Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: EmJayBee83 on June 25, 2009, 07:16:00 PM
-
This question is part of my "Try to think like Red'Rocks" series...
I place green David (Ki) is in battle. my Opponent blocks with Goliath. Can I play Vulnerable, which mention David by name in the Scripture verse, to grant Goliath first strike so I can play another couple of enhancements?
Green David (Ki) 10/3 SA David may use any enhancement bearing his name in the title or Scripture verse.
Goliath 10/10 black
Vulnerable 3/2 gray SA Evil Character has first strike ability. Negate all first strike abilities on all good cards this turn.
If this works, I would have green hero playing a gray evil enhancement to give a boost to a black evil character.
-
Maybe if it was Saph blocking... I don't think so though...
-
While the logic is correct, I do not agree that it should be allowed. My reasoning is that followers of God should not try to use evil to help defeat their enemies because then they would have dual loyalties to God and Satan, and shows a lack of trust in God to help fight their battles.
By the words on the card, theoretically, it would work. However, on a theological base (which I think is important in a Christian card game) and by the way the game is supposed to work, it should not be allowed.
Just my thoughts.
~Britta
-
Alignment must still be respected. Bibles on Crosses, Skulls on Dragons, always.
-
Alignment must still be respected. Bibles on Crosses, Skulls on Dragons, always.
+1
-
Alignment must still be respected. Bibles on Crosses, Skulls on Dragons, always.
So, to sum up...in this case "any" does not mean any.
-
So, to sum up...in this case "any" does not mean any.
Correct.... and "first" doesn't mean "first" anymore either, in case you were wondering.
-
So, to sum up...in this case "any" does not mean any.
Correct.... and "first" doesn't mean "first" anymore either, in case you were wondering.
lol, that really bothers you, doesn't it?
-
So, to sum up...in this case "any" does not mean any.
Correct.... and "first" doesn't mean "first" anymore either, in case you were wondering.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg41.imageshack.us%2Fimg41%2F3976%2Fmadeatwwwtxt2piccomx.jpg&hash=aa212a70aa7d33cab9cff40ff3aa519cfd1f78a6)
YMT, I guess it's nothing more than a race now to find a case where we can modify the last line.
-
lol, that really bothers you, doesn't it?
I'm a Math teacher. "First" only has one meaning.
YMT, I guess it's nothing more than a race now to find a case where we can modify the last line.
You're on! ;D
-
If David were printed today, it would specify "good enhancement." Why was it not originally written that way? Because Heroes were never intended to use evil enhancements...and back in that day people were reasonable enough to accept that... ::)
Furthermore, we've already established in quite a few past examples that "Any" refers to "Any available and legitimate target."
-
Furthermore, we've already established in quite a few past examples that "Any" refers to "Any available and legitimate target."
We are already so past that, Guardian. Now we are looking for examples where "All" doesn't mean All. ::)
-
Authority of Christ is a good example. Discard all evil characters in play. Oh, except those ones that are protected by that Fortress. And the immune PotW that you blocked with. And the 2 you have in your hand.
When Missy and I started playing and we heard that "All means all" I was letting her discard my PotW without using Reach first. Or maybe it was the other way around. That wasn't as disappointing as finding out I could use my Holy Grail to win two rescues. :P
-
Too obvious..... MJB and I are looking for obscure combos that will wreak havoc on the playable definition of "all."
::insert evil laugh here::