Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: EmJayBee83 on September 10, 2009, 11:11:37 PM
-
Scenario: I have Aaron in set aside. My opponent is block a rescue with Idolaters.
Question: Can my opponent capture my Aaron?
Aaron SA Not really important
Idolators SA Capture Aaron.
-
No, the default is in play. Idolaters would have to say "Capture Aaron in play or set-aside."
-
No, the default is in play. Idolaters would have to say "Capture Aaron in play or set-aside."
Is that your final answer? Would you like to phone a friend? ;)
-
I'd ask the audience, but only Malay needs to respond. He's always right, you know ;)
-
Hey,
If not specified otherwise, targets for capture abilities must be "in play."
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
If not specified otherwise, targets for capture abilities must be "in play."
That's what I always thought. But then it dawned on me--when I was answering a question for southpawami about fortresses and in play--that this makes a big chunk of Prince of the Air's SA completely meaningless.
Prince of the Air SA Return an angel in battle (except warrior class) to owner’s territory. If block is successful, place one Chamber of Angels and its contents beneath owner’s draw pile. Cannot be negated.
The portion in bold is completely meaningless because Prince of the Air cannot target Chamber of Angels.
Chamber of Angels SA Set this fortress aside. If holder's angel is being discarded, place it here instead. After two turns, return Hero to the top of your draw pile.
I'm sure this is common knowledge to everyone else, but the realization surprised me so I thought I would ask about it. I started with Aaron and Idolaters to practice my ninja-ruling-question-asking-skills.
-
Yeah that might need a "Play-as"
-
Yeah that might need a "Play-as"
Since you would be revamping the targeting, wouldn't it need an errata?
This last posed just to figure out what the difference is between a play-as and an errata, which is an interesting topic in its own right.
-
Hey,
In theory "play as" is rewriting an ability so that it uses correct and proper verbiage without changing what the card ultimately does. Whereas "errata" is rewriting an ability so that it does something different than what it originally did.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
So, under this theory Prince of the Air would require an errata, correct?
-
Hey,
So, under this theory Prince of the Air would require an errata, correct?
It doesn't "require" errata (and it probably won't get errata). But yes, to simply change it to target Chamber of Angels in the set aside area would be errata.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Does it really need errata, though? Chamber of Angels will never be anywhere other than set aside so, imho, it seems PotA includes an understood "Chamber of Angels in a set aside area" already. Whereas, Aaron could be any number of places, so Idolaters follows the general convention and defaults to in play.
-
I would think that any card that targets something that is only found out of play should have an implied target, Falling Away for instance doesn't explicitly say it targets cards in the land or redemption (which is out of play) but does allow you to target it because Redeemed Souls can only be found in the Land of Redemption.
-
I would think that any card that targets something that is only found out of play should have an implied target, Falling Away for instance doesn't explicitly say it targets cards in the land or redemption (which is out of play) but does allow you to target it because Redeemed Souls can only be found in the Land of Redemption.
That's basically the point that I was trying to make. Glad someone else agrees :P
-
I like that. Good job, browarod and ChristianSoldier. :)
-
I like that. Good job, browarod and ChristianSoldier. :)
FWIW, I really don't like special pleading of this sort. You saved the SA on one card at the cost of adding an one-off exception to a fundamental game rule. Hey kid, you can't capture my Aaron with Idolaters because Aaron is in set aside and Idolaters can't target him. You see, unless a card specifically states otherwise you can only target cards that are in play. Yeah, I know my Prince of the Air targeted your Chamber that was set aside, but see Prince has implied targeting.
If we are going to go down the path of implied targeting, can we revisit the Split Altar decision? It is fairly clear that the original intention was that all artifacts--in and out of play--were the target of Split Altar's SA.
-
If we are going to go down the path of implied targeting, can we revisit the Split Altar decision? It is fairly clear that the original intention was that all artifacts--in and out of play--were the target of Split Altar's SA.
To tell the truth, I would welcome such a change. Perhaps DragonRaid could now discard face-down cards (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17348.0) on sites as well?
-
DragonRaid could now discard face-down cards[/url] on sites as well?
Funny you should mention that. I ran across this yesterday in the REG:
Fortify site cards placed face down cannot be targeted directly unless specified otherwise (e.g., Spy) or indirectly (e.g., Dragon Raid).
-
Perhaps DragonRaid could now discard face-down cards (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17348.0) on sites as well?
I'm personally a little weary of not being able to use AoCP to get rid of ECs in The Darkness or to use Great Image to get rid of heroes who are face down due to Ambush. ;)
-
I think that this thread ultimately represents my frustration with the game lately. I understand the need for rules consistency, but frankly the "implied" targets are the more logical ones and therefore are a beginner host's first instinct. Ruling errors tend to come from all the technicalities of verbage.
I agree that browarod and ChristianSoldier's thinking is easy to understand and would be the likely first thought. Chamber of Angels will not be anywhere other than set-aside, so that clearly is where Prince of the Air's SA is targeting.
We have become so eager to scrutinize the wording of special abilities, but that is really just a knee-jerk response to "game-breaking" combos or manipulated semantics.
I am not suggesting any changes. I am just venting. I just started a new playgroup here in Florida, and having young players who have never played before brings such a fresh perspective to the game for me. I have enjoyed playing Redemption more now than I have since I started my former Connecticut playgroup six years ago.
Just for contemplation purposes, sit back and think about what a new player finding this game on his own would think if they did not know any of us or read any of this board. What would they do differently if they read the cards and had to rule on their own with just the rulebook?
Food for thought.
-
Just for contemplation purposes, sit back and think about what a new player finding this game on his own would think if they did not know any of us or read any of this board. What would they do differently if they read the cards and had to rule on their own with just the rulebook?
My experience is that
A new player would think that Prince of the Air can target Chamber in set aside.
A new player would think that Idolaters could capture Aaron even if Aaron is in set aside.
A new player would think that Split Altar could get rid of the artifacts in the artifact pile.
That being the case, we have three choices:
- We do away with the rule about being unable to target cards in set aside unless expressly stated to match the expectations of new players.
- We consistently enforce the rule that you cannot target a card in set aside unless expressly stated giving new players one firm rule to learn.
- We create an entirely new concept of "implied targeting" and go back and forth an a instance by instance basis about what counts as being "implied."
Of these, I feel that the second option is the best. The first probably would break the game, and the third leads to exactly the kinds of "technicalities of verbiage" and reliance on these boards that you are decrying.
Food for thought.
Since it probably isn't clear from what I've written above, I appreciate your perspective. (I just happen to disagree with it.) I think that there is an inherent value in consistently enforcing fundamental game rules (such as targeting). If the PTB want to allow Prince of the Air to target a card in set aside they would be better served (IMO) by providing an errata to Prince of the Air rather than creating a new "implied" exception to the targeting rule.
I am sorry that my belief is causing you frustration.
-
I am sorry that my belief is causing you frustration.
My statement was global, not targeted at you. ;)
A new player would think that Prince of the Air can target Chamber in set aside.
A new player would think that Idolaters could capture Aaron even if Aaron is in set aside.
A new player would think that Split Altar could get rid of the artifacts in the artifact pile.
I agree, and that is how I think they should be ruled.
Of these, I feel that the second option is the best. The first probably would break the game, and the third leads to exactly the kinds of "technicalities of verbiage" and reliance on these boards that you are decrying.
I basically feel that the first option is the best. Since other threads (like the Herod's Treachery one) seem to end up with "Do what the card says," I think the same should apply globally. There are enough legal "game-breakers" so why not even the field. With my new playgroup, I took New Jerusalem and Falling Away out of my deck because they were very frustrated by them (since I did not have enough extras for all of them).
-
Hey,
How many other cards are there like Prince of the Air? If the rule that Bryon liked was adopted how many cards would be affected?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
How many cards target tartaros? I can think of at least one, and there's probably a few others
-
How many other cards are there like Prince of the Air? If the rule that Bryon liked was adopted how many cards would be affected?
It depends on how widely you are going to imply... ;)
Three cards that would be effected are Satan Released, Prince of the Air, and Falling Away. Each of these cards currently target targets that cannot legally be targeted.
You could toss in Dragon Raid and a couple of others, if you chose to extend the implication to all cards including face-down cards on sites.
Then there are a larger number of cards that are effected if you allow implied targeting to include Ambushed heroes, Darknessed ECs, and/or non-active Artifacts.
-
You could toss in Dragon Raid and a couple of others, if you chose to extend the implication to all cards on sites.
Since the only cards that can be placed on Sites are evil, any card on a site must be evil and therefore I think Dragon Raid goes with the first group.
-
You could toss in Dragon Raid and a couple of others, if you chose to extend the implication to all cards on sites.
Since the only cards that can be placed on Sites are evil, any card on a site must be evil and therefore I think Dragon Raid goes with the first group.
Ooops. To clarify--I meant face down cards on sites. Sites themselves are in play.
Most of the cards that can be placed face down on sites are more normally found face up in other places--so they wouldn't go with group 1.
-
I have since changed my mind about the rule exception. I think errata for the offending cards is the best option. Make the abilities on the 2-3 offending cards capable of doing the only thing they say to do.
Prince of the Air's targeting of Chamber, Falling Away's targeting, etc. can only happen if the abilities are given errata. Let's just give it to them so they can do what we all know they do. :)
-
Or we could change the REG, which would be a lot easier.
-
Maybe Cactus could just reprint the offending cards in foil - with the special abilities fixed to work the way we've all been playing them. Then Cactus could institute a "recall program" where we can mail in our cards that don't do what we want them to do in exchange for foil versions that say what we want them to say. :o
I think that would be the easiest solution. ::)
-
Maybe Cactus could just reprint the offending cards in foil - with the special abilities fixed to work the way we've all been playing them. Then Cactus could institute a "recall program" where we can mail in our cards that don't do what we want them to do in exchange for foil versions that say what we want them to say. :o
I think that would be the easiest solution. ::)
+1
-
Or we could change the REG, which would be a lot easier.
In my opinion, the rules should be EASY. "As a default, special abilities target cards in play" is easy. A second sentence that adds an exception to this rule adds a layer of complication that is not needed, especially when we are talkng about only 3 cards that do not contain the right language.
A short errata list (where a card still does what most players assume it does) does not add much complication.