Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: adotson85 on January 21, 2012, 06:37:39 PM
-
If I a block a RA by Samuel with Egyptian Magicians and my top card is an evil enhancement, am I allowed to add the card to battle? Basically, I guess I am wanting to know if "add to battle" is considered a play ability.
Samuel (RA2)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Green/Yellow • Ability: 4 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate play abilities. You may search deck for King Saul or David and put it in play to draw 2. May band to a male I Samuel Hero. Cannot be negated. •
Egyptian Magicians (FF2)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Gold/Pale Green • Ability: 2 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Reveal the top or bottom card of your deck. If it is evil, add it to hand and draw 1, or add it to battle. May band to an Egyptian. Cannot be interrupted. • Play As: Reveal the top or bottom card of your deck. If it is evil, place it in hand and draw 1, or add it to battle. May band to an Egyptian. Cannot be interrupted.
-
Essentially, any ability that lets you play an enhancement, regardless of how its worded is a play ability.
Relevant reg quote:
A play an enhancement ability allows a player to play an enhancement outside of the normal rules for initiative.
The reason Egyptian Magicians reads as add to battle is so that its type agnostic (i.e. works with both evil characters and enhancements). If its an enhancement, it would be treated as a play ability, and if its a character, a band ability.
-
I'm not so sure. There's a difference between playing an enhancement and a "play ability." Magicians revealing an enhancement and putting it in battle is definitely playing the enhancement, but I don't think it's a play ability.
The REG specifically says that abilities adding characters to battle are considered "band" abilities, but there is no such listing in the "Play an enhancement" section of the REG. I would argue that the quote below shows that reveal&add to battle abilities are NOT play abilities for enhancements because the enhancement isn't coming from hand:
A play an enhancement ability takes a card from the player's hand and puts it into play.
-
I'm not so sure. There's a difference between playing an enhancement and a "play ability." Magicians revealing an enhancement and putting it in battle is definitely playing the enhancement, but I don't think it's a play ability.
The REG specifically says that abilities adding characters to battle are considered "band" abilities, but there is no such listing in the "Play an enhancement" section of the REG. I would argue that the quote below shows that reveal&add to battle abilities are NOT play abilities for enhancements because the enhancement isn't coming from hand:
A play an enhancement ability takes a card from the player's hand and puts it into play.
Looking at the quote there (which I missed when trawling the reg for answers), I think you're right, in this case, it may not be a play ability. However, I seem to recall a discussion a long while back where it was ruled that Nebuchadnezzar adding an enhancement to battle was a play ability. I'll have to see if I can find that discussion.
-
If the REG says that any ability that adds a character to battle is a banding ability, that section needs to be updated badly.
-
If the REG says that any ability that adds a character to battle is a banding ability, that section needs to be updated badly.
Why has that changed? Is adding a character to battle no longer considered a band?
-
What I have heard is that it's only considered a band if it's adding a character to the side of a battle that already has a character. Am. Slave isn't a band, but Evil Spirit (orange) revealing a EC is.
-
Furthermore, exchanges are not bands.
-
Furthermore, exchanges are not bands.
Even if there is another character in battle? Hrmm, news to me.
-
I'd argue that something like Numerous as the Stars turns into a band ability once it's completed.
-
Furthermore, exchanges are not bands.
+1, with the caveat...
I'd argue that something like Numerous as the Stars turns into a band ability once it's completed.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-kAsqWCjcfPo%2FTudc0-w7pcI%2FAAAAAAAACVE%2FCLYQstfKOHo%2Fs200%2FStamp_of_Approval.jpg&hash=48c554110032b3386cf8291589f6e700bc164dba)
-
I vehemently oppose that idea. SA's should be what they are, not fluidly changing in different circumstances in battle. An exchange is an exchange, a band is a band, and an add to battle is an add to battle.
While it may seem like a good idea to call anything that adds a character to battle a "banding" ability, there is very good reason not to make that the case. One of the best examples is Evil Spawn. His SA could potentially add a character to battle, or it could add an Enhancement to battle, or it could be a simple reveal ability. However, it is not possible to know which it is until after it has already completed.
-
So if NatS gets played and two heroes are in battle, what are those two heroes if not banding?
-
Banding is a type of ability that brings Heroes into battle, not a state. It used to be that two Heroes in battle could be considered to be "banded," but that was when banding was the only type of ability that could introduce multiple characters to battle. Should Goliath be considered a banding ability?
-
A band ability is any ability that causes one side of a battle to change from N characters to N+M characters where N>0 and M>0.
-
Not only is that not true (exchange is explicitly not banding), it shouldn't be true.
-
A character for character exchange causes M=0, so you're right, that type of exchange is not a band. NatS causes M>0, so it is a band.
Unknown Nation is a card that could be banding or not.
And just for clarification, here's the Clarification section of banding in the REG:
Clarifications
Any ability that adds a character to battle is a band ability. But if a band ability brings a character into battle on a side of battle no character is present, that is not a banding action but is rather a blocking action.
-
A band ability is any ability that causes one side of a battle to change from N characters to N+M characters where N>0 and M>0.
Go say that exact thing to a five year old and see if he can follow...
-
A band ability is any ability that causes one side of a battle to change from N characters to N+M characters where N>0 and M>0.
Go say that exact thing to a five year old and see if he can follow...
I was actually translating for all of the math experts on the boards. :P
-
Clarifications
Any ability that adds a character to battle is a band ability. But if a band ability brings a character into battle on a side of battle no character is present, that is not a banding action but is rather a blocking action.
So if I convert ASA, CTB Goliath with a non-ASA hero, and then bring in ASA, it's a block, and then I can uses ASA's ability?
-
"Clarification" should always have those ironic quotation marks in the REG. In this case, not only does the "clarification" confuse the issue, it's just wrong. Some Kittens demonstrated a less obvious reason it's wrong, but the main reason it's wrong is that exchange is never banding, even if it adds an extra character to battle (like Perpetual Priesthood).
-
Well, the irony of the fact that the "Clarification" quote is actually IN the REG, whereas your quote is NOT, is not lost on me. ;)
-
Wink all you want, the REG is known to be extremely flawed. But don't let bringing up silly points stop you from addressing Randal's question, I'd like to hear your opinion on that.
-
Wink all you want, the REG is known to be extremely flawed. But don't let bringing up silly points stop you from addressing Randal's question, I'd like to hear your opinion on that.
I do not have an opinion.
-
So it's not your opinion that the REG quote you furnished in this thread is correct?
-
So it's not your opinion that the REG quote you furnished in this thread is correct?
There are two sentences in the quote. To which are you referring?
-
If you disagree with one, the validity of the other is called into question. Do you support the REG quote or not?
-
If I disagree with one, the validity of the entire REG is called into question.
However, if I agree with both knowing full well an overriding rule compensates for any lack in correct wording, then the REG is just fine.
-
The validity of the whole REG is not in question, but it seems every day another incorrect or misleading quote is found in an obscure corner of the document. There is a long-standing ruling that Perpetual Priesthood is not a banding card, so unless there is an announcement in the "new rules" thread, this contradictory REG quote (in the "clarifications" section, no less) does not reverse the ruling.
-
No ruling is reversed if I never know about it. As far as I'm concerned, Perpetual Priesthood is a banding card based on the rulebook and REG as currently written.
-
No ruling is reversed if I never know about it.
Ignorance is bliss eh?
-
No ruling is reversed if I never know about it.
Ignorance is bliss eh?
You're Canadian?
-
No ruling is reversed if I never know about it.
Ignorance is bliss eh?
You're Canadian?
I play enough hockey to be Canadian.