Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Josh on July 11, 2018, 09:19:34 AM
-
Question is loosely based on a Teams game from OH States.
Player 1 attacks with a Sam/King Saul/Abby/Dave band. Melky is in Player 1's territory protecting KS and Dave. Player 2 blocks with Nebuchadnezzar and adds Head of Gold to battle from deck. X=5 for HoG, so Player 2 announces they are targeting KS, Abby, Dave, Melky, and Nebuchadnezzar with HoG.
Player 1 correctly identifies that KS and Dave are protected by Melky, and that Melky is protected by Abby. Player 1 points this out.
At this point, since those heroes couldn't be targeted, does Player 2 have to declare a new set of targets that are all legal targets? Or since HoG says "...up to X humans...", does HoG just capture Abby and Nebby?
-
Protection limits targets. If a target is incorrectly selected that is not legal then a new target can be chosen, and in some cases must be chosen.
-
Protection limits targets. If a target is incorrectly selected that is not legal then a new target can be chosen, and in some cases must be chosen.
So would HoG be a "new target can be chosen" example, since it says "...up to X"?
And would a mandatory ability like Haman's Plot be a "new target must be chosen" example, since it targets exactly 3 characters?
-
Protection limits targets. If a target is incorrectly selected that is not legal then a new target can be chosen, and in some cases must be chosen.
So would HoG be a "new target can be chosen" example, since it says "...up to X"?
And would a mandatory ability like Haman's Plot be a "new target must be chosen" example, since it targets exactly 3 characters?
Correct
-
Why is that the case on cards that say up to?
Example: if A and B are protected, they play head of gold. They choose A,B,C, and D for head of gold. I then ask is that all, and they say yes. I clarify A, and B are protected. Why would they get a chance to pick again?
-
Up to is an optional ability chosen by the controller. If they chose protected characters I don't see how that should be allowed to retarget anything.
Even if it said capture a hero and they target a protected hero they shouldn't get to repick a target. The hero isnt restricted from capture it is protected. Restrict would allow you to select a new target.
-
There is no "retargeting" being done, there is simply the selection of legal targets.
Why is that the case on cards that say up to?
Example: if A and B are protected, they play head of gold. They choose A,B,C, and D for head of gold. I then ask is that all, and they say yes. I clarify A, and B are protected. Why would they get a chance to pick again?
They can't choose A & B to begin with.
-
Up to is an optional ability chosen by the controller. If they chose protected characters I don't see how that should be allowed to retarget anything.
Even if it said capture a hero and they target a protected hero they shouldn't get to repick a target. The hero isnt restricted from capture it is protected. Restrict would allow you to select a new target.
They don't get to pick again because they never actually picked the protected character in the first place. It's impossible for them to pick it because its protected. If they attempt to pick it you remind them that they cannot because it is protected and they pick something else.
Restrict wouldn't make sense in this context. Heroes can't be "restricted" from anything. Restrict is only used for stopping a player from performing a specific action.
-
You can apply the reasoning to any inadvertent illegal play. If a player performs a game action that’s illegal and you can go back to that point of the game and correct it then you do so. In the example given you go back to the point of selecting for HoG.
It gets messier when you realize it much later in the turn.
For sanity sake we’ve ruled that you do not correct things from a previous turn.