Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Praeceps on August 11, 2015, 10:39:44 PM
-
It was implied that a rule change would not allow the irritation of the T1-2P Nationals winning deck to be repeated. Did I miss something in the new REG or is this change still forthcoming?
-
Whomever made the assertion is welcome to correct me, but I believe it was in reference to how the new ignore rule will impact Watchful Servant as a win condition. He's less reliable when a player can still block him from hand.
-
John said in his writeup (http://landofredemption.com/?p=2108):
While I’m glad that this won Nationals, I’m also happy that we already have a rule change for ignore in the works, and we’re having discussions about the way Stoic Philosophers interacts with duration Enhancements. I feel that both of these are good things.
My interpretation of most of the other comments lines up with Gabe's - they were more implying the ignore change than anything else. John's quote also implies that the ignore change had been discussed more - maybe a change to the Arrest combo is in the works for the (potential) December update?
-
I suggested a simple one word change to the REG, but I don't know if that was even considered:
"Cards cannot be protected from themselves. "
-
At the risk of sending this thread way off topic, that's probably not the best ruling - Hormah (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Hormah_%28FF%29) underdecks itself, so such a rule would mean Philistine Outpost (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Philistine_Outpost_%28TP%29) doesn't protect against it. There's a similar issue between the Thorns LS (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/II_Samuel_23:6_%28Pi%29) and the Demon Discard LS (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/James_1%3A15_%28AW%29).
Maybe that's the cost of killing Arrest/Stoic, but I'd think they'd look for other solutions first.
-
I suggested a simple one word change to the REG, but I don't know if that was even considered:
"Cards cannot be protected from themselves. "
We did discuss this on our last call. Not everyone feels that a change is necessary. Part of the reason John did so well is that his deck and the cards he was using were both unexpected. Whether or not the combination of cards he used are too powerful will continue to be something we discuss and keep a close eye on.
-
Whomever made the assertion is welcome to correct me, but I believe it was in reference to how the new ignore rule will impact Watchful Servant as a win condition. He's less reliable when a player can still block him from hand.
I'm thinking that this rule coupled with maxing out allotted time allowed for phases makes watchful servant a bit more risky
I still might run laver with pigs just in case ;)
-
I suggested a simple one word change to the REG, but I don't know if that was even considered:
"Cards cannot be protected from themselves. "
As Gabe mentioned, that was indeed discussed at length. It has also not been thrown out as a possible rule change in the future, but it was not one we were ready and willing to announce at this time. There are a lot of implications (Aggie pointed out several that exist), and a knee-jerk reaction to Arrest could have hurt the game more than helped.
I would encourage you or anyone with suggestions to post here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/reg-and-wiki/community-feedback-reg-3-0-0/), as the Judges will review all suggestions as we look at the next updates to the REG. Not to say that a suggestion would be put in right away (we may test things more and have it in a later update if we find it is a good change), but you can be certain we will add it to our agenda for review :)
Whomever made the assertion is welcome to correct me, but I believe it was in reference to how the new ignore rule will impact Watchful Servant as a win condition. He's less reliable when a player can still block him from hand.
I also wrote that into my T1-2P write-up, and that was indeed the new rule I was referencing.
-
As I stated in that other thread, I am not out to nerf RDT's combo, I am out to streamline the rules, which is what I thought our ultimate goal was. There will, of course, be other combos that are affected. I don't care about combos, I care about making the rules easier for new players to learn, and easier for judges to make correct rulings in the heat of the moment. Having a much simpler "Cards cannot be protected from themselves" rule is more comprehensive than having a more situational rule of "Characters cannot be protected from themselves." The latter just sets up a judge at a local tournament having to make a ruling on a card that is trying to be protected from itself, and the judge has to try to remember which cards are protected and which ones are not. The more we can remove the guessing game, the better, IMO.
This is not a "knee-jerk" reaction to a single combo, as much as it is a single combo that brought this ruling discrepancy to the forefront.
-
Alright, thanks much. I noticed the Ignore change, but thought something else was being referred to.
As I stated in that other thread, I am not out to nerf RDT's combo, I am out to streamline the rules, which is what I thought our ultimate goal was... I don't care about combos, I care about making the rules easier for new players to learn, and easier for judges to make correct rulings in the heat of the moment.
I would agree with you if it was a list of things, but IMO characters is as easy to remember as cards.
-
I would agree with you if it was a list of things, but IMO characters is as easy to remember as cards.
Except that so many of us seasoned judges couldn't remember whenever it was brought up... ;)
-
I would agree with you if it was a list of things, but IMO characters is as easy to remember as cards.
Except that so many of us seasoned judges couldn't remember whenever it was brought up... ;)
I get a lot of what you are saying, but not this. If you know that certain things cannot be protected/immune to themselves, then you can also remember which it is ;) This is also why we have the REG there, which made it much clearer in this version (so there really isn't an excuse anymore for us judges). Frankly, if that's the part people have trouble remembering, they can have the REG up; if they still can't rule correctly based on that wording, then we may have another issue...
However, as much as I get what you're trying to do with "cards," it's just not as simple as changing it. There are a lot of unintended and detrimental side effects (Aggie only scratched the surface earlier). Trust me, it has been discussed at length, and we will continue discussing it at length. But we won't make a change to a well-established rule like that without being sure that we aren't causing more harm than good.
-
I get a lot of what you are saying, but not this.
I'll elaborate then. Past discussions like these have revealed that many experienced judges do not remember this rule because they think they already know what it says. We often do not look it up during the heat of a tournament, because we were fairly sure we knew. I know I certainly do not have time to look up every detail like this in the middle of a game, and frankly my young players wouldn't wait anyway. They usually are on to the next turn before I can even look up who was a Zerubbabel's Temple Priest. ;)
For the example of the OP, I will remind you of a thread from last year that illustrates my point:
I thought that cards couldn't be protected from themselves. In which case, isn't all this moot?
Redoubter indicated that that's only true for characters, which is a distinction I didn't know existed, but I trust that some people have heard things I haven't. :P
Redoubter is correct, that guy seems to know the obscure rules for some reason, likely OCD or the need for more things to do around the house.
Default Conditions
Protect abilities last until the end of the phase in which they are used.
Protect abilities target cards in play.
Characters cannot be protected from themselves.
-
After this conversation it's much less likely that you'll forget. ;)
-
After this conversation it's much less likely that you'll forget. ;)
You forget how old I am... ;)
-
It should also be remembered that YMT lives in Florida...some of us live in Minnesota so during the winter all we are able to do is sit in the house and study the REG all day... ::)
-
It should also be remembered that YMT lives in Florida...some of us live in Minnesota so during the winter all we are able to do is sit in the house and study the REG all day... ::)
Winter? I think I've heard that word used before, but I forget what it means... ;)
-
In Minnesota, it generally means the period of time between the end of September and the beginning of June, during which time temperatures can vary between "meh, it's still above zero, a light jacket will do" and "I wonder if this is what it feels like to live on Pluto?".
-
It should also be remembered that YMT lives in Florida...some of us live in Minnesota so during the winter all we are able to do is sit in the house and study the REG all day... ::)
In Minnesota, it generally means the period of time between the end of September and the beginning of June, during which time temperatures can vary between "meh, it's still above zero, a light jacket will do" and "I wonder if this is what it feels like to live on Pluto?".
The fact that I'm Canadian (and more specifically Manitoban) compels me to respond to these. While in reality our climate isn't that different than Minnesota, we probably have slightly average winter temperatures than Minnesota, being slightly further north.
Winter is a terrible time when the ground is white from snow as far as the eye can see, the only way to travel is by dogsled and you can be frozen solid just by walking to the store.
Note: My statement may not be entirely accurate.
-
Winter is a terrible time when the ground is white from snow as far as the eye can see, the only way to travel is by dogsled and you can be frozen solid just by walking to the store.
And we all live in igloos and have polar bears for pets. Your last statement is actually correct though.
-
Canada ey? Oooh sure, sorry!
-
Note: My statement may not be entirely accurate.
With the inaccurate part being of course that you live in Canada. Everyone knows that Canada is a desolate, uninhabitable place ruled by polar bears and the Indomitable Snowman.
-
I'll have y'all note that the time period that you refer to as "Winter" is not much different than "Spring" (aka Love Bug Season) here in Florida. There are a few days when the temperature drops below 60 and everyone has to hurry to cover their sensitive plants and palm trees with blankets so they don't become brittle. But most of the time we just go to the water parks since they are less crowded than in the "Summer" (aka Hurricane Season).
-
so does stoic protect arrest from all discard abilities and discard at all even after being negated after 3 turns? ie. daniel enters battle then attempts to discard arrest with live coal? does this work? assuming he can enter battle haha
i guess my initial assumption regarding arrest being protected and lasting in play longer than 3 turns was that it would be immediately discarded if stoic was discarded(or left play, or was negated) due to it losing it's protection from discard and being past 3 turns where it would then be discarded otherwise still curious as to why this was not the way it was ruled
-
so does stoic protect arrest from all discard abilities and discard at all even after being negated after 3 turns? ie. daniel enters battle then attempts to discard arrest with live coal? does this work? assuming he can enter battle haha
i guess my initial assumption regarding arrest being protected and lasting in play longer than 3 turns was that it would be immediately discarded if stoic was discarded(or left play, or was negated) due to it losing it's protection from discard and being past 3 turns where it would then be discarded otherwise still curious as to why this was not the way it was ruled
Yes, Stoic would still protect it from other discards. However, your scenario would work to get rid of it because Daniel negates evil characters. If you attack with Joseph and play Live Coal it would still be protected.
-
so does stoic protect arrest from all discard abilities and discard at all even after being negated after 3 turns? ie. daniel enters battle then attempts to discard arrest with live coal? does this work? assuming he can enter battle haha
i guess my initial assumption regarding arrest being protected and lasting in play longer than 3 turns was that it would be immediately discarded if stoic was discarded(or left play, or was negated) due to it losing it's protection from discard and being past 3 turns where it would then be discarded otherwise still curious as to why this was not the way it was ruled
Yes, Stoic would still protect it from other discards. However, your scenario would work to get rid of it because Daniel negates evil characters. If you attack with Joseph and play Live Coal it would still be protected.
i guess i'm wondering more why if ie stoic is negated by covenant with death or shrined into the deck arrest would not be discarded immediately if it has already been out for more than 3 turns since it's losing the protection keeping it in play which is an ongoing ability
-
Cards check turns during the upkeep phase. AiG works like this in regards to looking at when to discard itself.
The ruling at Nationals is that AiG only checks on turn 3. If Stoic is later negated, shuffled, discarded, etc, AiG won't check again later to discard itself. Because there was really no precedent to this type of scenario, a few of the elders who weren't involved in the event came to that unbiased ruling.
Later, when we were discussing it in a larger group, there were varying views on whether or not AiG only checks on turn 3. The ruling from Nationals still stands, but it's something that we will look into further. We need to take time to assess all turn based cards to see how they are played and apply the rule consistently across the board.
-
That was the ruling question that came up at Nationals. Dayne ruled the discard part is a one-time check (on turn 3). If it is protected at that point, the discard fizzles, and it does not continue to check on later turns.
I agree with Dayne's ruling (as does Jordan), but we will continue to discuss the implications and determine if something needs to be changed.
*instaposted*
-
It says "Discard this card after 3 turns." Isn't the 4th turn (and each subsequent turn) after 3 turns? ;)
-
That is the alternate interpretation that was considered, however the discard ability was ruled to be instant, not on-going. We understand that interpretation, which is why it will remain on our list of topics to discuss. :)
-
It sounds to me like arrest needs an errata. To begin with the card has strange wording, as there is no reason the card has to discard itself to fizzle.
-
It sounds to me like arrest needs an errata. To begin with the card has strange wording, as there is no reason the card has to discard itself to fizzle.
While the card's wording is strange in that it is unlike most other cards in the game with a similar concept of being placed/used for a specific number of turns, it really doesn't need Errata unless it is deemed to be broken. While it was a powerful combo in John's deck, and likely helped him to win a couple of games, there are still several counters to it already in the game, and even the very concept of the deck is less powerful due to the changes to ignore. That's not to say that it is not an option that could be considered for the future, but at present, I don't see a need for Errata.