Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: 3-Liner And Bags Of Chips on May 31, 2011, 03:57:49 PM
-
Can you add two sites into battle during a rescue attemp? Why or why not?
-
Absolutely. There is no rule against it. I am more concerned about the apparent Gates of Hell errata I didn't know about.
-
Absolutely. There is no rule against it. I am more concerned about the apparent Gates of Hell errata I didn't know about.
Breaks all my favorite combos.
-
Absolutely. There is no rule against it. I am more concerned about the apparent Gates of Hell errata I didn't know about.
Breaks all my favorite combos.
What apparent GoH errata?
-
You can only Gates 10 times in a turn.
-
You can only Gates 10 times in a turn.
Is there a link to that ruling or at least a reason why it was made? I don't see why it is necessary since you can really hurt yourself if you don't find a demon beneath your deck.
-
You can only Gates 10 times in a turn.
Is there a link to that ruling or at least a reason why it was made? I don't see why it is necessary since you can really hurt yourself if you don't find a demon beneath your deck.
we were just told this at regionals. it was confirmed by an elder who was there
-
i also would like to see verification of this ruling.
-
You can only Gates 10 times in a turn.
Is there a link to that ruling or at least a reason why it was made? I don't see why it is necessary since you can really hurt yourself if you don't find a demon beneath your deck.
we were just told this at regionals. it was confirmed by an elder who was there
What is it suppose to be? I am not familiar with anything but what the card actually says. Help an old man. ;D
-
From what i remember of the announcement it was specifically to balance things out in T2, because there are people (myself included) that send 20 demons in to battle, they get discarded but because of Wandering Spirit they go to the bottom and I just bring then right back out.
-
...and that's a problem why?
-
its OPed.......worse then Thad I would argue. You can only get through a 20 demon band so many times.
-
You wipe out my 20 demons. I Gates ten before your turn ends. Ten more at the start of my turn. Problem?
-
You can only Gates 10 times in a turn.
Is there a link to that ruling or at least a reason why it was made? I don't see why it is necessary since you can really hurt yourself if you don't find a demon beneath your deck.
we were just told this at regionals. it was confirmed by an elder who was there
I have never heard of such a ruling, nor would I endorse it if I had heard of it. There is no such discussion of said ruling on the Elders board, so... :scratch:
-
You can only Gates 10 times in a turn.
Is there a link to that ruling or at least a reason why it was made? I don't see why it is necessary since you can really hurt yourself if you don't find a demon beneath your deck.
we were just told this at regionals. it was confirmed by an elder who was there
I have never heard of such a ruling, nor would I endorse it if I had heard of it. There is no such discussion of said ruling on the Elders board, so... :scratch:
I'm with Jordan on this one - Whoever told you that did so inaccurately... Gates of Hell can be used at anytime, as many times as you like.
-
You can only Gates 10 times in a turn.
I have never heard of such a ruling, nor would I endorse it if I had heard of it. There is no such discussion of said ruling on the Elders board, so... :scratch:
+1 I think someone was a little late for their April Fools joke :)
-
No. Seriously. This was announced before T2 Multi began on the first day of NE regionals and we had a few elders there that said it was official. I don't know if it was just for that tournament or what but it was made
-
How many times do I have to tell you Lambo isn't an elder?
Owait, he's too good to go to tournaments.
-
How many times do I have to tell you Lambo isn't an elder?
Owait, he's too good to go to tournaments.
He wins nats... from his house.
He plays blue enhancements on silver brigade heroes.
He is the most interesting redemption player in the world.
"I don't always play stall, but when I do, It's better than yours."
-
as far as the adding multiple sites to battle it was ruled a few months ago in this thread that it's perfectly legal.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/adding-sites-to-battle/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/adding-sites-to-battle/)
-
This raises a few questions about unity with the elders.... I wonder if it effected anything?
-
However considering the number of elders that have already shot this down in this thread i'm guessing that the ruling will be over turned if it ever leaves the confines of NE regionals.
-
I could have sworn this conversation came up after Nationals....now I'm going to have to do some searching on rulings on Gates of Hell...
-
No. Seriously. This was announced before T2 Multi began on the first day of NE regionals and we had a few elders there that said it was official. I don't know if it was just for that tournament or what but it was made
Which Elders ruled this way at NE regionals, I'm guessing Jon M and Roy? They're the Elders that I would expect to see at that tournament. We'll start a thread about it on our side.
-
Yes, they were the two there. The Marti was the one to announce it.
-
No disrespect to The Marti but she's not an elder. We have not even discussed limiting Gates of Hell, much less issued an errata. Whatever the original source of this "ruling" it is inaccurate.
And yes you can add multiple Sites to battle.
-
Tim Maly allowed me to do it in T1 at NC Regionals.
(And the only Demon I had was KOT which was 2nd to top grrrrrrr...)
-
I thought the ruling wasn't real myself, but I'm not really in a position to contest, especially since I wasn't playing a Gates deck.
-
I actually don't know that John M or Roy were ever actually asked about this, now that I think about it. Neither of them contested it when it was announced, but I was a part of the conversation that took place when that decision was made. I may be remembering it wrong though. I do distinctly remember hearing something about a Gates errata either during or right after Nationals, but that might have hypothetical.
-
I announced it because it was told to me - I was only the MC. Yeah, I judged, but I swore that I saw it somewhere too, and someone confirmed it. Was it something else on the list of things that were discussed but never resolved?
Also, why is the ORIGINAL question legal? If I can add two, can I add three or four? What stops me from ending up with endless site access? Do I need multi-colored sites anymore?
You realize this is about Nazereth abuse, right?
-
Also, why is the ORIGINAL question legal? If I can add two, can I add three or four? What stops me from ending up with endless site access? Do I need multi-colored sites anymore?
Nothing is stopping you.
-
My point is that it should be. imho.
-
My point is that it should be. imho.
There's not really any reason to though. If you want to not use your sites for souls, go for it. Nazareth x2 is about the only practical application of multiple sites in battle.
-
I was being sarcastic with a lot of that. I'm more interested in why it's allowed because of cards like Nazereth where the S.A. would be deactivated when brought into battle and reactivated when put back in your LoB. I'd think that would have the potential to be abused.
-
I was being sarcastic with a lot of that. I'm more interested in why it's allowed because of cards like Nazereth where the S.A. would be deactivated when brought into battle and reactivated when put back in your LoB. I'd think that would have the potential to be abused.
I realize that, I am just pointing out that something isn't really a big deal if you can only do one not so ground breaking play. I don't really see how it could be abused, because first of all, you have to take your opponent's Nazzy, which, if you do, is worthy of being allowed to search IMO.
-
I actually don't know that John M or Roy were ever actually asked about this, now that I think about it.
This is actually a big difference from what was being said earlier. I would appreciate it if people would be careful to make sure of the facts before causing people to question whether elders are dis-unified on a ruling.
I announced it because it was told to me - I was only the MC. Yeah, I judged, but I swore that I saw it somewhere too, and someone confirmed it. Was it something else on the list of things that were discussed but never resolved?
Perhaps you are confusing this with the ruling that was talked about right after Nats, that you couldn't heal all the heroes that get discarded from your deck as you are wiping the whole thing out with Gates of Hell.
And as for adding multiple sites, imagine I attack with a red site (to get your LS in CP), but then you bury that LS. Doesn't it make sense that I can then add my white site to battle so that I have a chance at your LS in Golgotha as well? I understand that it allows for people to use Naz to search on offense, while stopping everyone else from searching (other than the defender during the battle). But I don't think it is game-breaking.
-
I know that John and Roy were asked, because a group of us stood around and discussed it.
-
I'd love to hear from John and/or Roy on this. :o
-
I know that John and Roy were asked, because a group of us stood around and discussed it.
Was Roy definitely asked? I don't remember what day this was announced (I believe it was Saturday morning), but a previous post in this thread said it was before the first category, in which case, Roy could not have been consulted since he didn't arrive until Saturday morning. I distinctly recall myself, you, and Korunks being there in that conversation, but I don't remember who else was there. I'm shooting John an email anyways, so I'll send him a link to this thread (since he doesn't get on the boards as often lately).
-
I was the Host and having heard it ( The gates "ruling") from several sources I ruled it this way. I consulted John and Roy and they were unaware of a ruling, but my other hosts were sure that they had heard something along this line so I had Marti go ahead with the announcement. It was a difficult decision but I was afraid that a ruling really was in the works, and did not want some one abusing a combo that was going to be incorrect. I was wrong, and I am sorry. This in my opinion highlights flaw in the elder system, we never know what is being discussed. I was so worried about ruling something wrong that I was a little to proactive in my ruling. If it affected any Multiplayer game I am sorry. This is why we need an actual real effective REG. I can only comb through so many threads to make my ruling decisions, and I am getting tired of having to run every ruling to the ground to find the source. I hear from various players, REP, and Elders so much conflicting information that it is quite frankly very easy to get overwhelmed by it.
-
I was the Host and having heard it ( The gates "ruling") from several sources I ruled it this way. I consulted John and Roy and they were unaware of a ruling, but my other hosts were sure that they had heard something along this line so I had Marti go ahead with the announcement.
OK, so you ruled something that 2 Elders had never heard of because other people told it to you. That is not a problem with the Elders system. That is the problem of a host listening to the wrong people. I'm not trying to come down on you, it was an honest mistake, and you're being a man about it and owning up to it. I appreciate that. And I agree with you that it would be GREAT if we could finally get the new REG out.
I'm just saying that the current system can work if the hosts do it right. There should be at least 1 Elder at every Regional tournament, and the hosts should listen to what they say. As for checking stuff, there are only 2 threads that you need to check for updates/corrections to the REG. They are here, (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-reg-corrections-thread/) and here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-new-rulings-announcement-thread/)
-
I am aware that I may have listened to the wrong source and if I am going to be shelled for this I really don't care. I read those two threads regularly and practically live here in the ruling section and there are rulings and questions not resolved, and to be frank I have little faith that any answer I get save the few that are verified in those two threads. I operated under the presumption (which I admit was probably false ) that not every elder is up on the current discussions because I rarely see any activity from them save the few that post in this forum section. I erred, I made a mistake.
-
To be fair to Shawn (Korunks), it didn't affect the tournament AT ALL. I played Type 2 (where any abuse was likely to happen), and I played every T2 deck. In this case, it was a non-factor. Nobody complained and to my knowledge, nobody cared. It is a valuable lesson to learn for the future, but the present wasn't affected.
-
I operated under the presumption (which I admit was probably false ) that not every elder is up on the current discussions because I rarely see any activity from them save the few that post in this forum section. I erred, I made a mistake.
This actually isn't necessarily a bad presumption. Some Elders are more involved with rulings than others. However, if you go with what the Elder says, and it turns out to be wrong, then the fault falls on us :)
As for making a mistake, don't sweat it. We all make them, and it sounds like yours didn't actually mess anything up. That's the best kind of mistake to make :)
-
Korunks, please don't feel ganged up upon/shelled. The Elders who have posted in this thread did not do so to bash the hosts/elders who were there, but it is an issue that would have affected at least three decks that I played against at NC Regionals, and could have affected mine if I needed to use GoH that way. Since it was a matter of importance for other tournaments (even though it didn't seem to be a big problem at yours) it was important that we all chime in so that people don't get that idea for other tournaments this season.
FWIW, Erratas like that are almost exclusively handled by Rob himself, and in order to rule something as an errata that you yourself have not seen official documentation for, you should probably only depend on Rob's word as authoritative, especially if the other elders are unsure. You did a good thing by consulting the Elders present, and you made a judgment call that turned out to be wrong. I'm glad nobody was affected there, but I know at least two guys at our Regionals who would have been sorely disappointed had a similar ruling been made there...
-
No. Seriously. This was announced before T2 Multi began on the first day of NE regionals and we had a few elders there that said it was official. I don't know if it was just for that tournament or what but it was made
I was there, i thought u could use it without limit?? :o :o
-
Still, there is the issue of Hosts not being informed.
-
Still, there is the issue of Hosts not being informed.
The hosts not being informed of what, exactly?
-
New rulings. There's no way for a host to be sure they're caught up on new rulings. For instance, we thought one could put Disciples back in Boat during the Discard phase.
-
Fishing Boat (Di)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set this aside. Each upkeep, you may place a Hero from here beneath your deck to draw X or to give your disciples access to all Sites this turn. • Identifiers: Holds up to 12 disciples. X = # of Heroes here • Verse: Luke 5:4 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
It doesnt say how they get in the boat but it clearly states how they get out...
The rule is if it doesnt state then there is a default- during prep - however if it does state then the card must be followed unless given play as/errata. Ive asked before and Ill ask again...
Since the card clearly states how the disciples get out of the boat, then why are they allowed to get out freely as they please? Does this line of thinking not include how cards are taken out of fortresses, only how they enter?
-
Is that the ONLY way they can get out of the Boat? I can't choose to take Disciples out of the boat and not use the ability? That doesn't make sense...
-
The rule is if it discribes how they go in and out then they cannot go freely. FB only discribes how they go out so they can go in in the prep.
New rulings. There's no way for a host to be sure they're caught up on new rulings. For instance, we thought one could put Disciples back in Boat during the Discard phase.
No offense but that isn't a new ruling. Fb has always worked only in the prep for guys going in. But I do agree with you that it is difficult to keep up with rulings, because most of them could go either way or they flip flop. Like protection, asahel +grapes, doubler in teams, shame lost soul etc...
-
The rule is if it discribes how they go in and out then they cannot go freely.
This was what was brought up the last couple times this came up. Since Fishing Boat only describes one of these 2, it therefore apparently frees it up so that you can take Heroes out in other ways than just the ones listed on the card.
-
I'm just saying that the current system can work if the hosts do it right. There should be at least 1 Elder at every Regional tournament, and the hosts should listen to what they say.
Uh-oh.... :o
-
Tim's comment has me concerned as well...
Do we have ample representation of Elders across each of the regions? In Maryland we only see ours once a year, (twice if we make it to nationals)...and the closest elder is 4-5hrs away (yes we have electronic communication and cell phones, but seeing and understanding rulings live is much different) while there seems to be quite a contingent in MN for example....just food for thought....
By the way, it was me that told everyone about the Gates of Hell misruling, because I could have sworn that after Nationals in Boston there was a talk about you can't use it more than 10 times in a turn. I play a T2 GOH deck so it DID effect me...but I can't seem to find the ruling anywhere, but I know I wouldn't make it up either...too odd...
-
I suggest we force Gabe to move to the North East and Justin to the south. Then I might actually be able to win a tournament or two.
-
I suggest we force Gabe to move to the North East and Justin to the south. Then I might actually be able to win a tournament or two.
That'd still leave us with John, Jordan, and Tim...I vote to move Tim to go to the Northwest.
-
Do we have ample representation of Elders across each of the regions?
That is a good question. Off the top of my head, I know that Bryon is in the SW, many are in the NC, at least a couple are in the NE, I'm in the EC, Eric Largent is in the SE. That just leaves the MW (which I know that I and RDT will both be at), the NW (which I doubt will even have a regional), and the SC.
-
Rob - CactusRob - East Central
Chris Bany - cdbany - North Central
John M - faithraider - Northeast
Jordan Alstad - ProfessorAlstad - North Central
Justin Alstad - The Guardian - North Central
Roy Cruz - Reyzen - Northeast
Mark Underwood - Prof Underwood - East Central
Kevin Shride - Kevin Shride - North Central
Mike Berkenpas - frisian9 - Northeast
Tim Maly - SirNobody - North Central
Bryon Hake - Bryon - Southwest
Stephen Schaefer - The Schaef - Midwest
Gabe Isbell - Gabe - North Central
Eric Largent - XeroSplash - Southeast
John Earley - Red Dragon Thorn - North Central.
Thats the Elders, board names, and then region.
The only regions without Elders are the Northwest and South Central. Some regions only have one Elder, but most of those usually have other Elders who attend tournaments in that region (I.E. Midwest where Mark usually attends a regional, and the occasional state)
-
Rob - CactusRob - East Central
Chris Bany - cdbany - North Central
John M - faithraider - Northeast
Jordan Alstad - ProfessorAlstad - North Central
Justin Alstad - The Guardian - North Central
Roy Cruz - Reyzen - Northeast
Mark Underwood - Prof Underwood - East Central
Kevin Shride - Kevin Shride - North Central
Mike Berkenpas - frisian9 - Northeast
Tim Maly - SirNobody - North Central
Bryon Hake - Bryon - Southwest
Stephen Schaefer - The Schaef - Midwest
Gabe Isbell - Gabe - North Central
Eric Largent - XeroSplash - Southeast
John Earley - Red Dragon Thorn - North Central.
Thats the Elders, board names, and then region.
The only regions without Elders are the Northwest and South Central. Some regions only have one Elder, but most of those usually have other Elders who attend tournaments in that region (I.E. Midwest where Mark usually attends a regional, and the occasional state)
My point remains...some elders are quite far away from states with sizable playgroups...of course that brings into question what a sizable playgroup is, 10, 20, 30, 50+? Does the number of elders balance out the amount of players in the region, I would contest, no.
-
I agree with Brad on this. Here's the problem in the Northeast right now:
John M- Mass.
Roy - New York
Mike - PA
Mike wasn't at Regionals, I actually don't remember the last time I saw Mike (not angry, I'm just saying, and he's in my home state!). Roy and John are HUNDREDS of miles away and we can't always contact them.
And because we're in such a weird spot in MD, sure, we could defer to Southeast- sounds great, let's try to get in touch with people in GA. Even better!
Not trying to be a jerk, but we're really cut off from everyone in MD, and because we don't have internet access at the church, it's hard for us to look something up. I know we can't have people in every state, but come on, we regularly have 10-15 at a tournament and we just hosted the largest regional in several years.
-
Rob - CactusRob - East Central
Chris Bany - cdbany - North Central
John M - faithraider - Northeast
Jordan Alstad - ProfessorAlstad - North Central
Justin Alstad - The Guardian - North Central
Roy Cruz - Reyzen - Northeast
Mark Underwood - Prof Underwood - East Central
Kevin Shride - Kevin Shride - North Central
Mike Berkenpas - frisian9 - Northeast
Tim Maly - SirNobody - North Central
Bryon Hake - Bryon - Southwest
Stephen Schaefer - The Schaef - Midwest
Gabe Isbell - Gabe - North Central
Eric Largent - XeroSplash - Southeast
John Earley - Red Dragon Thorn - North Central.
Thats the Elders, board names, and then region.
The only regions without Elders are the Northwest and South Central. Some regions only have one Elder, but most of those usually have other Elders who attend tournaments in that region (I.E. Midwest where Mark usually attends a regional, and the occasional state)
and some have too many...
-
No elders in the south east who are active Rob.... And if you had to piuck a player who was active on the boards and was good with the rules you'd have to pick clift or YMT.(I'd say me but obv. not mature enough yet.)
-
Roy and John are HUNDREDS of miles away and we can't always contact them.
But they both came to your Regional tournament. That's what I was originally talking about. Almost every Regional level tournament will have at least 1 Elder present to help out. Of course this is not true at smaller tournaments. That's why Hosts and REP (Real Experienced Players) are sooooo important.
Long-time hosts in the SC like Terry Markoff, and REPs down there (like RedemptionAggie, Ben Shadrick, and Marcus Parker) are GREAT resources for these sorts of questions. And as long as a host is familiar with the old REG, and it's corrections (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-reg-corrections-thread/) and new rulings, (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-new-rulings-announcement-thread/) then there's already a framework to go from.
I'm not denying that there have been some good points brought up in this thread. In fact, I'll start a conversation about it on the other side. I'm just saying that they system is really pretty good overall, and people can have a lot of trust in the tournaments that they are going to this summer. There's a lot of people involved in this great game that we all love, and the Elders are only one small part of it :)
-
While I completely support changes within the elder system (I'm tempted to make a separate thread to outline the few problems I have with it), I don't believe that promoting more elders so that there's a better spread is the answer. However, there is definitely a ridiculously uneven spread there.
-
I would be happy to attend any Regional tournament to provide an elder on site provided the host covers my travel expenses. ;D
-
We have called an Elder when disputing a ruling before. I think it's ridiculous to have Elders everywhere, and I already think there's a few too many Elders.
Plus, NorthCentral needs all those Elders, with people like Sauce trying to put a lost soul into battle...
-
My issue is that some people seem to have gotten elder status based on factors other than actually knowing the rules. Two elders in particular seems to demonstrate, frequently, even less knowledge of the rules than the average REP.
I understand the argument for not wanting to look like you're "kicking people off," but the fact is there are a few too many elders, and a few elders that really shouldn't have that title.
-
Plus, NorthCentral needs all those Elders, with people like Sauce trying to put a lost soul into battle...
Hey! Kordel hasn't told me I can't, guess who I'm going to ask next? Otherwise all the elders I've ever met told me no.