Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Rawrlolsauce! on July 07, 2010, 03:02:01 PM
-
My opponent has the Color Guard in a green site and some PG ECs with horses on them in his territory. He attacks and plays ANB. The horses are shuffled, correct?
-
no they stay with the evil character it is the same with house of Rimmon when it protects them from shuffle NC&H stay on them
-
It says the characters are immune. Not the enhancements.
-
yeah, but the enhancements are considered part of the charachter. They are third in the list of SA''s that activate, even before banding and choose the blocker abilities so they kinda become part of the character
-
Sauce is correct. Enhancements have no protection.
-
Can we get more opinions? or an UBER ELDER?
-
Hm...I'm not sure which way I want to go on this one...ELDER!!!
-
Magnets, how do they work?
Similar situation: Lets say I have Philly Garrison with any enh on him. My opponent is RA'ing with a single hero, I block with philly. Could he theoretically play a card that says "discard any evil enhancement" and discard Philly's?
-
My opponent has the Color Guard in a green site and some PG ECs with horses on them in his territory. He attacks and plays ANB. The horses are shuffled, correct?
Correct.
Magnets, how do they work?
Similar situation: Lets say I have Philly Garrison with any enh on him. My opponent is RA'ing with a single hero, I block with philly. Could he theoretically play a card that says "discard any evil enhancement" and discard Philly's?
Yes. I don't know of any cases where immunity has ever been extended to enhancements of any kind, including WC. If they did became part of the character, then they should increase the character's numbers in territory, right? It has been ruled that the do not (i.e. a 9/7 WC character with a 2/2 Horsie on him can still block Widow)
-
SOMEONE PLEASE YELL AT AND ARGUE WITH PROF. IF HE IS CORRECT, MY "WIN WITHOUT GIVING YOUR OPPONENT A TURN" COMBO IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO PULL OFF.
-
Yeah, but its still epic, and can be totally awesome.
-
Its still possible to win without giving your opponent a turn. It just needs to be stacked, you must shuffle it right, and your opponent must cut correctly, like that deck I used at MN State.
-
HEART OF THE CARDS!!!11!1!!!1! TOPDECK!!!!!!111!11!1!1!!!
-
SOMEONE PLEASE YELL AT AND ARGUE WITH PROF.
Hate to let you down, but I think the Profs are in agreement :)
-
Looks like I'm the one that has to argue for 10 pages.
First argument; If you disagree with this epic combo, you're a nazi.
-
First argument; If you disagree with this epic combo, you're a nazi.
Tell you what: if you reveal your combo, and convince me that you could possibly beat me without giving me a turn, then I will consider your position as possibly correct.
-
It is technically possible to win without you getting a turn, depending on an additional ruling, without the shuffleness, but I don't want to reveal it until NC Regionals. Giving the Elders time to logically rule on it reduces its chances at legality.
Until then, sir ;)
-
looks like someone learned that lesson from a recent "highway" ruling... ::)
seriously though, I will provide the argument. If weapons follow the EC while they are converted, why dont they recieve the protection that the EC has?
Visualize it like this. If I am an EC holding a sword, the sword is an extention of my ability to act. IF I am converted, then I can carry the sword and do good with it. IF I am protected from an effect, My sword is always with me so it should be protected as well. When I am captured, my sword is taken (via the capturing process) as I am sent to bondage.
It seems that with Capturing and converting we have one way of viewing a WC enhancement, but when we speak of "effect" we have a different view. THe WC enhancement has not changed, it is still a part of the EC.
Do WC enhancements get shuffled if the EC is in a house?(read KotW)
This just view of EC enhancements does not make any sense to me. It seems that they dont follow a logical path to determining what happens to them. How can I be protected from a tornado(read ANB) yet the sword I hold in my hand is magically carried away?
-
The current ruling does seem to fall in place with the logic that weapons don't add to base abilities, and therefore aren't protected by special abilities. And besides, if immunity carries to enhancements, that means immune characters all use CBN enhancements. No thanks!
This post has been Crust'd!
-
And besides, if immunity carries to enhancements, that means immune characters all use CBN enhancements. No thanks!
Not following this one...Why cant I just interrupt a WC enhancement on an immune garrison?
-
Oh. Wait. I got my complex algorithms messed up. It's Rock>Scissors>Paper>Rock, not Rock>Paper>Scissors>Rock.
Oops.
-
I don't understand what anyone is saying, but I agree with Crustpope beings my combo is pretty cool. Lots of room for improving, and its current stage is quite powerful.
-
If I win this argument for you (which I doubt I will since I am persona non grata in this post highway redemption landscape ;) ), then you have to share the combo with me.
I find it highly unlikely that any combo can give their opponent zero turns from the first get go and I am intrigued.
-
It would almost certanily have to be a stacked deck and more than a few rulings would have to go the combo's way, two of which are extremely flimsy (IMO)
-
Who cares. Potential is potential. ;). EDIT: 3 flimsy rulings if you count this one. Honestly, I think the answer to one is no, and its the most important one.
I'm not too worried about the stacking part. The idea of this deck isn't to win without giving your opponent a turn (which is currently impossible, beings I switched some cards around to get the combo easier). The idea is to play it normally and pull off the combo if given the chance.
-
There was the ANB combo that brought about the additional change to that card... that essentially cleaned house without giving them a turn, though it didn't win in one turn.
-
There was the ANB combo that brought about the additional change to that card... that essentially cleaned house without giving them a turn, though it didn't win in one turn.
And what was that?
-
I think he's referring to this deck:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18817.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18817.0)
-
Ahh, okay. ANB recursion is for noobs.
-
So are none of the elders going to address my points of dissent? Can someone explain why we seem to have a scitzophrenic approach to how WC enhancements are handled in various situations (capture/Conversion/Protection)
-
I haven't responded because I don't really have a strong opinion on this. I agree with the "other Prof" that if we are going to consider WC enhs to be "part of the character", then they should increase the character's raw abilities (which they don't). It also seems that their SA's would simply become part of the character's SA, and therefore would happen at the first step instead of the 3rd step or whatever (which they don't). These are 2 ways that currently rulings and gameplay indicate that WC-enhs are NOT a part of the character.
However, as I think about actually cases in the Bible where people were protected, I can see Crust's point. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo were protected from the flames of the fiery furnace, their clothes were protected as well. They were not even singed.
So I guess I can see both sides on this one. It does look like the current status quo would be that the WC enhs are NOT protected. But I wouldn't be upset if that changed.
-
seriously though, I will provide the argument. If weapons follow the EC while they are converted, why dont they recieve the protection that the EC has?
Conversion doesn't affect weapons directly at all, it just affects the character, and since it doesn't make sense for a Hero to hold an Evil Enhancement, the weapon converts to make sense in gameplay.
Visualize it like this. If I am an EC holding a sword, the sword is an extention of my ability to act. IF I am converted, then I can carry the sword and do good with it.
While that's a good justification and makes sense, I think the real reason weapons convert is because it wouldn't make sense if they didn't, strictly for gameplay reasons.
IF I am protected from an effect, My sword is always with me so it should be protected as well.
That is not necessarily true. Even if you are wearing impenetrable armor, someone else could knock the sword out of your hand with their sword, leaving you swordless, but still unaffected.
Do WC enhancements get shuffled if the EC is in a house?(read KotW)
Yes. I see no reason why not. KotW only protects EC's so I see no difference between the two cases.
How can I be protected from a tornado(read ANB) yet the sword I hold in my hand is magically carried away?
Cement your feet to the ground. You'll stay where you are, but anything you are holding will be carried away, albeit not magically.
-
Cement your feet to the ground. You'll stay where you are, but anything you are holding will be carried away, albeit not magically.
Win.
-
Conversion doesn't affect weapons directly at all, it just affects the character, and since it doesn't make sense for a Hero to hold an Evil Enhancement, the weapon converts to make sense in gameplay.
I would say that if an evil enhancement did not convert, it would simply fizzle and discard itself. Doesn't that happen if an opponent plays Gold Shield on a hero mid-battle?
-
so how long have we played that WC enhancments convert with the character? and then one day someone asks a question and now they dont? what a game-what a game
but ill have to agree with Lambo on this one and say that they should not convert, fizzle, and fall off.
+1 Lambo!
However the REG states otherwise:
• Weapon-class enhancements stay with a converted character; the special ability continues to function if it does not conflict with the nature of the converted character (see Weapon-class Enhancements in the rulebook [p. 35].
-
so how long have we played that WC enhancments convert with the character? and then one day someone asks a question and now they dont? what a game-what a game
Nobody is saying that WC-enhs don't convert.
-
I am saying that they should not...
I would say that if an evil enhancement did not convert, it would simply fizzle and discard itself. Doesn't that happen if an opponent plays Gold Shield on a hero mid-battle?
Is this true?
-
I am saying that they should not...
I would say that if an evil enhancement did not convert, it would simply fizzle and discard itself. Doesn't that happen if an opponent plays Gold Shield on a hero mid-battle?
Is this true?
Don't quote me on that... oh wait you already did. :P In seriousness, I'm not 100% sure on that. I was mostly thinking about non-WC enhs that fizzle because they are not allowed to be there legally, and the same thing would happen if WC enhs did not become good enhs.
Sorry if I confused people.
-
Conversion doesn't affect weapons directly at all, it just affects the character, and since it doesn't make sense for a Hero to hold an Evil Enhancement, the weapon converts to make sense in gameplay.
I would say that if an evil enhancement did not convert, it would simply fizzle and discard itself. Doesn't that happen if an opponent plays Gold Shield on a hero mid-battle?
I don't see why it wouldn't convert to the Hero's new brigade, based on this REG quote:
If a warrior is converted, weapons remain on the character. The special ability on the weapon continues to function provided it does not conflict with the nature of a Hero or Evil Character.
Gold Shield is a convert just as Holy Grail is, it just converts from one color to another. I couldn't find an explicit mention in the REG of the weapon becoming the new brigade, but as that is the only way characters can use enhancements, it has usually been understood. I hope that it will be explicitly stated in the new REG (maybe it's in the current one, I just can't find it). So if Warrior's Spear is on a red Hero who is converted to blue, I would say that WS becomes blue.
That said, I don't think that's a good argument for immunity transferring to enhancements, it's just an offshoot of a specific type of ability (convert) having a specific indirect effect.
-
As I'm still trying to make up my mind, I would like to see both sides respond to the strongest argument for the other side.
If they did became part of the character, then they should increase the character's numbers in territory, right? It has been ruled that the do not (i.e. a 9/7 WC character with a 2/2 Horsie on him can still block Widow)
Lambo, if the WC enh is part of the character, then why don't the character's numbers change?
However, as I think about actually cases in the Bible where people were protected, I can see Crust's point. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo were protected from the flames of the fiery furnace, their clothes were protected as well. They were not even singed.
Prof A, why do you not think that personal protection extends to what the person carries considering the Biblical example above?
-
so do weapons get shuffled in with ANB when character is immune?
-
Weapons are confusing. Last time I knew, weapons are shuffled when the characters they are on are shuffled by yourself, but they are discarded when the character is shuffled by an opponent. Is this true? I think it's silly if it is.
Also, I know of times when my opponent has used I Am Grace to get rid of a weapon on a protected character in my territory, so if that is legal, I'm pretty sure ANB would shuffle weapons.
-
Which would break Horses in type two even more.. For game play I don't think we can allow it.. Also you could argue that a Damsil in kingdoms with charms on her could not be affected with DON. Besides you cannot exacly say the weapon is a Babylonian or an assyrian, technically they are not.
-
No, but I have a strong case for proving that a weapon can be Philistine! :P
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FPhilistine%2520Chariot%2520and%2520Horses%2520%28TP%29.gif&hash=c1fa20f3e8bfd9721ec55fa925f454d47c94e6cf)
-
ANB should not affect weapons for game's sake.
-
I think if protection extends to weapons (when it targets characters holding the weapons) I think T2 will become fairly broken with the Horses, not to mention it really doesn't make sense when the cards say they protect CHARACTERS not characters and cards being held, why not apply that to placed enhancements or held artifacts, I just think thats a bad place to go for a card game, not to mention it makes the game more confusing
Player 1: I'm discarding your 2Khorses with I AM GRACE
Player 2: You can't, my Assyrian Camp protects it.
Player 1: But it only says it protects characters.
Player 2: Weapons are part of characters so its also protected.
Player 1: Huh?
At least that's what I would think if that's how it was ruled.
And as far as the Daniel example I would say if they ever made a card called God's Protection in the Furnace (or whatever its called) I would just have it protect characters and good cards placed/held by them.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FMace%2520%28Ki%29.gif&hash=2c125ab95188e975938156cec144756d02b4eca7) (Warrior Class)
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FKindness%2520%28UL%29.gif&hash=7bcdb1e24774f13c018dfa2c96638a5bb36b894f) (Hero)
Proof from the REG enhancements are characters too.
-
However, as I think about actually cases in the Bible where people were protected, I can see Crust's point. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo were protected from the flames of the fiery furnace, their clothes were protected as well. They were not even singed.
Prof A, why do you not think that personal protection extends to what the person carries considering the Biblical example above?
I've always viewed the mention of their clothes surviving as something God did as part of the greatness of the miracle: Likely the most flammable thing that went into the fire (their clothes) came out unsinged. I guess I'm not convinced that one example of God's protection should necessarily apply to protection in the game. The Color Guard LS is not God.
-
I've always viewed the mention of their clothes surviving as something God did as part of the greatness of the miracle: Likely the most flammable thing that went into the fire (their clothes) came out unsinged. I guess I'm not convinced that one example of God's protection should necessarily apply to protection in the game. The Color Guard LS is not God.
Most protection is NOT miraculous protection. That is a good point, and gets me to lean toward agreeing with Prof A.
If they did became part of the character, then they should increase the character's numbers in territory, right? It has been ruled that the do not (i.e. a 9/7 WC character with a 2/2 Horsie on him can still block Widow)
Lambo, if the WC enh is part of the character, then why don't the character's numbers change?
-
Hey,
My opponent has the Color Guard in a green site and some PG ECs with horses on them in his territory. He attacks and plays ANB. The horses are shuffled, correct?
I'm amazed this thread has made it to four pages long. You can take out the weapon on a character in Kingdoms, this has been the rule for several years. This is basically the same ruling just with the Color Guard Soul rather than Kingdoms. Protecting a character does not protect the weapon the character is holding. The weapon is still shuffled by A New Beginning.
And on a side note, mentioning how a ruling will affect a combo and thinking that does/should have any influence on what the ruling ends up being is one of the most annoying things I see in this forum.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I'm amazed this thread has made it to four pages long.
Really? You've been around for how many years, and things like this still amaze you?
-
I'm amazed this thread has made it to four pages long.
Really? You've been around for how many years, and things like this still amaze you?
Isn't Tim a senior citizen in Redemption Years (Ya ole Fart)
-
Isn't Tim a senior citizen in Redemption Years (Ya ole Fart)
I don't know, I feel like you would be more experienced in the matters of senior citizenship than I. Quite the expert in fact.
So are you and your KC crew going to be making a trip up North for Regionals? The more old guys I can make fun of, the better.
-
So are you and your KC crew going to be making a trip up North for Regionals? The more old guys I can make fun of, the better.
I am a very sensitive guy and you are right I know old farts.... but I am not sure my teeth will be in from the dentist for Regionals.
Currently We are in negotiations with The Queen. She seems hung up on the fact that we are going to Nats. She just doesn't get how important Regionals are for you guys... to have one more person to beat. She so insensitive.
-
I really hope you can make it, you guys are so fun.
-
And on a side note, mentioning how a ruling will affect a combo and thinking that does/should have any influence on what the ruling ends up being is one of the most annoying things I see in this forum.
So you find the errata on SitC and ANB--to pick two of the most prominent examples--most annoying? (If recollection serves they were made solely because of how the "ruling will affect a combo.") Fascinating, that.