Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Isildur on July 10, 2010, 10:39:26 PM
-
So if a Herod Agrippa II blocks my Paul is the Decrease permanent? And if so could I do this multiple times?
Herod Agrippa II
Gold 6/6 EC
"If Herod Agrippa II blocks Paul, Paul's offense decreases by half."
-
I don't think it's permanent unless there's a play-as, because abilities last until the end of battle unless stated otherwise.
-
No, I don;t think that it would be permanent either because abilities last until the end of the battle unless stated on the card as lightningninja says
-
It's not because the ability ends once he goes back to the territory. It's not a continuous ability.
-
I don't think it's permanent unless there's a play-as, because abilities last until the end of battle unless stated otherwise.
This is correct.
-
I agree that it is not a permanent decrease either. Now you have confirmation from a full spectrum of board name colors.
-
Hey,
Currently the decrease is not permanent. Increase and Decrease Abilities is an entry in the REG that is undergoing a lot of changes for the new REG and the default for permanent-ness is one thing that is likely to change. So when the new REG drops this ruling may change.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Currently the decrease is not permanent. Increase and Decrease Abilities is an entry in the REG that is undergoing a lot of changes for the new REG and the default for permanent-ness is one thing that is likely to change. So when the new REG drops this ruling may change.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
I thought New REG was only supposed to be a re-clarification of rules, not a complete rewriting and changing of them.
-
Hey,
I thought New REG was only supposed to be a re-clarification of rules, not a complete rewriting and changing of them.
The new REG attempts to keep things the same as much as possible, but is willing to make changes if the change is relatively small and the effect is a significant structural improvement.
In the case of Increase/Decrease there are actually very few cards that follow the "until end of turn" default and a lot of cards that are an exception to the default. Think of all of the set asides, healing cards, and poisons that increase or decrease a character; those are all exceptions to the default because they are all permanent changes that don't specify as much on the card. Then look in a card list at all the increase/decrease cards that specify "until end of turn." Because of the exceptions there are actually more cards that don't follow the default than that do, so it only makes sense to reverse the default and make the exceptions the norm.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Because of the exceptions there are actually more cards that don't follow the default than that do, so it only makes sense to reverse the default and make the exceptions the norm.
Wow, there's a Pandora's Box waiting to be opened. Quick, someone find a way to exploit this! ;)
-
and the effect is a significant structural improvement.
If the New REG does not make Split Altar useful again, then this argument goes out the window. ;)
In the case of Increase/Decrease there are actually very few cards that follow the "until end of turn" default and a lot of cards that are an exception to the default. Think of all of the set asides, healing cards, and poisons that increase or decrease a character; those are all exceptions to the default because they are all permanent changes that don't specify as much on the card.
Healing, Posion, and Disease are in different sections than Increase/Decrease in the REG... so I wouldn't consider them exactly the same. The rules for poison and disease specify that those abilities are always permanent until removed.
I'm torn on this one. I would love to see increase/decrease be more powerful, but I don't like the idea of random rule changes to simplify rules that are already laid out very clearly.