Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Open Forum => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Minister Polarius on August 14, 2012, 09:51:08 AM
-
At Natz, I was somewhat surprised to hear that the most commonly-reviled card was not TGT or NJ, but the Liner souls. I hadn't thought of it before, but now agree with the assessment. My solution? Rather than banning, remove its errata. Now that we have a better understanding of how rules work in general, it's fine letting Lost Souls be Negated.
If it's Negated when it's rescued the first time, it's just a normal Lost Soul. If it's rescued once, then Negated, nothing happens because the need to be rescued a second time happened on a previous phase. What say ye?
-
I don't think it's broken or anything, but removing erratas is a good thing. I'm for it.
-
If it's Negated when it's rescued the first time, it's just a normal Lost Soul. If it's rescued once, then Negated, nothing happens because the need to be rescued a second time happened on a previous phase. What say ye?
I think your first "when" was supposed to be "before."
-
He only wants this cause it screwed him over a time or two at
Natz hahaha. Of course I'm all for this as well.
-
Words printed over a picture should always be treated as a SA, because that just makes sense.
-
So let me ask a clarifying question if this idea was enacted. Lets say I have already rescued a Liner Lost Souls card while the ability was active but then the ability is negated in the same or different phase by the Negate Lost Soul, does the Liner card transfer to my Land of Redemption at that point since it is now being negated?
-
So let me ask a clarifying question if this idea was enacted. Lets say I have already rescued a Liner Lost Souls card while the ability was active but then the ability is negated in the same or different phase by the Negate Lost Soul, does the Liner card transfer to my Land of Redemption at that point since it is now being negated?
The ability that it has to be rescued twice was active a previous phase (it triggers when you first rescue it), so it's CBN once it's rescued the first time.
At least, that's the way I understand Pol's post.
-
What if I rescue it then negate it on the same phase? Via some SOG silliness.
-
Alright. I just wanted to make sure that is what his post was getting at. I actually like this idea but don't see how it will matter that much in Type-1. It is still able to be rescued once and then buried unless the Negate Lost Soul is out. I just see a rule like this making the Negate Lost Soul one that is in every deck.
Unless, like Sauce alluded to, there is a new SoG that negates Lost Souls abilities.
-
Spoilers? :o
If the card said "Negate Lost Soul cards. Rescue any Lost Soul," then the negate would complete first.
Negating the card would not "undo" a rescue. If the LSs card is negated after being partially rescued in the same phase, then the card would go to the rescuer's LoR.
-
I was thinking more of something like you RA and either play SOG or Primary Objectivev then band in Isaiah with Isaiah's Call. But now that I think about it, that barely matters. I mean, it'd get transferred to your LOR, but it'd only be worth one point. Right?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaand instaposted by YMT's 9001st post. Also, after looking at the REG, I don't see why the liner doens't count as two souls for deck building purposes.
Proverbs 22_14 (L)
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: This card counts as two Lost Souls. It must be rescued twice. • Errata: (Treat special ability as an identifier.) • Identifiers: This card counts as two Lost Souls. It must be rescued twice. • Verse: Proverbs 22:14 • Availability: Limited booster packs (Rare)
-
Also, after looking at the REG, I don't see why the liner doens't count as two souls for deck building purposes.
Because then you bury it in T1. Now only five souls in the deck, any other discard makes it impossible for the opponent to win.
-
Also, after looking at the REG, I don't see why the liner doens't count as two souls for deck building purposes.
Because then you bury it in T1. Now only five souls in the deck, any other discard makes it impossible for the opponent to win.
Just because it's broken doesn't mean it isn't how it works. Sauce does hold a valid point.
-
It's in the rule book, and it's been that way forever:
http://cactusgamedesign.com/REG/Master/typeideckbuildingrules.htm
-
I forgot about that. Point retracted. Thanks.
-
I'm surprised there is not more instant negative reaction to this idea. I'm very much opposed.
The situations that this would cause are very problematic, and have been pointed out to some extent. So now, suddenly the two-liner is rescued at the start of a battle with Isaiah + Call, just because it was rescued before? A new SoG card with the suggested text couldn't actually rescue a half-rescued one, even though the whole point would be to have a SoG that could count a rescue against any soul? It also brings up a problem in that if you negate it, then there is no ability to 'trigger' by the new rules on Triggers and Conditions. I could see a very easily-confused scenario where it is ruled that it does/does not insert between the abilities on SoG and is/is not rescued by SoG. Both cases can be made by the current rules, and your initial statement that "we know the rules" makes me smile, given all the problems of late on rulings we 'know'.
So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, lead to inconsistency, and cause all sorts of problems we can't even foresee.
-
I'm surprised there is not more instant negative reaction to this idea. I'm very much opposed.
The situations that this would cause are very problematic, and have been pointed out to some extent. So now, suddenly the two-liner is rescued at the start of a battle with Isaiah + Call, just because it was rescued before? A new SoG card with the suggested text couldn't actually rescue a half-rescued one, even though the whole point would be to have a SoG that could count a rescue against any soul? It also brings up a problem in that if you negate it, then there is no ability to 'trigger' by the new rules on Triggers and Conditions. I could see a very easily-confused scenario where it is ruled that it does/does not insert between the abilities on SoG and is/is not rescued by SoG. Both cases can be made by the current rules, and your initial statement that "we know the rules" makes me smile, given all the problems of late on rulings we 'know'.
So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, lead to inconsistency, and cause all sorts of problems we can't even foresee.
Actually if I'm reading the original post right, it would not be rescued if Isaiah negated a half rescued one, and SoG could rescue a half-rescued one, because the ability that it has to be rescued twice would have been activated in a previous phase.
-
I'm surprised there is not more instant negative reaction to this idea. I'm very much opposed.
The situations that this would cause are very problematic, and have been pointed out to some extent. So now, suddenly the two-liner is rescued at the start of a battle with Isaiah + Call, just because it was rescued before? A new SoG card with the suggested text couldn't actually rescue a half-rescued one, even though the whole point would be to have a SoG that could count a rescue against any soul? It also brings up a problem in that if you negate it, then there is no ability to 'trigger' by the new rules on Triggers and Conditions. I could see a very easily-confused scenario where it is ruled that it does/does not insert between the abilities on SoG and is/is not rescued by SoG. Both cases can be made by the current rules, and your initial statement that "we know the rules" makes me smile, given all the problems of late on rulings we 'know'.
So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, lead to inconsistency, and cause all sorts of problems we can't even foresee.
Actually if I'm reading the original post right, it would not be rescued if Isaiah negated a half rescued one, and SoG could rescue a half-rescued one, because the ability that it has to be rescued twice would have been activated in a previous phase.
Except that's not actually how the negating of the ability would go. I asked if, for example, the Thorns LS is CBN because it is "While in play", but was told by multiple Elders that, because Souls are continuously activating, they do not follow the same rules as, say, Simon the Zealot while in play. So a Two-Liner that is negated would only need one rescue, and if that is already done, it should be rescued. There is no 'while in play' that applies here, and trying to force one to make this sort of ruling work actually hurts consistency and accessibility of the rules.
-
I'm surprised there is not more instant negative reaction to this idea. I'm very much opposed.
The situations that this would cause are very problematic, and have been pointed out to some extent. So now, suddenly the two-liner is rescued at the start of a battle with Isaiah + Call, just because it was rescued before? A new SoG card with the suggested text couldn't actually rescue a half-rescued one, even though the whole point would be to have a SoG that could count a rescue against any soul? It also brings up a problem in that if you negate it, then there is no ability to 'trigger' by the new rules on Triggers and Conditions. I could see a very easily-confused scenario where it is ruled that it does/does not insert between the abilities on SoG and is/is not rescued by SoG. Both cases can be made by the current rules, and your initial statement that "we know the rules" makes me smile, given all the problems of late on rulings we 'know'.
So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, lead to inconsistency, and cause all sorts of problems we can't even foresee.
Actually if I'm reading the original post right, it would not be rescued if Isaiah negated a half rescued one, and SoG could rescue a half-rescued one, because the ability that it has to be rescued twice would have been activated in a previous phase.
Except that's not actually how the negating of the ability would go. I asked if, for example, the Thorns LS is CBN because it is "While in play", but was told by multiple Elders that, because Souls are continuously activating, they do not follow the same rules as, say, Simon the Zealot while in play. So a Two-Liner that is negated would only need one rescue, and if that is already done, it should be rescued. There is no 'while in play' that applies here, and trying to force one to make this sort of ruling work actually hurts consistency and accessibility of the rules.
I would argue that the liners would still work the way originally proposed here, because the ability was activated and prevented the soul from being rescued and that cannot be changed after that phase, and I think that ability would stick. The ability would also still try to continuously reactivate, even if its negated later, but I'd argue the initial activation there, being not negated, would stick until the card was either reset or rescued again. Although I also think it is inconsistent to rule that thorns is not CBN after the phase when Simon is, so I probably know nothing anyway ;).
-
So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, ...
Of the many things Redoubter and I agree on--this is by far the most heartfelt.
-
Also I should add, that I'm neither really in favor or not in favor of this ruling change, and I think it would need extensive testing before implemented if we were to do it.
-
I would argue that the liners would still work the way originally proposed here, because the ability was activated and prevented the soul from being rescued and that cannot be changed after that phase, and I think that ability would stick.
It is a restrict. Restricts can be negated, and would be in this case.
And while I understand your point on Thorns (as that was my original argument), the ruling is consistent because they also ruled that if Simon enters battle again after activating previously, should he be negated there, then the protection ends (regardless of the fact that it had been previously activated and had been CBN). So since cards like Souls continuously activate, they are never CBN even with "While in Play" abilities.
So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, ...
Of the many things Redoubter and I agree on--this is by far the most heartfelt.
<3
-
If your reason for opposing this idea is that you think the negation would not work like I've described, you shouldn't be opposing it because it would work exactly like that. Just because Lost Souls are ongoing doesn't mean they can't have triggers set (a one-time thing). The liners do not work by restrict (although the 3-Liner happens to also have a restrict), and they would function the same as if you were to try to negate the Shame soul the turn after it activates.
-
If your reason for opposing this idea is that you think the negation would not work like I've described, you shouldn't be opposing it because it would work exactly like that. Just because Lost Souls are ongoing doesn't mean they can't have triggers set (a one-time thing). The liners do not work by restrict (although the 3-Liner happens to also have a restrict), and they would function the same as if you were to try to negate the Shame soul the turn after it activates.
If Lost Souls is not a restrict, what is it? A protect and restrict? Even in that case, it would be negated. And the current ruling on Lost Souls is that their abilities are not CBN even if they are "While in Play" or complete in previous phases, as they 'activate' each phase and can be therefore negated based on the reactivation. There are no abilities on Lost Souls that are triggered or conditional that would become CBN. Therefore, when negated, Lost Souls would become a 'single-rescue' soul and should be rescued immediately if it was already rescued. Either that, or the previous rescue would be as if it never happened. So now it's Schrödinger's Soul. Awesome.
Really, this kind of rule change would result in awful ruling quandaries that would have to be resolved first, or significant changes would have to be made to the current rulings.
-
Lost Souls is my least favorite card. I told that to Rob at my first nationals. It is still my least favorite card.
Rather than remove the errata, which creates messy scenarios for new players, and rather than ban the card, which Cactus doesn't do, what about this:
Clarify the rule for deck building: Require that you include an exact number of cards with the title "Lost Soul" to be legal. "Lost Souls" doesn't have that exact title. So, Lost Souls doesn't count as a Lost Soul for deck building. It still is the Lost Soul card type, but doesn't count as one of your lost souls in deck building. It would make Lost Souls a little less popular, I would think. Maybe not a lot less popular, but if you had to cut something to include Lost Souls, you might think twice about including it every time.
-
There are no abilities on Lost Souls that are triggered or conditional that would become CBN.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your statement but would like to point out that the fortify site lost soul is effectively CBI once it is used. When it sets a character face down on a site, the character gains the ability to be added to battle and negating the lost soul at a later point will do nothing.
Also, not sure why the Lost Souls card is so reviled. What reasons are there for disliking it or wanting to change it? It seems like with the new rules that a lot less people use it now anyway.
Clarify the rule for deck building: Require that you include an exact number of cards with the title "Lost Soul" to be legal. "Lost Souls" doesn't have that exact title. So, Lost Souls doesn't count as a Lost Soul for deck building. It still is the Lost Soul card type, but doesn't count as one of your lost souls in deck building. It would make Lost Souls a little less popular, I would think. Maybe not a lot less popular, but if you had to cut something to include Lost Souls, you might think twice about including it every time.
I think that almost no one would include it (especially with the new SoG rule). For about 99% of decks this would be effectively banning the card. There are already counters available if you really don't like that card.
-
There are already counters available
This is the most frequently-used, most heinous fallacy used when talking about OP or broken cards. Especially when said card doesn't even take a deckslot, while a counter does (and if you want to argue wanderer is a counter that also doesn't take a deckslot, FbtN is a counter to wanderer that also doesn't take a deckslot).
If Lost Souls is not a restrict, what is it?
What would make you think its "must be rescued twice" ability is a restrict? Some cards have special abilities that are unique or quasi-unique and can't be shoehorned into a glossary term. What is Ambush, a set-aside ability with a turner-downer ability? The Lost Souls' ability is just a unique ability in Redemption, not a restrict, a protect, or anything else.
And the current ruling on Lost Souls is that their abilities are not CBN even if they are "While in Play" or complete in previous phases, as they 'activate' each phase and can be therefore negated based on the reactivation.
That is patently false. If I get my Isaiah set aside with Shame, I can't flip up I Am Salvation on my turn and get him back instantly. LS abilities activate every phase, but that does not exempt them from the "on previous phase" rule.
Really, this kind of rule change would result in awful ruling quandaries
Not a single one. This would only be true if your mistaken impression of how LS can and cannot work were true.
-
Clarify the rule for deck building: Require that you include an exact number of cards with the title "Lost Soul" to be legal. "Lost Souls" doesn't have that exact title. So, Lost Souls doesn't count as a Lost Soul for deck building. It still is the Lost Soul card type, but doesn't count as one of your lost souls in deck building. It would make Lost Souls a little less popular, I would think. Maybe not a lot less popular, but if you had to cut something to include Lost Souls, you might think twice about including it every time.
While I rather like that idea, the Hopper would become a normal lost soul. I'm actually not entirely against that, as everyone would simply start using the Hopper, which should even things out. Since having two non-souls would let speed draw slightly faster (due to the LS drawing rule), I don't think the card would outright die, especially with the 3-liner in T1MP.
-
At Natz, I was somewhat surprised to hear that the most commonly-reviled card was not TGT or NJ, but the Liner souls. I hadn't thought of it before, but now agree with the assessment.
-and-
Lost Souls is my least favorite card. I told that to Rob at my first nationals. It is still my least favorite card.
The liners have been out since the start of the game, and over the the fifteen plus years that the liners have been out ever heard anyone complain about it being OP or broken? Have there ever been enough complaints over fifteen plus years that any counters were designed for it? The PtB don't even errata/change game rules when cards are obviously broken (NJ/TGT/Thaddeus). So why are you entertaining changing games rules to nerf a card simply because you don't like it?
If you really want to go down that path I have a number of cards that I really dislike; can they be next in line for similar changes?
-
Although I am not opposed to the idea of change, this does seem to be a knee-jerk reaction. Like MJB, I have not heard much decry of the Lost Souls card in all my years here. However, the end of rescuing your own souls rule is still fairly new, and the repercussions of that rule change may still be showing up. I'm not 100% sure there is a connection.
The Lost Souls card is very frustrating to new players. They finally get their first rescue, but oops! they get nothing yet. Then comes Burial, or even worse, 2 rescues then FA then Burial. There is no doubt that the card is infuriating when used against you.
On the other hand, most people use it as a key defensive strategy, often giving up a counter without a block. I admit that I have never built a deck without it.
There is no doubt that this kind of change will require a lot of thought and input from many players. I would suggest that playgroups discuss any proposed changes together, and possibly playtest them for a while. We have plenty of time to come up with ideas before jumping to any one conclusion. One of those options must remain as keeping the status quo.
-
I am strongly opposed to a rule change that makes the Hopper count as a LS for deckbuilding and does NOT count the 2-liner anymore. That puts the Hopper in EVERY deck (which helps speed decks even more, when they are already dominant) and probably takes the 2-liner out of every deck (when it is a HUGE boost to defense currently).
About the only way I could get behind this would be if we switched to playing to 6 LSs to win the game with deck minimums of 60 cards (which keeps coming up over the years, but has yet to truly get enough traction to happen).
-
My first preference would be keeping the status quo. They are annoying, but they provide a risk/reward balance that is strategic. My second would be to go with Pol's suggestion of removing the CBN. I see no problems with that, and getting rid of erratas is always good when it can be justified. I am very much opposed to changing the rules on Lost Souls for deckbuilding. It is unnecessary, and if people are inclined to use a Liner anyway, having to add one more LS to do so is not too high of a price.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
-
When I look at the SA on the Lost Souls cards (both of them) the information is providing playing instructions not playing abilities. In this case it is true that the instructions give the card an ability, but the ability can not function without the instructions. When the card was printed identifiers did not exist, had they existed this card would have had identifiers (as the errata currently shows). If the errata was removed and the identifiers became the SA I think we would have the discussion in a year or two of how worthless the card is for playing. All it would take is the creation of a card or two that becomes common in every deck that negates LSs to stop the playing of this card. We already have Isaiah's Call. Plus the dom cap forces you to choose dominates carefully now. Burial takes up one of the dom slots in a deck and I think playing a liner without burial is a kind of stupid. I believe the errata needs to stay as it is now, the card can be a pain, but it is far from the most troublesome card in existence.
-
I am strongly opposed to a rule change that makes the Hopper count as a LS for deckbuilding and does NOT count the 2-liner anymore. That puts the Hopper in EVERY deck (which helps speed decks even more, when they are already dominant) and probably takes the 2-liner out of every deck (when it is a HUGE boost to defense currently).
About the only way I could get behind this would be if we switched to playing to 6 LSs to win the game with deck minimums of 60 cards (which keeps coming up over the years, but has yet to truly get enough traction to happen).
I agree that the Hopper still shouldn't count as a lost soul for deck building. I don't see why we can't simply specify that Lost Souls and the Hopper don't count as lost souls for deck building purposes, it's less wordy than Bryon's original idea.
It is a huge boost to defense, but it doesn't add much game play, and has very little counter play. When you use an evil character to block, it adds something to the game because the battle phase is interesting. When you give someone half a lost soul, it's like they didn't even make a successful rescue attempt.
Going up to 60 cards doesn't make speed bad, because speed will never die unless there's no incentive to draw through your deck quickly.
My first preference would be keeping the status quo. They are annoying, but they provide a risk/reward balance that is strategic. My second would be to go with Pol's suggestion of removing the CBN. I see no problems with that, and getting rid of erratas is always good when it can be justified. I am very much opposed to changing the rules on Lost Souls for deckbuilding. It is unnecessary, and if people are inclined to use a Liner anyway, having to add one more LS to do so is not too high of a price.
It's not balanced risk/reward though, it's low risk with high reward. The risk is that you get soul drought with only your 2-liner up, which is pretty rare. The reward is that you get at least one free block with the possibility for multiple blocks, which happens often. Even if they do manage to rescue both halves, you can always use falling away and then shuffle / bury it for more free blocks.
The main problem I can see with this change is that it might inadvertently help speed, since you will be able to draw through your deck 1 card quicker for free.
the card can be a pain, but it is far from the most troublesome card in existence.
When I ran the unofficial ban list only 6 cards were banned. This was one of them.
-
And the current ruling on Lost Souls is that their abilities are not CBN even if they are "While in Play" or complete in previous phases, as they 'activate' each phase and can be therefore negated based on the reactivation.
That is patently false. If I get my Isaiah set aside with Shame, I can't flip up I Am Salvation on my turn and get him back instantly. LS abilities activate every phase, but that does not exempt them from the "on previous phase" rule.
Everyone seems to confuse my statement, which is my fault. When I said "Lost Souls" I meant the "Lost SoulS" card, though what I said applies to all lost soul abilities. You countered with what is an 'instant' ability (the set-aside on Shame). Of course you cannot stop instant abilities after that phase, no one argued that. You would need to counter me with ongoing abilities which fit your definition, but all of those ongoing souls can be negated (except for the CBP soul, but that is due to a different rule entirely).
My first preference would be keeping the status quo. They are annoying, but they provide a risk/reward balance that is strategic. My second would be to go with Pol's suggestion of removing the CBN. I see no problems with that, and getting rid of erratas is always good when it can be justified.
The problem with this idea is that removing the CBN results in a lot of very confusion ruling situations. I've pointed those out in previous posts. It would make things more difficult for judges (who have to know and rule correctly on the ruling...other thread on why that is hard), for new players (seriously, no matter how it ended up, it'd be more confusing than "You have to rescue it twice, period"), and for consistency in the rules.
About the only way I could get behind this would be if we switched to playing to 6 LSs to win the game with deck minimums of 60 cards (which keeps coming up over the years, but has yet to truly get enough traction to happen).
I'm working on getting T3 going, probably as an unofficial Multi category, this year. It has equal good-evil, deck size 60, rescue 6 to win. Stay tuned ;)
-
You countered with what is an 'instant' ability (the set-aside on Shame). Of course you cannot stop instant abilities after that phase, no one argued that.
Good, then we're in agreement that Lost Souls' instant ability to be rescued a second time before counting, then counting twice cannot be negated in a later phase.
removing the CBN results in a lot of very confusion ruling situations
Not a single one. Having to look up errata on a secondary source (which is hard to find, incomplete and not perfectly reliable) is always more difficult for new players than having the card do exactly what it says on the card. Cards being unable to be negated in a later phase is a basic game rule, and if someone has a problem remembering that they're likely to not understand a whole host of things, Lost Souls being the least of the worries.
-
You countered with what is an 'instant' ability (the set-aside on Shame). Of course you cannot stop instant abilities after that phase, no one argued that.
Good, then we're in agreement that Lost Souls' instant ability to be rescued a second time before counting, then counting twice cannot be negated in a later phase.
No, we are not. Instant abilities are resolved, like set-aside. Ongoing abilities are ongoing. Lost Souls is protected/restricted from rescue unless it is rescued twice. That is ongoing. Nice try though.
Basically, it is ongoing and continuously updating. Therefore, it can be negated. Therefore, you introduce a problem to the rules regarding this card.
Having to look up errata on a secondary source (which is hard to find, incomplete and not perfectly reliable) is always more difficult for new players than having the card do exactly what it says on the card. Cards being unable to be negated in a later phase is a basic game rule, and if someone has a problem remembering that they're likely to not understand a whole host of things, Lost Souls being the least of the worries.
I've already shown that the rules would be complicated and confusing for this card. Having an errata hasn't been a problem for this card for the many years it has had one, so your argument holds no water.
-
Lost Souls is protected/restricted from rescue unless it is rescued twice
No it isn't. There is no protect or restrict language on the card. It's simply a unique ability in Redemption, like Ambush, that describes what it does and does not fit into glossary lingo.
You are just wrong about whether it could be negated on a later phase than its initial rescue. All your other objections are predicated on not being wrong about this one issue, which you are, so we're at an impasse.
-
You are just wrong about whether it could be negated on a later phase than its initial rescue.
Just to clarify, the 2-liner can NOT be negated on a later phase because the ability is an identifier a CBN SA, and those are never negated.
This thread is about the possibility of changing that, but I didn't want anyone coming in late to be confused.
edit: Oops, forgot about that. Thanks for the catch guys :)
-
You are just wrong about whether it could be negated on a later phase than its initial rescue.
Just to clarify, the 2-liner can NOT be negated on a later phase because the ability is an identifier, and those are never negated.
This thread is about the possibility of changing that, but I didn't want anyone coming in late to be confused.
This is wrong, the 2-Liner's ability is not an identifier (not any more at least), its just cbn.
The errata page on the forum now lists Lost Souls (both versions) as just having CBN SAs (no identifiers). This has yet to be updated in the REG, but it is documented.
-
Thanks for posting that Drrek. Lost Souls "identifier" was changed to a CBN SA when we decided we wanted to make it abundantly clear that 50 card decks with 7 copies of Lost Souls were not legal; thus it has to have a Special Ability.
So the issue here is whether or not the CBN errata should remain. Pol has argued that it can (and should) be removed. Essentially, with Pol's viewpoint, the Play As for the two liner Lost Souls would read, "If this Lost Soul is rescued once, it does not go to rescuer's Land of Redemption. It must be rescued a second time to count as two Redeemed Souls, otherwise this card remains in your Land of Bondage." Once the trigger is activated by being rescued once, and the phase of that trigger has passed, we have a situation where an ability activated in a previous phase, and does not reactivate each phase, thus negating it after the first rescue would have no effect. The 3-Liner would be similar, with the additional "Protect this card from a second rescue by any player who did not make the first rescue." This part would be able to be negated, but that is probably alright in my view.
On the one hand, I like this idea, because it removes errata that is probably not necessary. On the other hand, there are some mostly superficial but possibly important changes in the way the card is dealt with. First, if the special ability is negated before the first rescue, you now have a liner in your LoR that is worth only one LS. This would cause people to have to take care when they observe how many LSs an opponent has and make decisions accordingly. Like I said, superficial, but I'd hate to be the guy who makes a risky block in multiplayer based on the fact that I see Lost Souls and two other Redeemed Souls in an opponent's territory and think he is going for the win when in fact he only has three redeemed, and another player has 4. The second issue is the interaction with Falling Away. I'm fairly certain that if you used Falling Away on a liner that was rescued twice while the FBTN soul is out, then it would still just be tapped based on my above logic, but that would probably have to be considered before making a final judgment.
The other option is to leave it as is. The idea that it has a special ability that is more like an identifier but is a special ability nonetheless has not caused a ton of problems, especially with the errata. However, it also causes the card to be very powerful in certain situations, such as having Lost Souls and the FBTN LS work in tandem to stop wanderer and thorns, which means it can be tapped and shuffled/topdecked/underdecked multiple times in one game. I recall one particular T1 game in which I forced my opponent to make 8 successful rescues; I won that game 5-4. I agree that it has probably caused the most annoyance of any other card in the history of Redemption, and I often would rather suffer having my big two shuffled by Mayhem than be forced to use my SoG/NJ before my opponent's liner is half rescued. It also affects big decks too. In my last TEAMS matchup at Nats, my opponents made a good play by exchanging for two of our liners then using SoG/NJ on the exchangers. But at that point I knew that they would never get to 5, because both my Teammate and I had 3 3-Liners in our decks with Gates of Hell, which meant we could give up 4 more successful rescues without handing them a soul. The Liners are single-handedly responsible for the deck limit in T1, when there were theoretical, RTS based 1000 card decks with 20 copies of the liners, and 20 Gates of Hells. That kind of deck would be absolutely unbeatable (not to mention unplayable in tournaments, but even a more reasonably sized 200-250 card deck with 4-5 of the liners would be nearly impossible to beat in the hands of skilled players.
So far I lean a little toward status quo, because while it is annoying, at this point I don't believe it is broken. And as the saying goes, if it ain't baroque, it might just be classical. Or whatever that saying is. It has worked ok for the last several years, it has fallen a bit out of favor in many decks due to the SoG/NJ rescue rule (since your opponent can't rescue their own souls it no longer forces you to give up a possible soul drought block by making you rescue one or both halves), and by using it you sometimes run the risk of it getting stuck in your opponent's Land of Bondage.
However, if the majority movement is in favor of changing it, I have no real qualms about it and would support the change following an analysis on what exact changes to current gameplay it would entail. The last few days have seen the playtesters working fairly busily on the new set so that it can be released sooner than later, but hopefully once that is wrapped up, and before the Fall tourney season gets too advanced, we can deal with issues like these.
-
This is honestly ridiculous all of whining over some thing that just takes a little thought to over come. Use a lamp stand make one more rescue, it's not that hard and dose not required.
-
This is honestly ridiculous all of whining over some thing that just takes a little thought to over come. Use a lamp stand make one more rescue, it's not that hard and dose not required.
I've seen whining, and this is not whining. It's an earnest discussion about a potential issue with the game. If it were as simple as you say, then it wouldn't be possible to force an opponent to have 8 successful rescue attempts in a game and still lose.
-
I understand the "status quo" argument, but remember we're talking about removing an errata, not making one.
An interesting point that's been brought up: why is the liner half-rescued when hit by Falling Away? I don't really see anything on the language of either card that would allow that, and it seems like one of the last remaining bottom-up rules. The only way it could be is if I am right about how the card actually functions and is further proof that there is no cause to worry about later negation.
-
I understand the "status quo" argument, but remember we're talking about removing an errata, not making one.
An interesting point that's been brought up: why is the liner half-rescued when hit by Falling Away? I don't really see anything on the language of either card that would allow that, and it seems like one of the last remaining bottom-up rules. The only way it could be is if I am right about how the card actually functions and is further proof that there is no cause to worry about later negation.
I agree that the Falling Away vs. Liner ruling that has been around for as long as I can remember is somewhat "bottom up", but I think it's more to do with how the card is worded than out of some sort of necessity (or maybe it's both). Falling Away says "subtract the rescue", which seems to specify that it only subtracts one rescue from the card. The wording and ability of Falling Away is unique enough to probably warrant a bottom-up ruling of some sort. I believe it should definitely stay the way it is (it's harmful enough now when an opponent uses FA on a Liner, if it came back untapped, it would be even more powerful).
-
IMO, the "special ability" on Lost Souls is not and should not be considered a special ability. The card represents 2 lost souls. That is why it has that title. You can't negate the fact that two people exist and treat them as one person (marriage notwithstanding). Rather, the text on the card is an identifier. It explains the card title, the same as the text on Silly Women explains the stats. The only "errata" issued for the card should be that the Lost Souls card is limited to one per 50 in deck building.
As for my suggestion about making it not count as a "Lost Soul" for deck building (which would treat it the same as the Hopper), that is neither here nor there to me. It is my second preference (after banning the card, but before status quo). But as much as I dislike the card, I will not push too hard on this issue, as I fully expect status quo to remain regardless of my desires and efforts. :)
-
IMO, the "special ability" on Lost Souls is not and should not be considered a special ability. The card represents 2 lost souls. That is why it has that title. You can't negate the fact that two people exist and treat them as one person (marriage notwithstanding). Rather, the text on the card is an identifier. It explains the card title, the same as the text on Silly Women explains the stats. The only "errata" issued for the card should be that the Lost Souls card is limited to one per 50 in deck building.
Just to clarify, regardless of what your opinion is, the Lost Souls card's ability is, in fact, a CBN special ability; not an identifier. I just want to dispel any confusion with Elders going against each other.
-
Chris is correct. The quote from me that Drrek posted is the most recent, official position of the Elders based on a discussion from awhile ago.
-
This is honestly ridiculous all of whining over some thing that just takes a little thought to over come. Use a lamp stand make one more rescue, it's not that hard and dose not required.
I've seen whining, and this is not whining. It's an earnest discussion about a potential issue with the game. If it were as simple as you say, then it wouldn't be possible to force an opponent to have 8 successful rescue attempts in a game and still lose.
With or with out evil characters? Is this still a game of strategy right? So think and plan a head
-
IMO, the "special ability" on Lost Souls is not and should not be considered a special ability...Rather, the text on the card is an identifier...The only "errata" issued for the card should be that the Lost Souls card is limited to one per 50 in deck building.
Although this isn't the official position, I actually like it a lot.
-
IMO, the "special ability" on Lost Souls is not and should not be considered a special ability...Rather, the text on the card is an identifier...The only "errata" issued for the card should be that the Lost Souls card is limited to one per 50 in deck building.
Although this isn't the official position, I actually like it a lot.
That was the way it was, unless someone has some insight I'm missing :o
There is no gameplay or rules difference between those two proposals, just the semantics involved. The only real reason to do it one way over the other is that if you keep it the way it had been (and is being proposed again) of it being an identifier but the card being restricted, you're editing the game rules and adding an exception to the rulebook, whereas the current ruling of it being a CBN special ability changes the card.
If you want to leave the rulebook untouched, keep it the way it is. If you'd rather the card plays as read, change it back.
I'll just point out that the card literally can't play as read in either case, as it is 'written' as a special ability, so if it has an errata of being CBN or an errata of being an identifier, it is still going to result in an errata.
-
Another option is to make T1 rescuer's choice like T2, the Lost Souls card won't be nearly as powerful if the rescuer can choose not to go after it.
-
Another option is to make T1 rescuer's choice like T2, the Lost Souls card won't be nearly as powerful if the rescuer can choose not to go after it.
This is not an option I would support, FYI.
-
If we did that we would make Jacob's Ladder a completely irrelevant card and we don't want to do that...now do we. :P
-
If we did that we would make Jacob's Ladder a completely irrelevant card and we don't want to do that...now do we. :P
That would be a bummer for those who put all their money's worth into copies of Jacob's Ladder... ;)
Kirk
-
I'll just point out that the card literally can't play as read in either case, as it is 'written' as a special ability, so if it has an errata of being CBN or an errata of being an identifier, it is still going to result in an errata.
That is just semantics, too. Silly Women isn't errata. The definitions of stars are identifiers. But it is printed as a special ability. But it isn't errata. The same could be true about Lost Souls.
By the way, I know that we switched Lost Souls to a CBN SA. I'm saying that, IMO, it should be an identifier explaining the title change, and thus not negatable. Then, to make it so you can't have 7 of them in a T1 deck, just make a deck-building rule about it (1 per 50).
I just don't like treating the Lost Souls text as a special ability at all.
-
We could errata Lost Souls to be a demon.
-
I agree with Redoubter that under no circumstances should we go back to the way we had been doing Lost Souls. As someone who wants to get rid of the errata entirely, it'd be even worse to add a card restriction that isn't on the card. At least the way we have it now contains all elements present on the original card. Errata that add completely new things (ANB) should only be used if absolutely necessary.
-
That is just semantics, too. Silly Women isn't errata. The definitions of stars are identifiers. But it is printed as a special ability. But it isn't errata. The same could be true about Lost Souls.
I would disagree with this statement on the basis that your example ("*" in either strength or toughness) has been ruled to be an identifier on all cards by game rule. It is not specifically regarding Silly Women, but also AwSN, King Jehu, and other cards of that type. The ruling on "*" is a top-down ruling that affects all cards of that type. A ruling specific to one card's ability would be bottom-up (hence why Pol agrees with me for once when I oppose that option ;)) and this is that case. Not that it matters, of course, since it all ends up the same spot, but I do not like the way we end up there with the identifier option.
We could errata Lost Souls to be a demon.
Cannot be redeemed. Done. Love it.
-
All cards with asterisks need explanations. Hence, identifier regardless of location on card.
Likewise, all Lost Soul cards with different titles need explanations. Regardless of location on card.
-
I'm not so sure that we're going to get any kind of concensus about this, and are more likely to get aversion. I think that any kind of change for a card that has been in circulation as long as this card has is well past its Statute of Limitations. Most of us have been using this card for its infuriating purposes from Day 1.
-
I really hate the inertia argument.
-
I really hate the inertia argument.
I actually agree with Pol on this one, inertia is very important in science, and it has to be considered in a game like this, but it's not a good reason to not change things that should be changed (because of brokenness and/or consistency.)
I will however say I don't think the Lost Souls needs to be changed... but I don't play T1 so this ruling and the power of it doesn't really affect me.
-
I really hate the inertia argument.
And I hate the grandiloquent argument.
-
I'm sorry you feel inertia is a big word?
I've never said that the liner absolutely must be changed, only that I saw a lot of hate for it at Natz and if it were to be changed this should be the way to do it. Thinking about it more has convinced me changing it would be a good thing, but I don't believe I've been actively arguing for it here. If I have, it was not my intent to and I chalk it up to my MO being arguing for stuff, but I have more pressing pet issues (like getting banding fixed before the rulebooks are printed).
-
I don't yet understand why you "saw a lot of hate for it at Natz" this year, as opposed to every other year that this card has been in existence (which is since the creation of the game). Are there new card interactions that have made it inifinitely worse? I still don't see how this is not a knee-jerk reaction to a few players getting burned by it at this year's Nats.
-
Mostly because I haven't been to a major tournament in three years. I have no idea whether the dislike has been around longer because I wasn't there to observe.
The anti-Liner sentiment was expressed before the tournament started/after one round, so it was most definitely not even effected by how the Liner had or had not burned anyone.
-
Mostly because I haven't been to a major tournament in three years. I have no idea whether the dislike has been around longer because I wasn't there to observe.
I have never been to Nats, so I certainly cannot speak against what you are claiming. I was just surprised that there hadn't been a similar thread after previous Nats.
The anti-Liner sentiment was expressed before the tournament started/after one round, so it was most definitely not even effected by how the Liner had or had not burned anyone.
I see. I misunderstood your initial post. Sorry about that.