Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Prof Underwood on May 13, 2010, 03:15:24 PM
-
I know that some players (including myself) have been enjoying a particularly nasty combo involving setting aside Asahel or Jael with Passover and Unleavened Bread. When they return they make a rescue attempt, choose the blocker, and then send them to the bottom of their opponent's draw pile (due to P&UB being a triggered ability).
I would just like to announce that this has been discussed on the playtester forum and P&UB will be getting a clarification that says, "Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. Each of them gains the ability 'If none of the characters set aside with P&UB have entered battle since returning from the set aside area, return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner's draw pile.'"
So now it is a gained ability, which activates before choose the blocker. Therefore, this combo will NOT work at the big tournaments this summer. So please adjust your decks accordingly. This info comes straight from Bryon, in case anyone wonders.
-
Ouch, while I agree with this beign nerfed, I don't agree with the rewording - surely we can make it sound less confusing than that? I had to read it three times before I understood it.
-
...surely we can make it sound less confusing than that?...
I agree. I would recommend:
"Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn to return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner's draw pile."
-
I thought set asides were already gained abilities??
Also, why is this so bad? Its a two card combo that cannot be negated and takes one turn to set up. There are lots of two card combos that cannot be negated that don't take one turn to set up. Are those cards going to get errata too?
-
Its a recurable combo, a very easily recurable combo. simply add in Soldiers Prayer, think type 2. Thats six uses.
-
Its a recurable combo, a very easily recurable combo. simply add in Soldiers Prayer, think type 2. Thats six uses.
or Joiada. two turns, yeah, but still OP'd.
the wording on that is horrid. I like the Other Prof's better.
-
Seems like it would be less effective in T2. Have people stopped using Kingdoms and Wall? Have they stopped using Unknown Nation? Unholy Writ? The Darkness?
-
This gets around Kingdoms and Wall, Writ and UN can be Captured Arked. Darkness is the only really super reliable counter.
-
Dang, I was sooooo gooooing to abuse this...Now I have to remake my deck for tomorrow. :-\
Mark, this means your third place win in TEAMS at the Ohio State is invalidated since you used that combo ILLEGALLY against me.
Sorry, better luck next time ;)
-
How does it get around wall?
And if that combo comes up against a well built orange deck it will be useless.
-
The solution seems simpler than that. Currently, P&UB says: "When the next of those heroes enters battle, return an EC in play to bottom of owner's deck." If we simply switch "in play" with "in territory" (as was done with Holy Grail), then we don't have to deal with any extra wording. The only thing this would change (other than the combo) is the ability to band in a PUBbed Hero to return the blocking EC. But I guess I'm not sure if that particular combo saw much use anyway, as there are several counters to it, and are much better CBN battle winners than that.
That said, there are a lot of counters to the current combo (all the cards that can add EC's to the battle afterwards, Writ, CM, etc.) Also, Wall of Protection takes out the options of all but one of the "dare" heroes (a term I just made up for Ehud, Jael, and Asahel. But I do agree that it could potentially be devastating in a well-built T2 deck. I kind of think I'd like to see just how well it would do before it goes though.
In addition to the previous counters, Darius' Decree would ruin this combo as well.
-
Yes, the combo is counterable, so are almost all combo's.
-
Yes, the combo is counterable, so are almost all combo's.
But only a select few have been 'countered' by errata/rule change. I'm just not yet sure if this needs to be one of them. Perhaps it will eventually, but it seems like we could at least wait to see how well it would do in tournaments before it is nerfed. Maybe some people have seen unparalleled success with it so far, but then we should hear their stories before making the final judgment.
Either way, I think if change is needed, my change would be the best, as it doesn't really alter the use of the card in any significant way (except this combo) and it's much easier to understand. Not only that, we already have precedent for such a change (Holy Grail).
-
...surely we can make it sound less confusing than that?...
I agree. I would recommend:
"Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn to return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner's draw pile."
That doesn't work, since it does not require you to put a hero that you set aside into battle.
@ Sean, the way the card was worded, it was not an ability gained by the heroes. Rather, it was a response, which happens AFTER all other abilities complete. Choose blocker happens after all other abilities, but it does not happen after responses. Since the response happened last, we had a CBN battle winner after a choose the blocker ability. While the strength of that combo was on the extreme side, that alone was not the sole deciding factor here. The other was that experienced players (like you) think that the ability is a gained ability, and many didn't see it was a response.
So, in a nutshell, the ability is being ruled a gained ability. If anyone can think of a better way to say it (but still have it function exactly the same - as an ability gained by all the characters but only gets to be used by the first one in battle, after which all the other characters lose it), please try. :)
Tim Maly's suggestion is the one in the top post, and I could not think of a way to improve it.
-
Mark, this means your third place win in TEAMS at the Ohio State is invalidated since you used that combo ILLEGALLY against me.
Thankfully, Bryon hadn't gotten back with me yet at that time so I was still allowed to abuse it back then. As for your deck for tomorrow...better to find out today than at the tourney itself right :)
-
What did you think of my suggestion? The function is not exactly the same, but it is exactly how 98% of people use it except for those who run the aformentioned combo (i.e. for TGT territory clearing). And as soon as I read the first suggestion, I thought that it might be the result of Maly's convoluted phraseology. ;)
-
Current: I attack with Asahel and put an EC under deck. Then, I can choose the blocker (if one remains).
Yours: I attack with Asahel and choose the blocker. Then, I put an EC from territory under deck (if one remains).
So, this plays out differently if there is only one EC in territory (which is a VERY common occurrence, if TGT critics are to be believed). :)
-
Current: I attack with Asahel and put an EC under deck. Then, I can choose the blocker (if one remains).
Yours: I attack with Asahel and choose the blocker. Then, I put an EC from territory under deck (if one remains).
So, this plays out differently if there is only one EC in territory (which is a VERY common occurrence, if TGT critics are to be believed). :)
The only difference between the two as far as I can see is the scenario in which a CTB hero is making a BC with only one EC in opponent's territory. Am I missing something?
-
Current wording:
"Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. Each of them gains the ability 'If none of the characters set aside with P&UB have entered battle since returning from the set aside area, return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner's draw pile.'"
What about:
"Set aside all your human Heroes for 1 turn to gain the ability 'Return an Evil Character to the bottom of its owner's draw pile, if none of the other characters set aside with P&UB have already entered battle since returning from the set aside area.'"
It's not much shorter, but does it make more sense?
-
No.
"Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. Each of them gains the ability, "Return an Evil Character in play to bottom of deck if no character who gained this ability on the same turn has entered battle yet."
How's that work? It's shorter and less awkward imo.
-
I'm not seeing how this isn't a gained ability. The SA is added to the Hero(s) through the set aside; the special ability is gained.
Seems to me that the CTB, PoUB, and order of operations "butt heads." The order of operations say that you cannot choose the blocker until all gained abilities have been resolved. Therefore, PoUB triggers before CTB and since there is no block the SA of PoUB has no effect.
-
I'm not seeing how this isn't a gained ability. The SA is added to the Hero(s) through the set aside; the special ability is gained.
Seems to me that the CTB, PoUB, and order of operations "butt heads." The order of operations say that you cannot choose the blocker until all gained abilities have been resolved. Therefore, PoUB triggers before CTB and since there is no block the SA of PoUB has no effect.
Who has the ability if it is gained? It is a triggered effect, much like Hidden Treasures. The prophet doesn't gain an ability to play an enhancement, the artifact's ability allows you to do that when you attack with a green prophet.
The reason it is how it is currently is that triggered abilities come after CtB in the order of operations.
-
Who has the ability if it is gained?
The Hero(s) that were set aside.
The reason it is how it is currently is that triggered abilities come after CtB in the order of operations.
Really? I thought CTB was always last.
I still am not seeing how this isn't a gained ability. True or false: All set asides are gained abilities.
-
How about this:
"Set aside all your human heroes for one turn. On return, all heroes set aside gain the ability: "The first hero with this ability to enter battle may place one evil character in play to the bottom of its owner's deck. May be used once."
That's simple, makes it a gained ability and everything else you wanted. The maybe be used once clause might not be needed, but I added it just in case.
-
Who has the ability if it is gained?
The Hero(s) that were set aside.
But PUB says nothing about heroes gaining the ability. It just says what happens when a hero enters battle. Like Hidden Treasures.
The reason it is how it is currently is that triggered abilities come after CtB in the order of operations.
Really? I thought CTB was always last.
Nope. Not sure when that was ruled upon, but I learned of the difference when someone used Provisions to CtB and then HT to play an enhancement once the blocker was chosen.
I still am not seeing how this isn't a gained ability. True or false: All set asides are gained abilities.
False. Think of Pentecost and First Fruits. If those are gained abilities, how can you draw before any of your heroes enter battle to activate the drawing ability? The same thing is happening here, it's just that instead of the trigger being "upon return" the trigger is "when one enters battle"
-
If those are gained abilities, how can you draw before any of your heroes enter battle to activate the drawing ability? The same thing is happening here, it's just that instead of the trigger being "upon return" the trigger is "when one enters battle"
Then just make the trigger "upon return." Errata finalized.
SA: Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. Upon return, return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner’s draw pile.
-
then that would drastically change how the card was meant to be played.
-
Well, I don't think it needs errata anyway so w/e.
-
Well, I don't think it needs errata anyway so w/e.
Agreed. Should we be "Errata"ing cards anyways? I'm really failing to see how this is "Game breaking" enough to get an errata.
-
We should dedicate a set to making all erratas unnecessary. That would be the most worthwhile set ever in my opinion.
-
Well, I don't think it needs errata anyway so w/e.
me neither. it has yet to be seen if its op or not. i have no idea why this was errata'd so soon.
-
Why don't we just make triggered abilities activate before Choose the Blocker?
-
Why don't we just make triggered abilities activate before Choose the Blocker?
I vastly prefer rule changes to erratas myself.
-
Well, I don't think it needs errata anyway so w/e.
me neither. it has yet to be seen if its op or not. i have no idea why this was errata'd so soon.
Thats the thing that bugs me. It shouldn't be. Not only is it stopable, its stopable by staple cards!
G cow, COM, WOP, etc.
Well, I don't think it needs errata anyway so w/e.
Agreed. Should we be "Errata"ing cards anyways? I'm really failing to see how this is "Game breaking" enough to get an errata.
Errata the Errata? ETE. Does sound nice.
-
If we have to erratta then i vote for seans idea:
SA: Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. Upon return, return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner’s draw pile.
Of course i would rather not. leave it be, can't be no worse than Jacob+RtC or Jacob+OoN or TGT...
-
well, a dedicated pu deck would use all 3 ctb heroes, so ehud would render wop useless. the biggest threats would be gcow, com, unknown nation, gates, etc. and of course, this combo doesnt exactly work on decks that use stand-alones, so its pretty useless in type 1 as well. this combo should not have been errata'd yet before its proven itself in the big tournaments.
also, does it bother anyone else this combo has existed since priests, yet its taken this long to issue an errata? that should be proof enough this combo is pretty insignificant.
-
well, a dedicated pu deck would use all 3 ctb heroes, so ehud would render wop useless. the biggest threats would be gcow, com, unknown nation, gates, etc. and of course, this combo doesnt exactly work on decks that use stand-alones, so its pretty useless in type 1 as well. this combo should not have been errata'd yet before its proven itself in the big tournaments.
also, does it bother anyone else this combo has existed since priests, yet its taken this long to issue an errata? that should be proof enough this combo is pretty insignificant.
Agreed. We've always had Ehud and its been recurable since FOOF.
-
Agreed. We've always had Ehud and its been recurable since FOOF.
It has not been so easily recurable until now. Before, you would have to take a couple turns and make an attack with Joiada. Now you can use A Soldier's Prayer (on a character who can also use P&UB no less) without even going into battle. And in T2 you can do it 5 times.
Besides, we aren't debating whether there will be a change to the wording of this card. That has already been decided. If we want to be helpful we should be simply trying to suggest the easiest to understand wording for that change.
-
it was still easily recurrable (albeit one time) since priests. feast of booths.
-
I'm trying to understand though, if I can understand WHY this errata is given (besides the combo is annoying) I can suggest the best wording I can.
-
i think underwood has had fits with it ever since the first time i unleashed it on him. pretty much destroys super-turtles. :)
-
i think underwood has had fits with it ever since the first time i unleashed it on him. pretty much destroys super-turtles. :)
...Yet I am the one arguing its not necessary? :-p
-
thats called being impartial! :)
-
I think there is a lot of value in voicing the opinion that errata is unnecessary.
-
Besides, we aren't debating whether there will be a change to the wording of this card. That has already been decided. If we want to be helpful we should be simply trying to suggest the easiest to understand wording for that change.
Anyone else find this sickening?
-
i think underwood has had fits with it ever since the first time i unleashed it on him. pretty much destroys super-turtles. :)
Nice try, but you can't pin this one on me. I've actually been using the combo ever since I first saw it. It fits perfectly in my all red offense. However, despite my getting good use out of it, I wanted to make sure that it was ok with the PTB. That's called impartiality.
The PTB decided to change the SA, not me. I'm not even on that board. So don't shoot the messenger :)
-
Besides, we aren't debating whether there will be a change to the wording of this card. That has already been decided. If we want to be helpful we should be simply trying to suggest the easiest to understand wording for that change.
Anyone else find this sickening?
Sickening isn't a strong enough word. I've never seen a "Because I told you so" errata. We've always been able to SEE the issue. I know the playtesters are probably busy atm but whenever there has been objections they have been silenced by them making sense via the combo but the one. My issue is NOT with the errata itself but the timing. Big rule changes (erratas) have ALWAYS been saved till after nationals when its late in the season (states or later) which we are in. :/
We aren't shooting you but we have to use SOMEONE'S quotes. ;)
-
We aren't shooting you but we have to use SOMEONE'S quotes.
He thinks baseball is lame, I'll shoot him.
Joking aside, I don't like the idea of "just fall in line" in situations like this one.
-
We aren't shooting you but we have to use SOMEONE'S quotes.
He thinks baseball is lame, I'll shoot him.
Joking aside, I don't like the idea of "just fall in line" in situations like this one.
If you don't argue and do what I say, you will be baked and then there will be cake.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi930.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad141%2FRTSmaniac%2Fjumpthegun.jpg&hash=52645728c6668b43f708e501095bde7c23ecee0c)
-
That's awesome. except for Mark's picture. He's just reporting the news. I'm not really sure why he's being marytred for this? I mean, Tim and I developed the combo together. The PTB has known about this since its inception. Mark didn't cry wolf at all.
Also, Kevin's doesn't really fit, nor does Rob's - But Bryon and Mike were very well done :)
-
except for Mark's picture. He's just reporting the news. I'm not really sure why he's being marytred for this?
First, we'll see what he's sellin...then we'll shoot him.
We saw what he's sellin, now its time to shoot him. *Goes to get shotgun*
-
Lol, great movie.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi930.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fad141%2FRTSmaniac%2FRedemption%2Fjumpthegun.jpg&hash=086434faf34442b053bf5f877916443838868acc)
this just became my wallpaper.
-
Guys this is a combo that is majority in the red brigade. Let me rephrase that. Red has not even been discussed let alone used, at a high level tournament. Now a good combo comes out, that is right on par with Jacob/RTC, or a regular CTB, and it is getting an errata? Just let it be. Red is seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and with this errata the rock is being rolled in front of the tunnel. Poor red. :'(
I think this combo needs to be allowed for this season tournament play, and if it is truly a "game breaker" then discuss it after nationals.
-
exactly. leave it be until proven op.
-
exactly. leave it be until proven op.
I agree
if you want to weaken it I would suggest just changing when triggers activate (that way it would also do a similar thing to the Provisions HT combo which I find a bit weird that it works)
-
That was the aproach taken last year. when Gabe won nationals with Cliff's deck the PTB shifted into a more proactive stance on combo's.
-
That was the aproach taken last year. when Gabe won nationals with Cliff's deck the PTB shifted into a more proactive stance on combo's.
While a proactive stance is necessary on some combos there needs to be some valid concern for it. EG: A combo that once set up is unstoppable.
Or
EG: A combo that would instantly win a lost soul with no possible counter
This is neither of them though. The worst part is so many cards stop this combo it seems a bit silly. Yes its quick, yes its powerful, yes it takes 2 turns to set up, 2 cards and is hard to stop if left unchecked BUT at the same time so does Reach Aocp, yet no errata for that.
-
5-7 cards is not 'so many' additionally all of them less one are counter-counter-able.
Imagine tossing this into a place-loop, or a gathered chain. This makes it a combo that is fairly unstoppable, sure you might get around it once, but I can simply do it again.
-
almost everything in the entire game is counter-counterable.
-
Yes, but not everything is a CBN rescue.
-
the point is there are counters to cbn rescues. and counters to those. and counters to those.
-
Let me just say how angry this situation makes me, I posted a question on this combo months ago and was told by many of the people involved in this discussion that the combo did not work, only to find that it indeed did work, but now is being errated. What is the point of me posting ruling questions just to be given false information? I had players in my club want to use this combo but didn't because I was given the consensus that it did not work. Why should any tournament host bother to post ruling questions here if the answer going to be given is untrue?? For those of you who may not remember the thread is here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18867.0). I am disgusted at this, why should I even bother hosting at this point. I cannot even be sure the ruling information I get on these forums is sound.
-
I'm sad to see this errata issued at this time.
1) This hasn't proven to be a problem.
2) Red, and to some extent gold, are already weak. We don't need to take this away from them.
3) This is a major change right before the "big tournament" season. Cactus has always avoided making this kind of change in the past.
I wish that Rob would at least decide to wait until after Nationals, then reconsider at that time.
All that being said, I don't see the PT board so there might be information I'm missing. Either way I'm not going to lose any sleep over this.
-
I have to say, I am getting rather fed up with this system. There are people who say, "Gez, guyz, jest let teh rull-makr ppl teel uss waht 2 do." But however well that may work in certain governments, this is a card game. If the makers of it don't make any money off it, then it will die. And the best way to get money is to do what the people want. And the best way to do that is to give the people power. Card games do not work as well as a dictatorship, because we can just say, "Eh, I'll go play this game instead." I don't know what goes on in those secret ruling meetings that us ordinary folk are forbidden to see, but I find it funny that they almost always result in a ruling with less than 25% popular approval rating. Is this not a sign of a bad system?
-
And the best way to do that is to give the people power.
Disagree 100%. We need a few select people who know the rules really well to make all the decisions and trust them to make those decisions. We need the people with "power" to listen to the masses. As far as I can tell, both of those things happen with regularity.
I find it funny that they almost always result in a ruling with less than 25% popular approval rating. Is this not a sign of a bad system?
No, its a sign of strength. Strength of knowledge and strength of character.
Why should any tournament host bother to post ruling questions here if the answer going to be given is untrue?? For those of you who may not remember the thread is here.
FWIW, Tim never waivered from saying that triggered abilities happen after activated abilities.
-
I want their to be a group that make quick concise accurate rulings, but I also want transparency. I want people to give correct answers to questions instead of hiding the "right" answers about combo's because they want to win some more tournaments. I want to be able to trust the answers I am given in this section. At this point unless Bryon or Rob hands down an answer I will rule according to the REG, and if the REG doesn't cover it, and Bryon or Rob doesn't answer I will make the decision, if I am wrong, tough. If you come to my tourney's better check your combos with me, don't bother bringing an print out from the forums unless Bryon or Rob has posted an agreement on a ruling, because I will disregard it. I no longer trust any answer given by other players.
I apologize if this sounds harsh.
-
We need the people with "power" to listen to the masses.
YES WE DO! This is what I am saying. I constantly see people arguing that a certain ruling should be changed while the PTB seem to just ignore it. True, once in a while they step up and say "Alright, if this is what you want, we'll make a couple changes," like with the Moses being a judge ruling. But most of the time I feel like what we the people have to say means very little. And now after hearing something like "This rule has already been decided to need change and there is nothing you can do," I wanna throw up. This is not how the heirarchy should work.
I find it funny that they almost always result in a ruling with less than 25% popular approval rating. Is this not a sign of a bad system?
No, its a sign of strength. Strength of knowledge and strength of character.
Do you consider a very stubborn person as having "strong character"?
-
Let me just say how angry this situation makes me, I posted a question on this combo months ago and was told by many of the people involved in this discussion that the combo did not work, only to find that it indeed did work, but now is being errated. What is the point of me posting ruling questions just to be given false information? I had players in my club want to use this combo but didn't because I was given the consensus that it did not work. Why should any tournament host bother to post ruling questions here if the answer going to be given is untrue?? For those of you who may not remember the thread is here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18867.0). I am disgusted at this, why should I even bother hosting at this point. I cannot even be sure the ruling information I get on these forums is sound.
Frankly your response is kind of amusing, considering that in the thread you linked, no official conclusion is reached, and both Tim and I say it works......
Furthermore I don't think P&U is getting errata persay, Mark called it a clarification, since people seemed to be split on whether or not it was a gained/triggered in the first place.
Pale Green is pretty weak too, but we felt the need to take SitC away from them.
I want their to be a group that make quick concise accurate rulings, but I also want transparency. I want people to give correct answers to questions instead of hiding the "right" answers about combo's because they want to win some more tournaments. I want to be able to trust the answers I am given in this section. At this point unless Bryon or Rob hands down an answer I will rule according to the REG, and if the REG doesn't cover it, and Bryon or Rob doesn't answer I will make the decision, if I am wrong, tough. If you come to my tourney's better check your combos with me, don't bother bringing an print out from the forums unless Bryon or Rob has posted an agreement on a ruling, because I will disregard it. I no longer trust any answer given by other players.
I apologize if this sounds harsh.
Remind me not to come to any tournaments in your area any time soon. The REG is helplessly out of date. If you insist on distrusting the players so much, then you're handcuffing yourself and your players.
-
Remind me not to come to any tournaments in your area any time soon. The REG is helplessly out of date. If you insist on distrusting the players so much, then you're handcuffing yourself and your players.
And getting incorrect answers from other players consensus is any better? Players knew that this combo supposedly worked, and yet the majority decision in that thread(since there was no consensus) was that it did not work, what else is a host supposed to go by? Where else can I go to get correct answers? If this forum isn't it then I don't know what is. The REG is the only rulebook we have to go by, I cannot trust anything besides an PTB ruling because anything else is either incorrect, or becomes incorrect. I would be setting up my players for dissapointment going the other way as much as you say I am harming them by doing it it my way.
Also Tim's comment was regarding placed enhancements not Gained abilities.
-
Tim's comment was regarding the order of operations, of which both placed enhancements and gained abilites are parts of. The reason that the thread didn't really answer your question about the combo is because everyone focused on the order of operations as opposed to whether P&U was a gained or triggered ability. And you can't really have a consensus when only 6-7 people post, and two of them say it works, I mean yeah, 5-2 is a majority, but not a real strong one, especially when one of the two is a playtester.
-
I agree that 5-2 isn't much of a majority, but I had to answer the question. I don't have the luxury of waiting when I have to give answers on a weekly basis. I have to go with whatever is given to me by the forums whether good or bad. In the case of the playtester, I give him the same weight I would give any of the major players(such as yourself, Prof U., Prof A, Gabe, Pol, Lambo, and many more) because he like some of the other players is occasionally wrong. That may not be the right approach to take, but I have only hosted for a year and am still learning which decisions to trust and which ones not to. Perhaps saying that only the REG and Bryon/Rob quotes is all I will accept is harsh, but what other choice have I if I want to rule fairly? I cannot simply rule something because "someone" on the forums says it will work. What would you do?
-
I would do a search of the forums, realize that we've ruled P&U as a triggred ability and bring that up in your thread, in order to bring it back on track.
-
And when was P&U ruled a triggered ability, in this thread, coming 5 months after my own? Which means I have been ruling it wrong for months. Sure, I could update my thread, but then I would have to deal with all the "OH N0eZ!! someone necroposted!!! It is SPAM LOL" nonsense that comes with updating any old thread around here. And then this thread announces that it currently works, but will be going away soon. So what do I tell my club members who wanted to use this combo, "Oh apparently my question wasn't actually answered, just commented on and the combo works, but the PTB are going to change it soon any ways". No matter how you look at it is not a good situation, or a good way to answer ruling questions.
-
The best way to deal with it in your playgroup is to use it as a teaching moment: "Look at the way the card is worded: can you tell if it is a response or a gained ability? Even top players could not agree."
The playtesters had to make a call.
If we treat it as an ability gained by the first hero who enters battle, then it happens before choose blocker.
If we treat it as a response, then it happens after choose the blocker.
Since there was debate among top players, the playtesters got to decide. We opted for the gained ability option.
This has nothing to do with the strength of red brigade. We know the combo has a couple reliable counters (artifacts don't count, though, since Captured Ark makes those go away). But we feel that a CBN battle-winner combo that opponent only watches, and that only 2 cards can reliably counter is not good for the game. So, we chose the "gained ability" option.
-
I have to go with whatever is given to me by the forums whether good or bad. In the case of the playtester, I give him the same weight I would give any of the major players(such as yourself, Prof U., Prof A, Gabe, Pol, Lambo, and many more) because he like some of the other players is occasionally wrong.
The problem is that in your thread P&UB was labeled a "gained" ability by 3 Liner and a Bag of Chips, (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18867.msg295263#msg295263) and labeled a "triggered" ability by Sir Nobody, (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18867.msg295604#msg295604) and you chose to listen more to 3 Liner. No offense meant to 3 Liner, but he doesn't carry nearly the same weight as Sir Nobody.
If you want to know what the official ruling on something is, then I would say make sure that your thread has a consensus of the "major players" as you called them above, or that it gets a stamp of approval from Bryon, Mike B., or Rob. If they don't show up in your thread, then send them a PM and they will probably check it out.
-
and labeled a "triggered" ability by Sir Nobody, and you chose to listen more to 3 Liner. No offense meant to 3 Liner, but he doesn't carry nearly the same weight as Sir Nobody.
But Tim was talking about Agur and placed Enhancements, not P&UB. I am literalist, no one came out and explicitly said P&UB is a triggered ability, and no one corrected 3 Liner. I will not read into Tim's post that he meant P&UB was a triggered ability because he did not say so. he said:
Hey,
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on December 06, 2009, 03:10:19 PM
The one thing we still need to add to that list to help clear things up... placed enhancements. Some say they activate as a gained ability, some say they activate with WC enhs...
Assuming by "placed enhancements" you mean enhancements placed by abilities like the one on Agur, they don't activate at all, they are triggered. Triggered abilities always take effect after ALL activated abilities. Which means they take effect after choose the blocker abilities.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Where in that statement is he saying P&UB was a triggered ability? I am not trying to be difficult, but I don't see that statement implied or stated there. He said Triggered abilities activate after CTB. He didn't say P&UB was a triggered ability. I guess I could try to PM more official people to get answers, but what good is that if only I get to read it? Answers to questions like this need to be public so ALL hosts can see it not just me. Is this not a good thing?
-
i take every statement in regards to rulings posted here on the boards with a grain of salt unless it is by someone in PTB. even 'major players' are occasionally wrong and carry no weight whatsoever to being official. also, if you follow a PTB's statement and they are wrong, you now have someone to pin it on and won't look stupid if you had followed a regular or major players false ruling. :)
-
I have to go with whatever is given to me by the forums whether good or bad. In the case of the playtester, I give him the same weight I would give any of the major players(such as yourself, Prof U., Prof A, Gabe, Pol, Lambo, and many more) because he like some of the other players is occasionally wrong.
The problem is that in your thread P&UB was labeled a "gained" ability by 3 Liner and a Bag of Chips, (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18867.msg295263#msg295263) and labeled a "triggered" ability by Sir Nobody, (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18867.msg295604#msg295604) and you chose to listen more to 3 Liner. No offense meant to 3 Liner, but he doesn't carry nearly the same weight as Sir Nobody.
If you want to know what the official ruling on something is, then I would say make sure that your thread has a consensus of the "major players" as you called them above, or that it gets a stamp of approval from Bryon, Mike B., or Rob. If they don't show up in your thread, then send them a PM and they will probably check it out.
Having read through that thread again, I completely agree with Korunks that NOWHERE in there was it stated that P&UB was labeled as a triggered ability, the conversation shifted back to the Agur-Placed enhancements debate, and away from Korunk's original question. To be honest, at that point I thought it was a gained ability as well, and it wasnt until like, a week or two ago that I learned it was a triggered ability. I completely understand why Korunks was so confused now.
-
Triggered ability.
-
The best way to deal with it in your playgroup is to use it as a teaching moment: "Look at the way the card is worded: can you tell if it is a response or a gained ability? Even top players could not agree."
The playtesters had to make a call.
If we treat it as an ability gained by the first hero who enters battle, then it happens before choose blocker.
If we treat it as a response, then it happens after choose the blocker.
Since there was debate among top players, the playtesters got to decide. We opted for the gained ability option.
This has nothing to do with the strength of red brigade. We know the combo has a couple reliable counters (artifacts don't count, though, since Captured Ark makes those go away). But we feel that a CBN battle-winner combo that opponent only watches, and that only 2 cards can reliably counter is not good for the game. So, we chose the "gained ability" option.
Is this considered the official ruling on this ability, or should we wait for a more official post? I have a tourney tomorrow and would like to know how to rule P&UB. I guess I learned a lesson here, that I should take a lot more of the rulings tossed around here with a grain of salt. I apologize if I hurt any feelings, but I felt misled by the previous conversation and may have overreacted. I guess I can just say I made the correct ruling months before it became the law ;).
-
I guess I can just say I made the correct ruling months before it became the law ;).
That'd be a great way to judge a tournament:
"Is this legal?"
"No."
"Why not? There's been nothing in the REG or by the PTB saying it isn't."
"Just you wait, there will be."
-
I guess I can just say I made the correct ruling months before it became the law ;).
That'd be a great way to judge a tournament:
"Is this legal?"
"No."
"Why not? There's been nothing in the REG or by the PTB saying it isn't."
"Just you wait, there will be."
what an awesome character to make for the create-a-card...a judge and prophet rolled into one. :)
-
I guess I could try to PM more official people to get answers, but what good is that if only I get to read it? Answers to questions like this need to be public so ALL hosts can see it not just me. Is this not a good thing?
I apologize for the confusion. I didn't mean to PM the official people just to get a PM back. Usually when I see a thread that has multiple "major players" in disagreement I PM Bryon with a link to it, and ask him to weigh in on the thread. That way we get an official answer and everyone can see it.
-
*Comes back with the shotgun*
BANG!
Oh fiddlesticks... I missed my mark.
*Goes to get more ammo*
-
I missed my mark.
Really hoping that the usage of "mark" wasn't a double meaning. Otherwise, I think Sean may be REALLY upset at me instead of just jokingly upset at me. We are still just giving each other a good-natured hard time right Sean?
-
Pun = joke = laugh = BEST FRIENDS FOREVER!!
-
what an awesome character to make for the create-a-card...a judge and prophet rolled into one. :)
We already have a couple of those: Moses and Samuel.
-
5-7 cards is not 'so many' additionally all of them less one are counter-counter-able.
Imagine tossing this into a place-loop, or a gathered chain. This makes it a combo that is fairly unstoppable, sure you might get around it once, but I can simply do it again.
Please toss it into a gathered chain. I do so love HHI. Maybe its cuz I use more artifacts than any sane person would but I am just not seeing errata level brokenness and if there WAS, it should of been fixed LONG before now.
The best way to deal with it in your playgroup is to use it as a teaching moment: "Look at the way the card is worded: can you tell if it is a response or a gained ability? Even top players could not agree."
The playtesters had to make a call.
If we treat it as an ability gained by the first hero who enters battle, then it happens before choose blocker.
If we treat it as a response, then it happens after choose the blocker.
Since there was debate among top players, the playtesters got to decide. We opted for the gained ability option.
This has nothing to do with the strength of red brigade. We know the combo has a couple reliable counters (artifacts don't count, though, since Captured Ark makes those go away). But we feel that a CBN battle-winner combo that opponent only watches, and that only 2 cards can reliably counter is not good for the game. So, we chose the "gained ability" option.
Step one: Thank you for responding and clearing this up. Step two: If that is true that "Artifacts don't count", why aren't we still getting FBTN nerfs? C ark works twice, and only if there is just one artifact out AND it doesn't get donned. Again as said I'm a guy with way too many arts in his deck so that may be my bias but seems silly to me. Makes sense to errata it so the wording makes sense as a triggered/gained ability. Just seems weird that you'd nerf it with many viable counters. Oh wells. I got what I asked for which was the PTB answering my question.
Wording
"Upon return, place one evil character beneath deck." No confusion there.
-
Yeah, but that makes the card different from the original intention, because they wanted one of the set-aside heroes to have to enter battle.
-
Since when has that mattered with erratas?
-
Since when has that mattered with erratas?
I don't think that they're against making a card work the way it originally did. However, for this card I do believe they want the hero to have to enter battle.
-
Well its just my suggestion since most of the previous attempts at wording so it could still work like written (albeit at a different time) have hurt my head.
-
Current wording:
"Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. Each of them gains the ability 'If none of the characters set aside with P&UB have entered battle since returning from the set aside area, return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner's draw pile.'"
What about:
Set aside all your human Heroes for 1 turn to gain the ability "Return an Evil Character to the bottom of its owner's draw pile, and make all other opponent Evil Characters immune to being shuffled while they are in the territory."
This would be another way to make sure that only the first of multiple heroes set aside with P&UB would be able to use the gained ability. It is easier to understand, and only would only be different in rare cases (like if you later attacked and played ANB on your opponent, then their ECs would remain in territory). Would this work?
-
I like!
-
Thats still a totally different ability, since as you said, stuff like ANB and Two Bears would play VERY differently.
*edit*
How about this?
Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. For the next one of those Heroes that enters battle, it gains the following ability for one turn: Return an Evil Character in play to bottom of owner's draw pile.
Keep the same original wording, but just specify its a GAINED ability. Is there any problem with this?
-
Needs more errata.
-
I think that one works the best.
-
Thats still a totally different ability, since as you said, stuff like ANB and Two Bears would play VERY differently.
*edit*
How about this?
Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. For the next one of those Heroes that enters battle, it gains the following ability for one turn: Return an Evil Character in play to bottom of owner's draw pile.
Keep the same original wording, but just specify its a GAINED ability. Is there any problem with this?
But that's still a trigger. You'd still be able to pull off the combo with this, since you gain the ability after you enter battle.
-
I've never heard of a card giving another card an ability AFTER a character has entered battle. Gained abilities only activate at step 2 in the order of abilities.
-
The gain has to happen as the character returns from set aside. Maybe this would work:
Current wording:
"Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. Each of them gains the ability 'If none of the characters set aside with P&UB have entered battle since returning from the set aside area, return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner's draw pile.'"
Possible wording:
Set aside all of your human Heroes for one turn. Each of them gains the ability "Return an Evil Character in play to the bottom of its owner's draw pile." After the ability is used once, all heroes lose that ability.
-
That works for me.
-
If you are going to change it, I agree that is probably the best wording so far.
However, I also don't think it should be errated. Inherently, the less of that there is, the better for the game overall.
It is strong but not more than many other options in the game. After seeing Mark use it against us in teams (and we still beat him), I was mentally preparing team decks to handle that.
As for the split opinion with players, that happens all the time. I think that has to do more with the general confusion about the rules than the wording on the card. Some cards are very confusing to read but not this one. I think if everyone had a clear understanding of the order of operations rules, the definitions of triggered abilities, etc. then I don't think there would have been a split opinion here.
I originally assumed it was a gained ability because that is how most other set-aside abilities work. Upon seeing Mark use it however, I carefully read the card and realized that it should work that way according to current rules.
Now I think that the card originally should have been worded as a gained ability but since when do we go back and change the wording to what it should be? Split Altar?
-
Hey,
First, I would like to apologize. We (the PTB) did not handle the questions and concerns about this card well, namely it took us entirely too long to come to a consensus on the issue and share that with the players.
That being said, there are a few things that should be put out there officially (or as "officially" as I can make them).
This is not Errata. This is only Play As. We are not actually changing how the card is played, we are just correcting a very common misinterpretation of the ability. The misinterpretation being that it was a triggered ability when it was in fact a gained ability. I realize that to the player base the difference between "errata" and "correcting an ubiquitous misinterpretation" is negligible, and it gets back to our poor response time to the issue. If we had said that it was a gained ability and not a triggered ability when it first came up it wouldn't have been as big of a deal as it is now, but we let it fester for too long unresolved leading to the backlash that it is now receiving.
A difference between errata and play as is that errata is a change while play as is correcting an error. We have a policy against making changes during the main part of the tournament season, but we have no similar policy against correcting errors. When we find an error we fix it immediately.
Another difference is that Errata is reserved for cards that break the game or are non-functional as worded. That is a very high standard that P&UB doesn't reach (it comes close and we were considering weather or not it merited errata, but ultimately we didn't decide that it was broken). We did decide that the way we were playing it didn't match the words written on the card, thus the play as.
As far as how exactly to word the Play As, it's possible that the best wording is actually the wording on the card, but just with a correct understanding that "For the next one of those Heroes to enter battle" is a condition not a trigger.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
As far as how exactly to word the Play As, it's possible that the best wording is actually the wording on the card, but just with a correct understanding that "For the next one of those Heroes to enter battle" is a condition not a trigger.
So how about my suggestion up above then? It's almost exactly the same, but makes it much clearer that the ability is gained.
-
So do we know when this particular little rule change is going to occur? I know that is a sensitive subject right now but NE regionals is this weekend, I want to know if this combo is still valid( ie. I might see it). Also I am judging MD states in less than a month, need to know how to rule.
-
No it got changed.
-
It is already a done deal. It doesnt work for the purposes of chosing a blocker and then placing that blocker beneath owners draw pile.
-
Did I miss the official errata thread?
-
I dont think it made it to the erratta thread yet because they are still working on the wording, but I know for a fact that it does not work.
-
Holy paranoia, Batman! :scratch:
I hereby forego making funny comments on other threads. I will simply point them to this thread.
Seriously.
SOOOO glad I'm retired.
-
I particularly liked it when Profunderwood used this combo against me in its previous incarnation at the Ohio State Tournament and then "conviniently" annouced that it had beem ruled against a few weeks later.
Seems awful fishy to me ;)