Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Rules Announcements => Topic started by: RedemptionAggie on January 28, 2020, 09:38:08 PM
-
REG 7.0 (https://www.cactusgamedesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/REG_PDF_7.0.0.pdf) is live! In addition to releasing an update for LoC one of our goals this with this update is to help simplify some of the more complex areas of the game. Following are some of the larger changes in this revision.
T2 Reserve Increase (pg. 7) - now lines up with the Host Guide
Do As Much As You Can (pg. 8, 14)
Action Priority (pg. 9, 10, 15, 87, 98-99) - clarifying Dominant Init and other player actions
Triggers Stack, Begins, Blocks (pg. 10, 91, 92) - makes the begins and blocks check much simpler, but requires excluding them from stacking like other triggers
Colon Definition (pg. 11-12)
Instead (pg. 19-20) - added a line to clarify that the replacing effect can be negated
Activate an Ability (pg. 23)
Bounce (pg. 28, 71) - replacing Return to Hand
Convert (pg. 33) - you may select any brigade when one is not specified
Ignore (pg. 49) - removed part 4, so it no longer wins the battle if played post-block
Negate (pg. 56) - negates do not cascade and they do target cards in addition to special abilities (changes Babylonian Siege Army ruling, and Babylonian Siege Army can target meek cards)
Play an Enhancement (pg. 59)
Resurrect (pg. 70) - no longer defaults to holder's cards
Search (pg. 73) - you can't choose to partially fail a search of multiple locations. You can partially fail if there are no targets in one of the locations. (Abe's Descendant, Mist)
Set-Aside (pg. 74)
Artifact (pg. 88-89) - can't be reactivated during the turn they're deactivated
Battle (pg. 89-90)
Contents (pg. 96)
Preparation Phase (pg. 117)
Unique (pg. 124) - unique characters can only enter battle once per turn and do not reactive on re-entry after a negated band
New Definitions - Bearer, Meek and Pre-Game Phase
ORDIR (https://www.cactusgamedesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/ORDIR_PDF_3.0.0.pdf) 3.0 is live! Following are some key updates.
II Chronicles Card (pg. 49-50)
King or Queen of Judah (pg. 64) - rulers of unified Israel are considered to have ruled both Israel and Judah
Testament Identifiers Override Reference (pg. 76) - the Matthew 1 postexilic characters are O.T., not N.T. (and not both)
Postexilic (pg. 81)
-
So if you ignore post block, that doesnt win the battle? Does that mean its basically like protect at that point? What if they block from hand?
-
I’m also not understanding the new Ignore rule. Could you please explain further, with an example or two, how this change works?
-
How to Play
● An ignore effect keeps cards from targeting or being targeted by a specified set of cards.
● An ignore effect has three parts:
1 The ignoring card cannot be targeted by an ability that is on a card it is ignoring, or on a card played
on that card, and when comparing the strength of the ignored character to the toughness of the
ignoring character, the strength of the ignored character is treated as zero.
2 The ignored card cannot be targeted by an ability that is on a card that is ignoring it, or on a card
played on that card, and when comparing the strength of the ignoring character to the toughness of the
ignored character, the strength of the ignoring character is treated as zero.
3 Characters not in battle and targeted as ignored cannot enter battle.
● Part (1) targets the cards that gain the ignoring status. Parts (2) and (3) target the cards that are ignored.
● Unless otherwise specified, ignore effects last until the end of the phase in which they are activated.
● The ignoring cards must be a different alignment than the ignored cards.
● Only characters in the Field of Battle can ignore other characters.
● Unless otherwise specified, targets must be in play.
● All ignore effects are ongoing.
So posting the entry. If I'm reading correctly the only thing that has changed is the "battle winning" part being removed. The pre-block ignore is still a thing as people can't enter battle from territory so it CAN still win a battle, but that is assuming you don't have any characters in hand or something else. So if it is played in battle, it is basically a way for your character to no longer be targeted by the opponent, I guess making it a pseudo protect. The difference is that neither character can target each other, so it is like a stale-mate at that point. Removing the battle winning portion would also remove the "infinite initiative" part of the ignored card.
Maybe that helps?
-
Why did ignore get a useless change? It isn't broken or confusing.
-
I don't even remember what part 4 of ignore was..
Is it really true that ignore can no longer win you any rescue attempts and it more like a stalemate protect type of ability now?
Would really like an elder to confirm this for us.
-
Ignore used to do 4 things:
1) "Protect" the ignoring card from the ignored card.
2) "Protect" the ignored card from the ignoring card.
3) Stop the ignored card from entering battle.
4) If the ignored card is in battle, disregard it for determining the battle outcome.
We removed the 4th part, to eliminate the "you're winning but haven't won and it doesn't cause SI"/"infinitive initiative for the ignored character" scenarios.
The 3rd part still does what it's always done, keeping the ignored characters out of battle.
The first 2 parts create a stalemate, and without the 4th part to remove the ignored card from the determination of the battle outcome, that's not a battle winning condition for the Hero. The stalemate would win the battle for the Evil Character, but part 4 didn't usually (if ever) matter for evil ignores.
Examples:
Jacob (FF) enters battle and plays Reuben's Torn Clothes (Genesis Heroes ignore an evil brigade) off his ability. The opponent blocks with an ignored character from hand.
Old Rules: The ignored character is treated as not in battle for determining battle outcome, so it's in a perpetual state of losing the battle and has infinite initiative until the ignore is negated. Jacob and the ignored character are "protected" from each other so neither can win the battle in another way.
New Rules: Jacob and the ignored character are "protected" from each other. This is a stalemate situation, so initiative passes back and forth as usual in a stalemate.
Music Leader is blocked by the 3 Canaanite giant band, ending with Talmai (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thejambi/RedemptionLackeyCCG/master/RedemptionQuick/sets/setimages/general/070-Talmai.jpg) to withdraw Music Leader. Word of Christ (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thejambi/RedemptionLackeyCCG/master/RedemptionQuick/sets/setimages/general/Word_of_Christ_(PC).jpg) is played on Music Leader to negate the withdraw and ignore black.
Old Rules: The Canaanite giants are treated as not in battle for determining battle outcome, so they're in a perpetual state of losing the battle and have infinite initiative until the ignore is negated. Music Leader is "protected" from the giants (and the giants from Music Leader) so neither can win the battle in another way.
New Rules: Music Leader is "protected" from the giants (and the giants from Music Leader). This is a stalemate so initiative passes back and forth as usual in a stalemate.
*Parts 1 and 2 of ignore are not protects for ruling purposes, but are functionally identical, I think. "Protect" is shorthand for spelling that out all over the post.
Why did ignore get a useless change? It isn't broken or confusing.
Winning the battle but not causing SI/infinite initiative scenarios do cause confusion among some players.
-
So the only difference between ignore and protect is ignore stops charcters from entering from territory?
-
Ignore is like a mutual protect. A protected character (like Philistine Garrison) can still defeat/harm their opponent if they are not also protected.
-
So... what's the point of good ignores, then? It seems like now they're only useful to play pre-block and hope that your opponent doesn't have anyone in hand, since if they play someone (or you play it in battle) then they get a free block from the stalemate. I suppose you can play territory destruction, or other non-battlewinning enhancements, but at that point why not play them on the initiative that you played the ignore?
-
So... what's the point of good ignores, then?
Pre-block ignore is still a very strong play if they don't have something to block with from hand, deck, Reserve, etc.
Overall this is a big nerf to ignore. The 4th component to ignore was one of the more complicated abilities in the game. It's the part that caused almost all of the questions surrounding ignore and made it difficult to understand. As we look to help simplify Redemption to make the game more accessible we felt this was a necessary change.
There are obviously casualties involved with a change like this but we felt the benefits are worth it.
-
okay so in the end..
Good ignore abilities can now no longer win you a rescue attempt? Would this be correct?
-
okay so in the end..
Good ignore abilities can now no longer win you a rescue attempt? Would this be correct?
Unless you can pop off a pre-block ignore.
-
I appreciate the way rules are being simplified even though there are strategies that end up going by the wayside as a result. I am wondering if it would not be beneficial to officially do away with/combine ignore into protect. Without the battle winning aspect of ignore it becomes even more like protect. So why not just bite the bullet and give ignore the full axe and just roll the old cards into the current rules as protect?
Just food for thought. Not saying this is a great idea, its just where my thoughts took me.
-
So what about cards like Red Dragon and Queen Vashti who block with an ignore attached? What happens when they block? Or what about cards like Faith of Moses’ Parents that interrupt then ignore? What happens to that card/ability now?
-
I see this rule change as more confusing than how it was...just make ignore protect, with this rule change they are mostly the same anyway
-
So what about cards like Red Dragon and Queen Vashti who block with an ignore attached? What happens when they block? Or what about cards like Faith of Moses’ Parents that interrupt then ignore? What happens to that card/ability now?
The evil ignores are largely unchanged by this change, as the stalemate is sufficient to get the block. There's probably some scenario involving banding where adding the ignored character into battle results in the numbers being enough to discard a non-ignoring character. (Red Dragon banding to Abaddon while opposing angels with enough strength to discard Abaddon.)
FoMP becomes a way to save your character from an ability or losing by the numbers, but it won't win you the battle.
-
So... what's the point of good ignores, then?
Pre-block ignore is still a very strong play if they don't have something to block with from hand, deck, Reserve, etc.
Overall this is a big nerf to ignore. The 4th component to ignore was one of the more complicated abilities in the game. It's the part that caused almost all of the questions surrounding ignore and made it difficult to understand. As we look to help simplify Redemption to make the game more accessible we felt this was a necessary change.
There are obviously casualties involved with a change like this but we felt the benefits are worth it.
I see no benefit, only a reduction in the number of good battle winners that significantly hurts several themes. I know of no one who was complaining about ignore as of this junction. If enough players dissent, could this potentially be repealed?
-
So... what's the point of good ignores, then?
Pre-block ignore is still a very strong play if they don't have something to block with from hand, deck, Reserve, etc.
Overall this is a big nerf to ignore. The 4th component to ignore was one of the more complicated abilities in the game. It's the part that caused almost all of the questions surrounding ignore and made it difficult to understand. As we look to help simplify Redemption to make the game more accessible we felt this was a necessary change.
There are obviously casualties involved with a change like this but we felt the benefits are worth it.
I see no benefit, only a reduction in the number of good battle winners that significantly hurts several themes. I know of no one who was complaining about ignore as of this junction. If enough players dissent, could this potentially be repealed?
No one complains about Ignore, because there are only two things that happen with ignore. You either understand how it works and that is that, or you don't and you don't play those cards. There are constantly questions about ignore and how it works. You have been at several tournaments with me that I've had to explain ignore at, and got no where. It ends with basically. This person wins. You can play this, this and this, but if you can't negate/interrupt it you are giving a LS.
-
So... what's the point of good ignores, then?
Pre-block ignore is still a very strong play if they don't have something to block with from hand, deck, Reserve, etc.
Overall this is a big nerf to ignore. The 4th component to ignore was one of the more complicated abilities in the game. It's the part that caused almost all of the questions surrounding ignore and made it difficult to understand. As we look to help simplify Redemption to make the game more accessible we felt this was a necessary change.
There are obviously casualties involved with a change like this but we felt the benefits are worth it.
I see no benefit, only a reduction in the number of good battle winners that significantly hurts several themes. I know of no one who was complaining about ignore as of this junction. If enough players dissent, could this potentially be repealed?
No one complains about Ignore, because there are only two things that happen with ignore. You either understand how it works and that is that, or you don't and you don't play those cards. There are constantly questions about ignore and how it works. You have been at several tournaments with me that I've had to explain ignore at, and got no where. It ends with basically. This person wins. You can play this, this and this, but if you can't negate/interrupt it you are giving a LS.
Chris, I can't remember a single instance in recent memory, but I'll take your word for it, even though I still passionately detest this change.
-
So what about cards like Red Dragon and Queen Vashti who block with an ignore attached? What happens when they block? Or what about cards like Faith of Moses’ Parents that interrupt then ignore? What happens to that card/ability now?
The evil ignores are largely unchanged by this change, as the stalemate is sufficient to get the block. There's probably some scenario involving banding where adding the ignored character into battle results in the numbers being enough to discard a non-ignoring character. (Red Dragon banding to Abaddon while opposing angels with enough strength to discard Abaddon.)
FoMP becomes a way to save your character from an ability or losing by the numbers, but it won't win you the battle.
So with FoMP, if my hero is being discarded by a SA, and I use FoMP to ITB and ignore black brigade (the discarding brigade), I’m not being discarded now, but what now? With this rule change is it now that I can’t be harmed at this point by black (unless my ignore is negated), but I’m also not winning the battle by ignoring black. So my strength still counts but his strength doesn’t, but his toughness still counts. If this is the case it’s no different than a Protect ability. So what’s the point of having an ignore ability anymore then?
-
So what about cards like Red Dragon and Queen Vashti who block with an ignore attached? What happens when they block? Or what about cards like Faith of Moses’ Parents that interrupt then ignore? What happens to that card/ability now?
The evil ignores are largely unchanged by this change, as the stalemate is sufficient to get the block. There's probably some scenario involving banding where adding the ignored character into battle results in the numbers being enough to discard a non-ignoring character. (Red Dragon banding to Abaddon while opposing angels with enough strength to discard Abaddon.)
FoMP becomes a way to save your character from an ability or losing by the numbers, but it won't win you the battle.
So with FoMP, if my hero is being discarded by a SA, and I use FoMP to ITB and ignore black brigade (the discarding brigade), I’m not being discarded now, but what now? With this rule change is it now that I can’t be harmed at this point by black (unless my ignore is negated), but I’m also not winning the battle by ignoring black. So my strength still counts but his strength doesn’t, but his toughness still counts. If this is the case it’s no different than a Protect ability. So what’s the point of having an ignore ability anymore then?
I don't agree with this change. However if it sticks,
I'm a fan to make ignore=protect. BUT, to answer your question ignore isn't protect exactly because if a hero is ignoring an evil character before they enter battle, they can't enter battle. Protect would allow them too. ALSO, if in your situation let's say you play an evil banding card to bring in another EC after FoMP is played, you wouldn't be able to bring in a black EC, but you would be able to bring in another color EC.
-
I'm not a fan of the change to ignore either. In my opinion all this change does is complicated it more with mutual protection. As someone who has played gen-egyptians for 15ish years the hardest part of explaining ignore is that they can't target my character. With this mutual protect that is still going to be the case. I have also found that the majority of players ive played against have understood ignore just fine, especially after I explain it and literally set their guy As aside well explaining. (Pretty much your guy can't see me and i walk around, you can play but cant target my guy without negating or interrupting). Followed by giving examples of what they could play. It's very rare for me to have someone that still doesn't understand. I think with how the rule is currently its going to cause far more confusion.
-
@Silencedmatrix That’s not entirely correct. Since ignore is an ongoing ability you can ITB (temporarily interrupting their ignore) and add a black brigade EC to battle from anywhere. Once that character is in battle, however, the interrupt is over (once the EC’s ability completes) and black is being ignored once again.
-
So what about cards like Red Dragon and Queen Vashti who block with an ignore attached? What happens when they block? Or what about cards like Faith of Moses’ Parents that interrupt then ignore? What happens to that card/ability now?
The evil ignores are largely unchanged by this change, as the stalemate is sufficient to get the block. There's probably some scenario involving banding where adding the ignored character into battle results in the numbers being enough to discard a non-ignoring character. (Red Dragon banding to Abaddon while opposing angels with enough strength to discard Abaddon.)
FoMP becomes a way to save your character from an ability or losing by the numbers, but it won't win you the battle.
So with FoMP, if my hero is being discarded by a SA, and I use FoMP to ITB and ignore black brigade (the discarding brigade), I’m not being discarded now, but what now? With this rule change is it now that I can’t be harmed at this point by black (unless my ignore is negated), but I’m also not winning the battle by ignoring black. So my strength still counts but his strength doesn’t, but his toughness still counts. If this is the case it’s no different than a Protect ability. So what’s the point of having an ignore ability anymore then?
In that scenario, you're in a stalemate. You can't be harmed by black (part 1 of ignore). Black can't be harmed by you (part 2 of ignore). Neither your strength nor his strength counts.
-
@Silencedmatrix That’s not entirely correct. Since ignore is an ongoing ability you can ITB (temporarily interrupting their ignore) and add a black brigade EC to battle from anywhere. Once that character is in battle, however, the interrupt is over (once the EC’s ability completes) and black is being ignored once again.
That is true, well played.
-
@Silencedmatrix That’s not entirely correct. Since ignore is an ongoing ability you can ITB (temporarily interrupting their ignore) and add a black brigade EC to battle from anywhere. Once that character is in battle, however, the interrupt is over (once the EC’s ability completes) and black is being ignored once again.
That is true, well played.
Noob. 🙄
-
I actually like ignore the way it was for top players and people who have been around for awhile and want deeper levels to the game. That said
Benefits of this change are really good for the longevity of the game. I am not a play tester and I’ve never been a judge or ruling official but I see this as stylistically rotating ignore abilities out the game. (No ignore in LoC and drastically lowering its offensive value. This stream lines the game and takes away one of the most non-interactive parts of the game.
I predict ignore disappearing from the game in the long run. That is awesome for making the game easier to teach new players.
I love this game and truly believe set rotation is the answer to extending redemption and making it available to new players. Since set rotation isn’t happening for sure at the moment this change acts as a version of that without actually implementing rotation.
This is about long term health, just like banning Mourn and Weep, Samuel and the Liner.
I do wish we acted faster overall but I see this as a positive step for redemption towards rotation and for building play groups/adding new players.
-
As someone who has been away from Redemption for awhile and is just now getting back into it, I really appreciate this rule change regarding "ignore." I will be honest "ignore" was entirely complicated for me having been used to the way it was during Disciples when The Garden Tomb reigned supreme. The way it was changed to be was confusing and now it makes more sense with this recent change. I echo jbeers285's sentiment regarding "ignore" fading from the game and agree it is a good thing. Far easier for new players starting out. Thank you Redemption Elders for this decision.
-
So if I can’t win a battle with it from the hero’s side, and if I play something like FoMP during battle and ignore my opponent, but never have initiative to play anything to actually win the battle then what is the purpose and strategy of having an offensive ignore in one’s deck now, like FoMP?
-
So if I can’t win a battle with it from the hero’s side, and if I play something like FoMP during battle and ignore my opponent, but never have initiative to play anything to actually win the battle then what is the purpose and strategy of having an offensive ignore in one’s deck now, like FoMP?
Playing an offensive ignore now basically blocks the rescuer. The purpose is mostly defensive at this point and this rule change pushes ignore to brink of extinction.
-
Clearly it’s a defensive boost. But again, where does that leave the good offensive cards now? Virtually unusable.
-
I know I haven't played this game in a long time, but I dislike the change to ignore quite a lot, because I'm not a fan of making the good ignore cards effectively useless. I'd rather see the immune/protect part of ignore be phased out than the battle winning part (that is make it so the hero rescues a soul even if they lose by the numbers, because from a flavor perspective they are ignoring the evil character even if the evil character beats them)
-
I also would not like to see ignore going for good. The recent change seems to be a good step in the right direction IMO.
-
I also would not like to see ignore going for good. The recent change seems to be a good step in the right direction IMO.
Sounds like you're both against and for this...? Unless "going for good" means "working for offense"...
Definitely in the camp of phasing out ignore forever. I have not had much trouble understanding it myself, but as someone who played extensively in TGT's heyday I can attest to the confusion it caused so many players. Even now it's probably the most complicated ability in the game. Not to mention it's about the most non-interactive way to play the game.
Besides, any hit Zebulun and Watchful Servant take is good by me.
-
So if I can’t win a battle with it from the hero’s side, and if I play something like FoMP during battle and ignore my opponent, but never have initiative to play anything to actually win the battle then what is the purpose and strategy of having an offensive ignore in one’s deck now, like FoMP?
It's a stalemate, so you do get initiative to play a card to win the battle. You just have to interrupt the ignore first. (Which probably would have worked just as well in place of FoMP, admittedly.)
I know I haven't played this game in a long time, but I dislike the change to ignore quite a lot, because I'm not a fan of making the good ignore cards effectively useless. I'd rather see the immune/protect part of ignore be phased out than the battle winning part (that is make it so the hero rescues a soul even if they lose by the numbers, because from a flavor perspective they are ignoring the evil character even if the evil character beats them)
Removing the protect portion of ignore leaves you with the pre-block part and the battle winning part, which means your opponent has infinite initiative but they can just defeat you with an ability (discard, capture, etc.) instead of negating the ignore.
-
I know I haven't played this game in a long time, but I dislike the change to ignore quite a lot, because I'm not a fan of making the good ignore cards effectively useless. I'd rather see the immune/protect part of ignore be phased out than the battle winning part (that is make it so the hero rescues a soul even if they lose by the numbers, because from a flavor perspective they are ignoring the evil character even if the evil character beats them)
Removing the protect portion of ignore leaves you with the pre-block part and the battle winning part, which means your opponent has infinite initiative but they can just defeat you with an ability (discard, capture, etc.) instead of negating the ignore.
Depending on how you defined it, you wouldn't necessarily give infinite initiative, because you could treat a scenario where the hero is losing by the numbers but ignoring the evil character the same as mutual destruction.
-
Depending on how you defined it...
This is part of the reason why we are having this discussion. Some think ignore does one thing and others think it does something else. And even for those that learn the correct way to play it sometimes still disagree with the logic of the ruling.
-
If u want to get rid of ignore, just get rid of ignore and make it protect, like we did to immune. I see no down side to this and it doesnt create more confusing rulings
-
If u want to get rid of ignore, just get rid of ignore and make it protect, like we did to immune. I see no down side to this and it doesnt create more confusing rulings
+1
-
If u want to get rid of ignore, just get rid of ignore and make it protect, like we did to immune. I see no down side to this and it doesnt create more confusing rulings
+1
-
If u want to get rid of ignore, just get rid of ignore and make it protect, like we did to immune. I see no down side to this and it doesnt create more confusing rulings
While I would be/am sad to see ignore go I also agree this would be a good thing.
-
I have no power, and no real reason to have a say in this in any event, but I dislike the move of removing an ability from the game because its current implementation is confusing when I think the design space is there. Making it another Immune/Protect to me is a waste of card design space to me, but is, I will admit still better than having a functionally useless ability.
Depending on how you defined it...
This is part of the reason why we are having this discussion. Some think ignore does one thing and others think it does something else. And even for those that learn the correct way to play it sometimes still disagree with the logic of the ruling.
Sure the ruling is confusing now, but my "depending on how you define it" was less of a "how you interpret it" and more of a "how you write it into the rules."
-
I also would not like to see ignore going for good. The recent change seems to be a good step in the right direction IMO.
Sounds like you're both against and for this...? Unless "going for good" means "working for offense"...
Not at all! I'd like to leave it in the current state where part 4 has been removed! What I meant is that this was a step in the direction of making the game more easily to understand and providing a more seamless gameplay.
-
First off I want to thank all those involved with these changes for all the time and energy they dedicated to trying to make this game better. It seems like most of the comments so far have been more critical than anything so I at least wanted to start with that.
While a majority of the changes I believe to be great. I do echo the issues many have aired over ignore. I fear that with the change ignore loses its uniqueness as an ability and wont actually simplify the game to make it any easier. It makes it easier to rule but it still will have confusion from old knowledge and the question of "what's the point of the ability if it cant even win a battle anymore"? I feel that question will be shared by both new and old players alike. Ignore also still has confusion with preblock ignore but that's another matter.
I guess I feel ultimately if simplification was the goal just making ignore count as removing a character from battle this granting SI would have been better. For newer players I guess I would say set rotation and careful selections of abilities to implement in the new format would have been ideal but that just my opinion.
I want to thank all those involved again for these primarily great changes and all their work. I just feel we missed the mark a bit on ignore and further look into it should be explored.
-
So if I can’t win a battle with it from the hero’s side, and if I play something like FoMP during battle and ignore my opponent, but never have initiative to play anything to actually win the battle then what is the purpose and strategy of having an offensive ignore in one’s deck now, like FoMP?
It's a stalemate, so you do get initiative to play a card to win the battle. You just have to interrupt the ignore first. (Which probably would have worked just as well in place of FoMP, admittedly.)
With the change to negate also targeting the cards themselves, is this accurate. Under mutual protection where negate targets the cards, I am not sure this is the case. Can anyone confirm?
Also, to chime in on the way ignore has changed, I personally think there is value in trying to preserve the ignore ability.
I don’t mean that it should stay the same as it was - it seems that a change is warranted. I also don’t think it should be lumped in to be the same as protect/immune.
First, I think assimilating ignore with protection immediately would be too hasty of a decision and create some unnecessary confusion. I believe that “immune” can be fully absorbed into the protect once the first set rotation happens, but “ignore” would still be present on other cards for a while.
Second, I think there could be value in scaling the ability back (as it has been with this release), but not leaving it there. Other options for a more offensively useful ignore ability could be explored, but that might not be easily visible until seeing how scaling back changes the game mechanics. The recommendation for treating it as a mutual destruction type interaction seems very valid. Or the term can eventually be completely repurposed.
Personally, I still see some value in ignore offensively with the changes, even outside of preblock, especially as more alternate win conditions are introduced to the game.
-
So if I can’t win a battle with it from the hero’s side, and if I play something like FoMP during battle and ignore my opponent, but never have initiative to play anything to actually win the battle then what is the purpose and strategy of having an offensive ignore in one’s deck now, like FoMP?
It's a stalemate, so you do get initiative to play a card to win the battle. You just have to interrupt the ignore first. (Which probably would have worked just as well in place of FoMP, admittedly.)
With the change to negate also targeting the cards themselves, is this accurate. Under mutual protection where negate targets the cards, I am not sure this is the case. Can anyone confirm?
Negate would target the card with the ignore ability (and the ignore ability), not necessarily the ignoring card (FoMP has the ignore ability but the Hero is the ignoring card) but they're not dependent on each other - you can target one without targeting both. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.
-
No, that makes sense. I was thinking of it as the same card.
However, for examples sake, if Vashti blocks a royal hero, can the royal hero target her with a negate?
Thanks
-
No, that makes sense. I was thinking of it as the same card.
However, for examples sake, if Vashti blocks a royal hero, can the royal hero target her with a negate?
Thanks
Yes. That's the whole "target one but not the other" part of that addition to negate. You can target the ability without targeting the card (something protected by a different card) or target the card without targeting the ability (a meek card).
-
Maybe I missed it, but where is the removal of the cascading negate mentioned (in fact there are at least still 2 references to cascading negate within that version of Reg)?
The negate section does not elaborate on what happens if the negated affect activated sth. which triggered sth. else etc. ...
-
Maybe I missed it, but where is the removal of the cascading negate mentioned (in fact there are at least still 2 references to cascading negate within that version of Reg)?
The negate section does not elaborate on what happens if the negated affect activated sth. which triggered sth. else etc. ...
Mentions of cascade were removed from the negate entry in REG 7.0. Where are you still seeing references to it?
EDIT - Ah, in the modifiers - I forgot to check those. Those have been removed in REG 7.0.1, which should be released some time in February.
-
"Do as much as you can" was mentioned in OP but I don't see those words in the REG. Are they supposed to be there? Maybe those words aren't used.. Did I miss the portion that is about that?
-
"Do as much as you can" was mentioned in OP but I don't see those words in the REG. Are they supposed to be there? Maybe those words aren't used.. Did I miss the portion that is about that?
The words do not appear in the REG, which is part of the reason the OP included page numbers. It's more of catch-all term for "you can do part of an ability even if you can't do all of the ability", which falls into 2 parts:
You can use a "negate and discard" to "negate or discard" if you can't do both, or you can do parts of something like RJ Vengeance of Eternal Fire (http://landofredemption.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Vengeance-of-Eternal-Fire.png) even if you can't do all of it.
If an ability has multiple effects, they are not usually dependent on each other such that being unable to carry out one of them makes the player unable to carry out a different one. There are 2 exceptions:
•An effect relies on previous effect(s)being fully carried out.These are usually referred to as “cost-benefit” abilities, where the previous effect(s)is the cost to get the benefit of the later effect(s).
•An effect targets a card (or part of card) and another effect later in the ability relies on the initial targeting being successful to target that card (or part of that card). These usually use pronouns to refer back to the original target, so the pronouns don’t refer to anything if there was no original target.
You can use an ability to target fewer cards than specified if fewer targets exist. I think this has most commonly come up with Escape to Egypt (https://raw.githubusercontent.com/thejambi/RedemptionLackeyCCG/master/RedemptionQuick/sets/setimages/general/Escape_to_Egypt_(Di).jpg), where the ruling is the opponent can withdraw 1 Hero if there is only 1 Hero.
If an effect specifies more targets than there are legal targets, the effect can still be carried out by targeting all of the legal targets.
-
Perfect, thanks!
-
So now if Zebulun is in battle and is blocked by a character from hand that he is still ignoring, instead of that ongoing ignore ability eventually winning him the battle (especially if territory-class Joseph is causing Zeb's ability CBN) it causes a stalemate. And if territory-class Joseph is in play, this stalemate is CBN and is an autoblock for the evil character...Is this correct?
-
So now if Zebulun is in battle and is blocked by a character from hand that he is still ignoring, instead of that ongoing ignore ability eventually winning him the battle (especially if territory-class Joseph is causing Zeb's ability CBN) it causes a stalemate. And if territory-class Joseph is in play, this stalemate is CBN and is an autoblock for the evil character...Is this correct?
Correct. And I’ll go back to my original post about the Zeb abuse deck and recommend AotL be added to it. And this scenario is the perfect example as to why.
-
That really hurts Genesis decks...I get that Zeb is powerful when his ignore is CBN but it is far from a guarantee when you take into account that he only ignores characters of a certain toughness or greater and one can still block from hand. I really do not like this change. Ignore should remain an "active action", not be so passive like protect. There is no need or desire for Reubens Torn Clothes in a Genesis deck anymore. Sure, it still negates protect abilities, but that is not enough if it does not win you the battle. The point of offense is to play offense, not defense. It was very much a staple card in any blue deck. Is this a done deal?
-
It does feel sad that the ignore change breaks the intent of many existing cards, even fairly recent ones. Even in my noob-ity I'd like it to be changed to a way of saying "during battle, protected from" sort of thing.
Whatever happens, I trust that the elders' decision is the right one.
-
Is there any other blue enhancement that targets all opposing characters that is currently available? I can’t find any other blue enhancement that truly targets all (one that is not restricted to humans, male, etc).
-
Is there any other blue enhancement that targets all opposing characters that is currently available? I can’t find any other blue enhancement that truly targets all (one that is not restricted to humans, male, etc).
Lingering in Sodom, The First Sacrifice, Joseph Before Pharaoh
-
There aren’t any blue brigade enhancements that target multiple characters though-an enhancement that isn’t restricted to a specific type of evil character).
-
The Flood and Faith of Noah hit all ECs. New Land Dispute withdraws all opposing characters. Even Obedience of Noah can sorta work like that, getting rid of all but one.
-
Flood only works if you’re using flood survivors, and obedience of Noah doesn’t get rid of all characters, and unfortunately faith of Noah isn’t Genesis. I’ll have to wait for land dispute to come out.
-
Other Rules: • The number of your good cards and the number of your evil cards MUST be equal. Dual-alignment cards have two alignments at face value. If one of the alignments is neutral, the card is the other alignment for deck building. If the alignments are good and evil, the card counts as neutral for deck building. • The total number of Sites and Cities may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck. • The number of Dominants (good and evil combined) may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck. (The Lost Souls card counts as 1 (one) Lost Soul and the “Hopper” Lost Soul does not count towards Lost Soul deck building requirements). • The max size for a T2 deck is 252.
Not sure who is managing this, so I figured I would post. Although it’s banned, the REG still references the Lost Souls cars in deck building under T2 deck building rules.
-
Other Rules: • The number of your good cards and the number of your evil cards MUST be equal. Dual-alignment cards have two alignments at face value. If one of the alignments is neutral, the card is the other alignment for deck building. If the alignments are good and evil, the card counts as neutral for deck building. • The total number of Sites and Cities may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck. • The number of Dominants (good and evil combined) may not exceed the number of Lost Souls in a deck. (The Lost Souls card counts as 1 (one) Lost Soul and the “Hopper” Lost Soul does not count towards Lost Soul deck building requirements). • The max size for a T2 deck is 252.
Not sure who is managing this, so I figured I would post. Although it’s banned, the REG still references the Lost Souls cars in deck building under T2 deck building rules.
Lost Souls is also referenced under the T1 deck building rules, in the same spot. Both have been modified to remove the reference (and add a list of banned cards) in the next update, whenever that gets uploaded.