Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: SirNobody on September 23, 2010, 01:51:39 PM
-
Hey,
Helmet of Brass - 3/4 - "Worth 6/8 if played against Crimson Brigade."
So if I use Helmet of Brass against an Orange Evil Character and an Evil Multicolor enhancement is played, does Helmet of Brass become worth 6/8?
The Golden Censer - 2/2 - "Discard the Kingdoms of the World Site. Evil Characters return to owner's territory."
The evil characters in Kingdoms end up discarded when I use this card, right?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
No. There is no such thing as the Kingdoms of the World Site. It's a Fortress. So nothing happens.
-
But there was a Kingdoms of the World site when this card was printed. It was not redefined as a fortress until later. I would suppose that this also led to an expectation that TGC would affect the redefined KotW, but this is not explicitly stated in the REG.
The wording of TGC is interesting, and I never noticed it before. Since the SA is divided by a period, does the second sentence refer to all ECs? In that case, it kicks all ECs out of battle as well.
I think it was intended to discard KotW and return the ECs from that "site" (and only those ECS) to their owner's territory, but what it actually does given the changes in various rulings I have no idea now.
-
This card needs a play as. It obviously meant to discard the KotW and return the ECs there to the owner's territory. If it were written today, it would have to say "Interrupt KotW and return all ECs there to territory. Discard KotW."
Without a play as, the technical reading of the ability would be to discard the KotW and the ECs inside (again based on the ruling I don't like about protected ECs following the fortress), and the 2nd half of the SA would not make any ECs in battle return to territory.
-
and I would rule it the second way stating that the second half of the ability is just a clarification before it was ruled that the contents follow the card.
-
I was wondering about TGC as a battle-winner since it said to return Evil Characters... I wasn't sure if it meant the ones in KotW or the ones in battle?
-
It says "return ALL evil characters to owner's territory" so wouldn't that target all ECs in play and try to return them to their owner's territory(ies)?
-
Hey,
This card needs a play as.
Which is why I bring it up :) ...or possibly it's a key part of the amazing combo I came up with that completely breaks the game!
It obviously meant to discard the KotW and return the ECs there to the owner's territory. If it were written today, it would have to say "Interrupt KotW and return all ECs there to territory. Discard KotW."
Without a play as, the technical reading of the ability would be to discard the KotW and the ECs inside (again based on the ruling I don't like about protected ECs following the fortress), and the 2nd half of the SA would not make any sense and would do nothing.
If I were personally judging a tourney, I would be inclined to rule it the first way rather than the technical way.
How it would be written today and what the play as should be are two different things. I'm actually kinda wondering if the futility and counter-intuitiveness of the second ability justifies giving it errata.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Or we could just let it be a battle-winner, like it's written as. Silver has zero all-target battle-winners, and us realizing how pwn this card is could make Silver usable. Don't "fix" Silver out of a good card.
-
Or we could just let it be a battle-winner, like it's written as. Silver has zero all-target battle-winners, and us realizing how pwn this card is could make Silver usable. Don't "fix" Silver out of a good card.
This is also a good perspective. We could leave it alone and let it turn into a decent 2-ability card. It would be a battle winner that also discards KotW. That also saves us from having to have an errata. I like that idea.
-
I like how no one even addresses question number one. :P
But yeah, I agree that the wording suggests battle-winningness, and since it is not nearly OP as written, I don't see a reason to give it errata to make it dumb and worthless again.
-
*Runs off to make sure he has at least 10 copies of The Golden Censer*
:D
-
Seriously... can I get an elder say that as of now, this works?
-
Actually, it's always worked this way, we just didn't realize. The only thing an Elder would be needed for is if they decide to neuter it.
-
That's true... I'd just like an official ruling because I have a tournament this Saturday. I'm considering this...
-
Bad wording FTW.
The ability based on what the card says boggles my mind in that it not only makes the card playable, but it makes it a very cool card and even kind of makes sense with the reference.
-
Bad wording FTW.
The ability based on what the card says boggles my mind in that it not only makes the card playable, but it makes it a very cool card and even kind of makes sense with the reference.
Actually, all cards are playable. It's a matter of worth, not playability.
I like how no one even addresses question number one. :P
I would assume so, since the ability just says "Crimson Brigade", and there is technically a Crimson brigade enhancement...
-
Hey,
Seriously... can I get an elder say that as of now, this works?
No. It doesn't work. It never has worked.
It says "return ALL evil characters to owner's territory" so wouldn't that target all ECs in play and try to return them to their owner's territory(ies)?
Go read your card again. The card in caps lock isn't on the card and it's the reason this doesn't work.
How many cards can you find that target evil characters without specifying "a" "an" "one" "any" "all" "selected" or something else like that? Cards that don't are referring to a previously specified group of evil characters. In this case their previously specified-ness is fuzzy, but it's referring to the evil characters that were in Kingdoms.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
if thats the case, then the card will need play as.
-
How many cards can you find that target evil characters without specifying "a" "an" "one" "any" "all" "selected" or something else like that? Cards that don't are referring to a previously specified group of evil characters. In this case their previously specified-ness is fuzzy, but it's referring to the evil characters that were in Kingdoms.
I disagree that it has to be interpreted this way. The 2 abilities are in separate sentences and therefore do not have to be connected at all. I think it is a valid interpretation to say that KotW is discarded AND Evil characters return to owner's territory (this would also be an interesting way to get SWS back).
-
Hey,
Helmet of Brass - 3/4 - "Worth 6/8 if played against Crimson Brigade."
So if I use Helmet of Brass against an Orange Evil Character and an Evil Multicolor enhancement is played, does Helmet of Brass become worth 6/8?
The Golden Censer - 2/2 - "Discard the Kingdoms of the World Site. Evil Characters return to owner's territory."
The evil characters in Kingdoms end up discarded when I use this card, right?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
ok. just a question...
who would use helmet of brass anyway?
-
ok. just a question...
who would use helmet of brass anyway?
Does it matter? We should solidify rulings regardless of the card in question.
-
ok. just a question...
who would use helmet of brass anyway?
Does it matter? We should solidify rulings regardless of the card in question.
Exactly. There are some cards that don't work if a particular card in battle (Fireball (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/fireballaw.htm) and Flying Flames (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/flyingflamesaw.htm) come to mind), and generally no one really uses Shield of Faith.
-
ok. just a question...
who would use helmet of brass anyway?
Does it matter? We should solidify rulings regardless of the card in question.
Exactly. There are some cards that don't work if a particular card in battle (Fireball (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/fireballaw.htm) and Flying Flames (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/flyingflamesaw.htm) come to mind), and generally no one really uses Shield of Faith.
OOHHH!
Stone cut without hands saves the day once again!
-
So.... What's the ruling? It seems to me that there is one for and one against TGC returning all EC's.
-
The Score:
One elder for TGC as a battle winner
One elder against TGC as a battle winner
I believe that now the elders confer amongst themselves and return to us with a ruling.
-
I am for battle winner XD
-
I am for battle winner XD
Me too, which means it probably wont happen. :P
-
I am for battle winner XD
Me too, which means it probably wont happen. :P
That's pretty much how it goes... My luck is terrible.
Someone needs to lock or sticky this thread so it doesn't get forgotten about and no one can spam the thread and get it deleted...
-
Remember kids, being able to use a card as written is BAD.
-
Remember kids, being able to use a card as written is BAD.
Consider this Cactus' unintentional gift for making split altar unintentionally useless.
-
Remember kids, being able to use a card as written is BAD.
Oh please great wise knower of all things, do tell why...
-
The elders have discussed this, and have not received a Rob stamp. However, it looks like we may just institute this very clever rule (which I wish I had been smart enough to create):
On cards printed in the Warriors expansion and earlier, the second sentences of special abilities are always just a clarification of the special ability on the first sentence.
So, the discard on Hunger only clarifies what happens to decreased characters. It is not a separate SA.
The second sentence on PotW only clarifies the first sentence.
For Highway and Stillness, you only get to return enhancements if you withdrew the hero.
For Darkness, you only get to add another hero if all the heroes actually withdrew from battle (and were not protected from withdraw, etc.)
There are lots of examples. Go ahead and read all the 2-sentence special abilities on the Warriors cards and earlier and see if this rule would make something not work as intended. If you find something, please post it here so we can revise the rule. Thanks!
-
And obviously this would also mean that the Golden Censer return of EC's is only clarifying what to do with any EC's in KotW, and does not function as a battle winner.
-
Nice, that's a brilliant rule. 10 points for each elder.
-
And obviously this would also mean that the Golden Censer return of EC's is only clarifying what to do with any EC's in KotW, and does not function as a battle winner.
I do not accept this as truth.... Everything is relative.
-
And obviously this would also mean that the Golden Censer return of EC's is only clarifying what to do with any EC's in KotW, and does not function as a battle winner.
I vote that this last part of your explanation is clarifying text, so it does still function as a battle winner.
-
wyn.
-
There are lots of examples. Go ahead and read all the 2-sentence special abilities on the Warriors cards and earlier and see if this rule would make something not work as intended. If you find something, please post it here so we can revise the rule. Thanks!
I think Temptation doesn't fit the rule. Without the second sentence, you could add a different male hero to battle.
Temptation: All male Heroes must withdraw from battle. Opponent must place a female Hero into battle or rescue attempt fails.
There may also be problems with the set-asides ("Set hero aside. Gain whatever") and the retreat cards (enhancements returning is not a default of retreating, as far as I know).
-
I think Temptation doesn't fit the rule. Without the second sentence, you could add a different male hero to battle.
Temptation: All male Heroes must withdraw from battle. Opponent must place a female Hero into battle or rescue attempt fails.
There may also be problems with the set-asides ("Set hero aside. Gain whatever") and the retreat cards (enhancements returning is not a default of retreating, as far as I know).
I think they are considering having this rule just for Warriors cards, Temptation is from the womans set. But I agree with the set asides, aren't there set asides in warriors that will not work with this rule?
-
The gain on return is tied to the set-aside anyway; we already treat those cards like this, which is why cards forced out of set-aside before a set time get no benefit.
-
I think Temptation doesn't fit the rule. Without the second sentence, you could add a different male hero to battle.
Temptation: All male Heroes must withdraw from battle. Opponent must place a female Hero into battle or rescue attempt fails.
There may also be problems with the set-asides ("Set hero aside. Gain whatever") and the retreat cards (enhancements returning is not a default of retreating, as far as I know).
The idea is to do this with all cards up through Warriors (including Original, Prophets, Women's, and Warriors sets). "Temptation" is actually a good example of what we're trying to "clarify" with this rule. If "Temptation" was read as 2 separate abilities, then it would win a battle even if the hero were immune to withdraw abilities unless they could add a female to battle. But instead we are suggesting that the 2nd sentence is just clarifying the first sentence to say that if there aren't any males in battle (due to forced withdrawl) that the only way to win would be to add a female hero to keep fighting.
Similarly, all the set asides tell how long the characters are set aside, and the 2nd sentence clarifies what happens to them. If the SAs were read as separate abilities in the 2 sentences, then it would seem that people could gain the benefits even if they couldn't be set aside for some reason. We want people to know that the sentences are NOT independent from each other (as they are on later set's cards).
Unfortunately, this means that "The Golden Censer" will not work as a battle winner. But fortunately, it is an objective rule that is easy to explain and play with.
-
So the second sentence is still important (in some cases), but not an SA?
-
But being able to add a female is different than all males withdrawing. So it's not just clarification.
-
On Temptation, the second sentence is a second ability, but not an independent one. It only applies if the first one was successful. The same is true for the set aside cards.
So, for Warriors and earlier, it appears we have two kinds of multi-sentence abilities:
1) second sentence is not a second ability, but clarifies the first (Prince of this World, Hunger, etc.)
2) second sentence depends on the first completing, and modifies the result of that first ability (set asides, Temptation, Golden Censer, withdraw and keep enhancements, etc.)
-
I'm not sure if these fit under 2), but there are also CBI/P/N (First and Third Seal) and limited use (arts, NJ site) as second sentences.