Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Mr.Hiatus on July 02, 2016, 06:48:56 AM
-
Creation of the World: Take all heroes having a Genesis reference out of your draw pile and band them into the field of battle.
If there are no Genesis heroes in my draw pile, can I still use Creation of the World to band to any Genesis heroes in my territory? I ask because CotW would pull all heroes out of deck, put them in territory, then band to them. If you have no more in deck, can you still look, then band to whatever ones are already in territory, or would it be a no due to the card specifying search then band the first time it is played?
-
Creation of the World: Take all heroes having a Genesis reference out of your draw pile and band them into the field of battle.
If there are no Genesis heroes in my draw pile, can I still use Creation of the World to band to any Genesis heroes in my territory? I ask because CotW would pull all heroes out of deck, put them in territory, then band to them. If you have no more in deck, can you still look, then band to whatever ones are already in territory, or would it be a no due to the card specifying search then band the first time it is played?
I don't think you can, because COTW specifies "them" referencing the heroes you found in draw pile.
-
Creation of the World: Take all heroes having a Genesis reference out of your draw pile and band them into the field of battle.
If there are no Genesis heroes in my draw pile, can I still use Creation of the World to band to any Genesis heroes in my territory? I ask because CotW would pull all heroes out of deck, put them in territory, then band to them. If you have no more in deck, can you still look, then band to whatever ones are already in territory, or would it be a no due to the card specifying search then band the first time it is played?
I don't think you can, because COTW specifies "them" referencing the heroes you found in draw pile.
+1
-
I don't think you can, because COTW specifies "them" referencing the heroes you found in draw pile.
This is correct.
CotW would pull all heroes out of deck, then put them in territory
This is not. Searches default to hand.
-
CotW would pull all heroes out of deck, then put them in territory
This is not. Searches default to hand.
While technically correct, in this case the search specifies a location to add the searched card(s) to: banded into battle. If you are in any way prevented from adding any of the searched characters to battle (say you're playing T2 and you have multiple copies of a Genesis Hero in your deck) then they would return to deck, they would not go to your hand.
-
does hand limit apply here before adding to battle?
-
does hand limit apply here before adding to battle?
The way Creation of the World is worded, it shouldn't apply. It just says to band your Genesis heroes from deck into battle.
-
does hand limit apply here before adding to battle?
The way Creation of the World is worded, it shouldn't apply. It just says to band your Genesis heroes from deck into battle.
You can't band to a target in deck, I think this is an interesting question I hadn't considered before. We're working on better definitions for where things go when, but this is one that we will have to consider. I would say that, based on the current rules, the characters have to go through hand, but I've never seen it played with that limitation in mind. Other Judges, thoughts?
-
You can't band to a target in deck
You can add characters from deck to battle. There's a million cards that do it now. Creation of the World basically says "Take your Genesis heroes out of deck and add them to battle". There's no reason that can't be done simply because it says the word "band" and band abilities normally target characters in play or hand.
The only reason this is an issue is because Band abilities were given special treatment and allowed to target cards out of play - i.e., in a player's hand. If Band abilities defaulted to play like all other abilities, this conversation wouldn't be happening. You wouldn't be arguing "Hey, CotW doesn't work at all, because it uses the word "band", and those Genesis heroes are in deck, so they aren't a legal target for a band."
It's not like, since Discard abilities default to play, Amasai the Raider has to put the EE he searches for in play before it gets discarded. It's just discarded, because that is what his ability says to do.
I would say that, based on the current rules, the characters have to go through hand
The purpose of special abilities is to do things that you normally can't do. I think there are basically two ways to approach CotW's ability:
1. "The card says to take Genesis heroes from deck and band them into battle. Band abilities normally target characters in hand or play, but special abilities are designed to do things that are not permitted by game rules at face value. CotW doesn't say to add them to hand or put them in play first. Therefore, the Genesis heroes go straight into battle from deck."
2. "The card says to take Genesis heroes from deck and band them into battle. Band abilities normally target characters in hand or play, and Genesis heroes in your deck are not in either of those locations. While there's no reason that a character can't be added directly to battle from deck by a special ability, like with Nebuchadnezzar, because CotW uses the word "band", the Genesis heroes must go to play or hand first before they can be banded in."
I think the strife that has been running through the Rulings section for some time now, and the reason that all of a sudden no one knows how Redemption cards work and Elders are now constantly being "corrected" on how cards work, is because of mindset number 2. It's a legalistic way to approach card abilities, and is what is advancing the complexity of this game to the point where it's getting ridiculous.
I can't have a conversation with someone learning the game and tell them that their Genesis heroes pulled from CotW have to go through hand and therefore are subject to the hand limit, simply because it has the word "band" instead of "add to battle". I just can't. The cards need to be easy to understand (as much as possible at least), and they need to be straightforward. Cards need to do what it looks like they do without invoking 7 pages of rules from the REG.
*****
TL;DR: In situations like this, we need to have a "this is what the card was intended to do, so it will do that, and the rules will reflect the card", as opposed to a "this is what the rules say, so the card is going to fit into the mold of the rules, and if it doesn't fit, then the card can't do what it's supposed to do".
-
I think the strife that has been running through the Rulings section for some time now, and the reason that all of a sudden no one knows how Redemption cards work and Elders are now constantly being "corrected" on how cards work, is because of mindset number 2. It's a legalistic way to approach card abilities, and is what is advancing the complexity of this game to the point where it's getting ridiculous.
QFT
-
Here's part of the thing you are missing then: I am making a ruling based on how I see the current rules framework. If another Judge wants to come along and discuss, then we can get to the bottom of what we want the rules to be, or how we are actively interpreting them, and then we can actually change that framework so that things make sense.
We have changed a whole lot of minor wording in the rules over the past year to accommodate the rulings as they actually should be and have things be consistent. Does CotW work in the current ruleset? There are multiple ways to interpret it, as you've admitted. So why shouldn't we figure out what the state is according to the current rules and then get those rules adjusted if need-be? We (the Judges) have already been doing that on our own, but we don't think of everything that could need looked at, which is where these threads come in.
-
I can totally agree with the sentiment, there's definitely tension lately. But not being an Elder, probably not even a REP anymore since I've only been to 3 tournaments in the last 3 years, even I don't really think it's that simple. A game needs consistency, and bottom up rulings (i.e.: ruling cards based on intention on an individual basis) don't accomplish that very well. You look at other major CCGs and they have very precise rules and very precise wording, and even then sometimes they still have pages and pages of how to properly resolve interactions and abilities and such (*cough* MtG *cough*).
Wording evolves over time in any game, most accomplish dealing with this by either having ban/limited lists or set rotations. Redemption has neither and actually prints new cards to encourage use of older cards (which is great!). However, then you have situations where the playtesters missed an error, or worded something in a way they thought meant one thing but later is shown to mean something different, or just where they tried to clean up old wording and inadvertently added confusion. It's understandable, they're human just like the rest of us. But inevitably it can cause uncertainty about how a card actually works, or whether or not it works at all.
If we leave everything to "intention" it muddies the water for any playtesters that thought it worked one way versus ones that thought it worked the other way, not to mention for hosts/playgroup leaders/players. How are John Doe and Sarah Smith who find Redemption cards in their Friendly Local Game Store supposed to know whether a card works one way or another? They only have the rules in the starter decks, or perhaps the REG if they're industrious and search online, to go off of. This is why the rules need to be as clear and all-encompassing as possible. IMO there should be as little room for doubt or personal interpretation as possible otherwise you end up with John and Sarah finding out about Nationals, driving or flying all the way there with their decks, just to find out their offense or defense doesn't work because X card is treated as "intended" rather than how the rules explain it should work. John and Sarah's playgroup could have had locals and districts with the ruling the other way and it could have affected results any number of times.
Now I'm not saying that CotW shouldn't work how it's always worked. I'm not saying that at all. In fact Genesis is one of my favorite offense themes so I'd very much like CotW to continue working. I just don't think we should be making "intention" exceptions for specific cards. We shouldn't create an exception for it simply to allow it to continue working as intended, but that doesn't mean the rules can't be reviewed to see why using "band" is all of a sudden problematic. If it's deemed that "band" needs to retain its current definition and restrictions for whatever reason, then CotW could potentially be the casualty of that. But I personally do not believe any exceptions should be made for CotW, or any other card, based simply on intention.
Sorry for the long post. Didn't intend to write a novella, lol. :P
*instaposted by Redoubter*
-
I agree both with Browa that going back to bottom-up rulings is the worst possible step in the wrong direction we could take, and JM that there's no reason why the cards should go to hand first even with the current rules.
-
I really feel what everyone is saying here in terms of card abilities and intentions but I also think it's good to have a strong rooting in rulings which really come back to our relationships with each other.
We can't become bitter with our brothers we are all playing this game together for a powerful ministry!
-
Does a hero in my opponent's hand that is revealed by Praise Him Moon have to go to my hand before being banded into battle?
Praise Him Moon - "Selected player must reveal hand. You may band any Hero from that hand into battle."
What about Lurking trying to target my EC in The Darkness or face down on a site?
Lurking - "Interrupt the battle and band one of your Evil Characters into battle from hand, territory, The Darkness, or from face down on a site."
*****
I looked at the abilities for Discard and Shuffle as well. They both have clauses (unsurprisingly) that "Targets must be in play". We don't need special exceptions outlined in the REG for My Lord and My God or Shrine to Artemis. Everyone knows that "Targets must be in play" is always the default, and if a card specifies it discards/shuffles from a location that is not in play, you can still discard/shuffle, because the card specifically says you can.
-
I think the strife that has been running through the Rulings section for some time now, and the reason that all of a sudden no one knows how Redemption cards work and Elders are now constantly being "corrected" on how cards work, is because of mindset number 2. It's a legalistic way to approach card abilities, and is what is advancing the complexity of this game to the point where it's getting ridiculous.
I can't have a conversation with someone learning the game and tell them that their Genesis heroes pulled from CotW have to go through hand and therefore are subject to the hand limit, simply because it has the word "band" instead of "add to battle". I just can't. The cards need to be easy to understand (as much as possible at least), and they need to be straightforward. Cards need to do what it looks like they do without invoking 7 pages of rules from the REG.
I'm glad that I am not the only one that feels this way. I have found myself unable to explain current rulings to my middle-school players, and frankly I'm not sure I understand them myself. :-\
-
And then on the other side of things we have had a lot of frustration from players about what is perceived to be inconsistency or rulings that don't jive with interpretations of the rules they have. Quite often, there's no "winning" on trying to avoid someone being upset about a rule or ruling.
Either we are going from an rules-based standpoint or we are going from an intent standpoint, and we have to be rules-based for the game to make sense. That doesn't mean people have to agree on interpretations of the rules, and here is an example. And these types of things are also perfect opportunities for us to clarify rules to be clearer and better for everyone.
-
FTR, please don't take the ruling that CotW characters go to hand as official. The elders will convene and respond with an official answer. Possibly as soon as Friday.
-
This is why the rules need to be as clear and all-encompassing as possible. IMO there should be as little room for doubt or personal interpretation as possible otherwise you end up with John and Sarah finding out about Nationals, driving or flying all the way there with their decks, just to find out their offense or defense doesn't work because X card is treated as "intended" rather than how the rules explain it should work.
The easiest way to make rules clear is to not make unnecessary rules. Every rule created is one more that needs to be known, is open to misinterpretation, etc.
-
The easiest way to make rules clear is to not make unnecessary rules. Every rule created is one more that needs to be known, is open to misinterpretation, etc.
The problem with this is that most of the "unnecessary rules" you refer to have been around for a long time, just not applied appropriately or uniformly, or not realized by some of the playerbase. A lot of issues come up because of newer cards as well.
We've been doing a better job of that in recent times of making rulings more uniform and correct, but that also includes changing those "unnecessary" bits where we find them. Nothing has changed or been added or "created" here recently in terms of the rules, so that doesn't really apply here (or to most of the things debated recently), and we look for feedback on what to change to make things clearer and/or better in the rules all the time.
-
Nothing except how healing works has changed or been added or "created" here recently in terms of the rules...
FTFY
-
My feeling on all of this is we are trying to take the current state of the game and change as little as we can to try and solve every issue that arises which causes confusion. Redemption rules have never been "easy to understand" for newer players and that I think is the big issue. I would argue that implied abilities be eliminated and abiliities be specific to their names and not functions and abilities be reworked so that cards abilities function as the card reads without lawyer like debates over rulings. I would also say that cards that cannot do this easily or without a simple errata be put on a ban list. There would maybe be a handful of cards on this list like ANB. Any card that is on the ban list could be reprinted to a functioning version as intended or not at all. Is that a lot of change. Yes. Are plenty of people against it. Yes. Does the game function currently as is. Yes. But the way I look at it is one must have specialized knowledge and almost a degree in redemption rulings to be able to make sense of scenarios which I feel is bad for the game. I'm fine with the way things are currently because I've been playing the game long enough to know/accept the state of the current game. I feel that the rules as is though could be driving away potential players due to it being too complicated and not worth their time to figure out is all. I applaud the elders for making the rules as functional and coherent as possible. But I think a bit of simplification might be needed and not more additions to the rules to clarify them. Sorry for the rant or if it is a bit off topic.
-
Nothing except how healing works has changed or been added or "created" here recently in terms of the rules...
FTFY
Which was, again, a ruling that was made that would have held true under the old wording but did not come to light until more search interactions and good healing cards came into play. Heal was not changed suddenly to where a Heal to discard was a Search, it should always have been that way under the wording of the rules (REG 1.0.2 and earlier, not just 3.0.0 and 3.1.0). And that's also why we are looking at that wording to try and figure out the best place for the game to go, but this particular 'example' does not hold water.
-
What would have held and what was held before are two different things and it speaks to the frustration that everyone is feeling on both sides of this argument.
-
A moderator may want to split off the discussion unrelated to CotW.
And that's also why we are looking at that wording to try and figure out the best place for the game to go, but this particular 'example' does not hold water.
It is possible that the "best place for the game to go" is not in its current direction. With all due respect, your arguments are changing frustration into irritation. Polarius' example is an excellent example of the problem at hand, so it most definitely "holds water." You need to sit back and listen to what several of us are saying, rather than prepare a thesis on how to respond to it.
Redemption rules have never been "easy to understand" for newer players and that I think is the big issue.... I feel that the rules as is though could be driving away potential players due to it being too complicated and not worth their time to figure out is all.
I agree wholeheartedly with these assertions. I have been teaching up to 10 new players per year how to play Redemption over the past 5 years, but I cannot get most of them to keep playing.They inherently want to buy the newest cards, which make explaining the game more difficult. The burnout happens very quickly. The worst thing I could do is have them attend a tournament to play "experts," because that will drive them away permanently (as it has with my original Florida playgroup). Frankly, most of them just play Pokemon because it is much easier to learn, and Pokemon players are friendlier in tournaments.
I would argue that implied abilities be eliminated and abilities be specific to their names and not functions and abilities be reworked so that cards abilities function as the card reads without lawyer like debates over rulings. I would also say that cards that cannot do this easily or without a simple errata be put on a ban list.
I agree with both of these assertions as well. I stopped posting in the other threads because futility fuels misery, but I would still argue that an "Implied Search" is not a "Search," just like "Captured Heroes" are not "Heroes."
Regarding bans, I think it is time for us to strongly consider this advice. I know that Rob has always been against banning cards, as I have, but there is a "time and place for everything under the sun." A ban list will help us be more careful in how we word future cards, as well as allow us to admit when we have made a mistake.
-
The elder team hears, understands and sympathizes with the community's frustration about confusing rules and overlapping abilities. We're discussing several options for how we can improve the current rules with the release of the next REG after Nationals. All of the examples and constructive criticism brought forth by the community have been very helpful.
I cannot speak for Dayne, but what I believe what he's attempting to do is justify why the rules are the way they are and why the game is still playable even if the rules aren't perfect. What I think players perceive is that he's trying to justify why the rules aren't going to change. Since Dayne is part of the team making the forthcoming changes I don't think the later can be true.
-
Awesome, thanks Gabe (and the rest of the elders)!
I think we've got a great thing going here everyone- a community passionate about the game who is on the front lines regularly teaching new players and giving lots of feedback about what the game needs...and we've got an elder team who is passionate about the Lord as well as the game, who is careful and deliberate and yet receptive, humble, and willing to do what needed to improve the game.
I'm encouraged and pray that we will all be drawn closer to the Lord through this game and our interactions with each other!
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. - Philippians 2:1-11
-
Default Conditions
● When a deck is searched, shuffle the deck after the search.
● If a search ability states what to search “for” but does not say what to do with that card, then the card should be taken into the player’s hand.
so it seems that hand limit could not apply here but i am wondering still where the heroes searched for would go if there was a forsaken soul out. would they just go to territory?
-
If Forsaken LS is out the Heroes stay in deck. Forsaken was designed as an anti-CotW card with an added bonus that it works against a lot of other good stuff too.
-
Our consensus on this question is as follows:
Creation of the World searches the deck for qualifying Heroes and bands them directly to battle. The Heroes do not make a pit stop in any other location (territory, hand or otherwise).
-
Our consensus on this question is as follows:
Creation of the World searches the deck for qualifying Heroes and bands them directly to battle. The Heroes do not make a pit stop in any other location (territory, hand or otherwise).
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_la3ml5jORU1qd749ko1_400.jpg&hash=3e3d3570fa969c518d476a1a1a0146f6133a9dc9)