Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheHobbit13 on July 13, 2009, 02:09:43 PM
-
I think Emperor Nero deserves an errata rather than a play as. The play as does change his ability if you think about it.
Ra lone hero
Blocked by Nero
play Angel of The Lord to kill nero
Nero dies, but his second ability "Only a rescue attempt of 2 or more Heroes can be successful." is not negated by Angel of The Lord so the lone hero could not rescue a lost soul.
I assume the reasoning for taking out the second ability was because it explains the immunity. But it really doesn't explain the immunity does it? To me this is a different ability. The play as disregards the second part of Nero's text allowing Nero to only be immune. I think this deserves and errata because the play as appears to change the ability on the card ( think Holy Grail).
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Grey • Ability: 10 / 7 • Class: None • Special Ability: Character is immune to lone Heroes. Only a rescue attempt of 2 or more Heroes can be successful. Discard all Roman sites in play. • Play As: Evil Character is immune to lone Heroes. Discard all Roman sites in play. • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Emperor (Rome), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Josephus (Historian) • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Ultra Rare) • Background
See also:
• Discard or Remove
-
The "Only a rescue attempt of 2 or more Heroes can be successful." part, although it can be interpreted as another ability, is really just a clarification of his immune ability. When people were confused, the Play As removed it.
-
The "Only a rescue attempt of 2 or more Heroes can be successful." part, although it can be interpreted as another ability, is really just a clarification of his immune ability. When people were confused, the Play As removed it.
It is a terrible clarification of the immunity which is why they changed it. However in changing it they killed the second part of the ability that could, and should be used in another way. They changed the play of the card (whether or not any body played it that way is irrelevent) which constitutes and errata, not a play as.
-
The "Only a rescue attempt of 2 or more Heroes can be successful." part, although it can be interpreted as another ability, is really just a clarification of his immune ability. When people were confused, the Play As removed it.
It is a terrible clarification of the immunity which is why they changed it. However in changing it they killed the second part of the ability that could, and should be used in another way. They changed the play of the card (whether or not any body played it that way is irrelevent) which constitutes and errata, not a play as.
You have to look at the ability in light of how it was intended. Emperor Nero was intended simply to be immune to lone heroes. The part of his Special Ability which reads "only a rescue attempt of two or more Heroes can be successful" was just a clarification of his immunity. When they realized that too many people became confused by it, the play as was added to give Emperor Nero the ability he was originally inteded to have. It's no different that Prince of This World (I believe that's the right evil character).
-
Hobbit is simply speaking semantically about the difference between a "Play As" and an "Errata." I think this point is moot since we have more pressing needs for a REG update, as evidenced by certain unnamed threads....
-
The "Only a rescue attempt of 2 or more Heroes can be successful." part, although it can be interpreted as another ability, is really just a clarification of his immune ability. When people were confused, the Play As removed it.
It is a terrible clarification of the immunity which is why they changed it. However in changing it they killed the second part of the ability that could, and should be used in another way. They changed the play of the card (whether or not any body played it that way is irrelevent) which constitutes and errata, not a play as.
You have to look at the ability in light of how it was intended. Emperor Nero was intended simply to be immune to lone heroes. The part of his Special Ability which reads "only a rescue attempt of two or more Heroes can be successful" was just a clarification of his immunity. When they realized that too many people became confused by it, the play as was added to give Emperor Nero the ability he was originally inteded to have. It's no different that Prince of This World (I believe that's the right evil character).
Changing the use of a card to it's original intent is an errata and that is what the play as did.
-
The "Only a rescue attempt of 2 or more Heroes can be successful." part, although it can be interpreted as another ability, is really just a clarification of his immune ability. When people were confused, the Play As removed it.
It is a terrible clarification of the immunity which is why they changed it. However in changing it they killed the second part of the ability that could, and should be used in another way. They changed the play of the card (whether or not any body played it that way is irrelevent) which constitutes and errata, not a play as.
You have to look at the ability in light of how it was intended. Emperor Nero was intended simply to be immune to lone heroes. The part of his Special Ability which reads "only a rescue attempt of two or more Heroes can be successful" was just a clarification of his immunity. When they realized that too many people became confused by it, the play as was added to give Emperor Nero the ability he was originally inteded to have. It's no different that Prince of This World (I believe that's the right evil character).
Changing the use of a card to it's original intent is an errata and that is what the play as did.
Okay, I see what you were getting at. I think I misunderstood the original intent of your post.
-
Many cards have clarifiers that are not actually extra abilities. For example, the Warriors' Red Dragon's ability could be interpreted as basically saying "cannot be negated unless Blood of the Lamb is played" but that's not what it does.
-
I think we need a play as to change the definition of an errata...or would that be an errata...? :scratch:
-
Nathan,
It has been ruled in the past that Prince of this World (Wa) and Nero's "other abilities" are only clarifications, and I don't believe it has ever been played that a lone hero can't rescue even after playing AotL on one of the two. Thus, the Play As removes clarifications that are unnecessary or confusing, as "Play As" abilities often do.
Although I did find out that the Warriors PotW has no such Play As. I'm guessing this is an oversight.
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Pale Green • Ability: 10 / 12 • Class: None • Special Ability: Character is immune to lone Heroes. Only a rescue attempt of 2 or more Heroes can be successful. • Identifiers: NT Male Demon • Verse: John 14:30 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Rare)
-
Man, that would make Prince of this World (PG) and Nero so much more fun to use... :P
-
A new REG will come out sometime after nationals. I'll include the "play as" in PotW.
Regarding other "unnamed threads" having other REG-related discussions, I'll likely have to go find them. That might be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Mike
-
A new REG will come out sometime after nationals. I'll include the "play as" in PotW.
Regarding other "unnamed threads" having other REG-related discussions, I'll likely have to go find them. That might be like finding a needle in a haystack.
Mike
I would bet that most of the questions involving REG issues are either very short and say something like "REG issue/edit/mistake" or they are very long (5-10+ pages) and need help for clarification. Otherwise, most threads are probably just simple answer questions that have been resolved by the current REG/rulebook. That might help narrow your initial search somewhat.
-
Hey,
There was a time when Angel of the Lord against Emperor Nero did not result in a redeemed soul unless there were two heroes in battle. I believe that was the original ruling when the card came out and was changed shortly thereafter to treat the second sentence of Emperor Nero as a clarification rather than a separate ability.
Nathan, I see your point. Clarifying text shows up on a good number of cards, particularly old cards. In theory, removing clarifying text does not change the ability of the card at all, but in Nero's case the clarifying text is so poorly worded that it can easily be misunderstood to be a separate ability. The purpose of play as is to make it clearer how a card is used. The purpose of Errata is to change how a card is used. In the case of Nero we gave him a play as to try to clarify how he is to be used, and in the process changed how he is used. So we probably should relabel Nero's rewording and call it an errata. But the requirements for giving a card play as are different than the requirements for giving a card errata. And Nero doesn't really meet the requirements for receiving errata...so maybe we should consider going back to how it was originally ruled and treat it as a second ability rather than as clarifying text.
Long and short of it, until you hear otherwise from TPTB treat Nero as if his ability was worded the same as the Priest's Prince of this World is worded.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Long and short of it, until you hear otherwise from TPTB treat Nero as if his ability was worded the same as the Priest's Prince of this World is worded.
But not the old prince of this world. ;)
-
Hey,
There was a time when Angel of the Lord against Emperor Nero did not result in a redeemed soul unless there were two heroes in battle. I believe that was the original ruling when the card came out and was changed shortly thereafter to treat the second sentence of Emperor Nero as a clarification rather than a separate ability.
Nathan, I see your point. Clarifying text shows up on a good number of cards, particularly old cards. In theory, removing clarifying text does not change the ability of the card at all, but in Nero's case the clarifying text is so poorly worded that it can easily be misunderstood to be a separate ability. The purpose of play as is to make it clearer how a card is used. The purpose of Errata is to change how a card is used. In the case of Nero we gave him a play as to try to clarify how he is to be used, and in the process changed how he is used. So we probably should relabel Nero's rewording and call it an errata. But the requirements for giving a card play as are different than the requirements for giving a card errata. And Nero doesn't really meet the requirements for receiving errata...so maybe we should consider going back to how it was originally ruled and treat it as a second ability rather than as clarifying text.
Long and short of it, until you hear otherwise from TPTB treat Nero as if his ability was worded the same as the Priest's Prince of this World is worded.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Sounds good, I wouldn't mind Nero being able to work like that though...