Discord: discord.gg/2ypYg6m

Offline Reth

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #57 on: April 02, 2018, 10:41:56 AM »
0
Quote from: ProfA
Lost Soul "Hopper" (II Chronicles 28:13) (Kings) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.
http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510
This one I found as well. But where is there the mentioned "correction" from place to give as mentioned by RedemptionAggie here:

Hopper should have been a give (and has been given errata to be a give).
?

Offline TheJaylor

  • Trade Count: (+18)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3114
  • Fortress Alstad
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Redemption with Jayden
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #58 on: April 02, 2018, 10:55:45 AM »
0
Quote from: ProfA
Lost Soul "Hopper" (II Chronicles 28:13) (Kings) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.
http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510
This one I found as well. But where is there the mentioned "correction" from place to give as mentioned by RedemptionAggie here:

Hopper should have been a give (and has been given errata to be a give).
?
Probably the ORCID.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #59 on: April 02, 2018, 10:56:37 AM »
0
The errata on the errata list and the ORCID did not match, but the ORCID is correct. I have updated the errata list here on the forum.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Reth

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #60 on: April 02, 2018, 11:44:28 AM »
0
Thank you!

But my other question still remains: Why reemphasising the give keyword while control-handover seemed to work so far - see also my examples given previously?

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #61 on: April 02, 2018, 11:49:26 AM »
0
Nothing is really changing about how the old cards are played--we are simply trying to streamline the wording.

If I "place" a LS into opponent's land of bondage, I no longer control that LS (which everyone understands from years of playing that way), but since we have a rule that says placed cards are controlled by the player who placed them, that is actually inconsistent. In order to surrender control of a card to an opponent, we need a different keyword and "give" is the optimal choice since we've had "give" cards since Kings as Aggie pointed out.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline TheJaylor

  • Trade Count: (+18)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3114
  • Fortress Alstad
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Redemption with Jayden
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #62 on: April 04, 2018, 10:35:22 PM »
0
EI resulted in a failed rescue, because no LS was rescued in battle resolution. We changed that so EI is a successful rescue.

There is a rule that stops you from making 2 successful rescue attempts before each opponent has had a turn.

On the colon, unless the ability before the colon is a look or reveal, everything after the colon is dependent on that ability. Look and Reveal is at least the rest of the sentence, maybe more. Ends of the Earth stinks for defining the colon. (Not that it's the only card - it's just the first one that comes to mind.)
So if you rescue on your first turn then can you not make a rescue attempt on your next turn at all? Or would any attack just default to a battle challenge?

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #63 on: April 04, 2018, 10:41:02 PM »
0
EI resulted in a failed rescue, because no LS was rescued in battle resolution. We changed that so EI is a successful rescue.

There is a rule that stops you from making 2 successful rescue attempts before each opponent has had a turn.

On the colon, unless the ability before the colon is a look or reveal, everything after the colon is dependent on that ability. Look and Reveal is at least the rest of the sentence, maybe more. Ends of the Earth stinks for defining the colon. (Not that it's the only card - it's just the first one that comes to mind.)
So if you rescue on your first turn then can you not make a rescue attempt on your next turn at all? Or would any attack just default to a battle challenge?

Quote from: REG
However, once a player has made a successful rescue attempt, they may not make another rescue attempt until each other player has had a turn.
Quote from: REG
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.

Going strictly off this wording in REG you couldn't even attack during the second turn with a Hero that has access to any of the opponent's souls.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #64 on: April 04, 2018, 11:34:54 PM »
0
Correct^^
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Jeremystair

  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #65 on: April 08, 2018, 08:19:33 PM »
0
What am I missing here, I thought when you added an extra dominant you had to add an extra lost soul that would put the deck at 58 cards right?

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #66 on: April 08, 2018, 08:22:22 PM »
0
If you have 7 lost souls, the deck already has 8 so it's good.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #67 on: April 08, 2018, 08:27:23 PM »
0
What am I missing here, I thought when you added an extra dominant you had to add an extra lost soul that would put the deck at 58 cards right?

He has 8 dominants, 8 Lost Souls and 41 other cards.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Jeremystair

  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 944
    • LFG
    • Southeast Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #68 on: April 08, 2018, 08:32:12 PM »
0
Okay cool. I didn't realize this. Are we going to get to see the Wages of sin (FoM) and the Golden calf (FoM) any time soon?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2018, 08:35:33 PM by Jeremystair »

Offline Gabe

  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+68)
  • *****
  • Posts: 10674
  • From Moses to the prophets, it's all about Him!
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Land of Redemption
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #69 on: April 08, 2018, 08:36:06 PM »
+1
Okay cool. I didn't realize this. Are we going to get to see the Wages of sin (Fom) and the Golden calf (Fom) any time soon?

Other elders have committed to doing preview articles which include a group of cards those cards are part of. When their articles are published the cards will be previewed.
Have you visited the Land of Redemption today?

Offline Red Dragon Thorn

  • Covenant Games
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Covenant Games
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #70 on: April 11, 2018, 12:44:04 PM »
+3
You know Gabe,

I understand why you played Animals, but I just can't help feeling like you missed out by not playing Antediluvians:

 
Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)

Spoiler (hover to show)
www.covenantgames.com

Offline Ironisaac

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1662
  • 2070 Paradigm Shift Inbound
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #71 on: April 11, 2018, 12:49:18 PM »
0
I think the backgrounds on these have to be my favorite so far.  :thumbup:
Some call me "Goofus"

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12343
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Flood Survivors (play test deck)
« Reply #72 on: April 11, 2018, 12:52:45 PM »
0
I think the backgrounds on these have to be my favorite so far.  :thumbup:

Tubal-Cain is definitely one of my favorites.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal