Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Drrek on October 14, 2013, 09:51:55 PM
-
If my opponent discards the last evil card in their hand from I am Holy, do they have to reveal their hand?
I Am Holy -
"Upon activation, holder may discard a good card from hand to make an opponent discard an evil card from hand. If opponent has no evil cards in hand, opponent must reveal hand."
The second part of the ability doesn't actually seem like its dependent on the first ability. It looks to me like its a separate ability, and would happen after the discard. It seems to me like if someone discards their last evil card from hand for it, they should have to reveal their hand.
-
Based on the way that we have treated other abilities with punctuation, I would say that they are independent abilities, and that there is no cost-benefit relationship either. So even if the hand is protected from discard, the reveal could still happen if the condition is met.
Hrm.
-
It is just clarifying text for when the first sentence could not be met by the opponent. We just need an official entry added to the Errata-Reworded Ability thread. It is not s separate ability and should not be treated as such.
-
It is just clarifying text for when the first sentence could not be met by the opponent.
I could understand that if there was actually a rule that said you have to reveal. As I have been told by several Elders, and had it ruled at Nats, there is no rule that you have to prove a condition could not be met. If there is no rule, then this is actually an additional ability, because it goes beyond the rules governing the situation.
For the record, I am very much in favor of adding the prove-you-can't rule in conjunction with a rule allowing players to fail searches (so decks don't have to be revealed...and it's silly anyway ;)).
-
It is just clarifying text for when the first sentence could not be met by the opponent. We just need an official entry added to the Errata-Reworded Ability thread. It is not s separate ability and should not be treated as such.
I disagree with the assertion that what likely was meant to be clarify text cannot be its own ability. Blue tassel's "prevent unholy writ" ability seems to me like a it was meant to be clarify text, yet as ruled here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/blue-tassels-a-protect-or-a-prevent/), that part of the ability is a legitimate and separate ability that still prevents unholy writ.
I think this could be applied to I am Holy's wording. The original wording might have been meant to be a clarification, but as it is worded now, that ability is worded like an extra and real ability.
-
Well, since everybody seems to do whatever they want anyway, I guess it doesn't matter. Your Enoch can go back to territory even if he is captured. My lone hero will still not be able to make a rescue against your Emperor Nero even if I AotL Nero. Let's just be free! ;D
-
We've had this conversation before (a long time ago). The second ability was ruled to be clarifying text. So if you discard your last evil card with IaH, then you do NOT have to show your hand.
-
Source? Second elder verification?
-
I don't recall when it was ruled to be a clarifying ability but even if they are two abilities, they would not trigger separately so the check for "no evil cards in hand" takes place at the same moment as the opponent discarding an evil card. Since the opponent had an evil card in hand to discard at the time of the check, the check fails and the hand does not need to be revealed.
-
...even if they are two abilities, they would not trigger separately so the check for "no evil cards in hand" takes place at the same moment as the opponent discarding an evil card.
Can you elaborate on that? How do we know when two abilities activate sequentially and separately in the order written, like almost all cards I know of, or when they 'activate together' as you are describing?
-
I don't recall when it was ruled to be a clarifying ability but even if they are two abilities, they would not trigger separately so the check for "no evil cards in hand" takes place at the same moment as the opponent discarding an evil card.
If it is not clarifying text, then the abilities are separate. There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the second sentence is conditional. If we are choosing to disregard clarifying text, and instead just let people use literal interpretations of cards, then that will change a lot of old cards' abilities, including the aforementioned Enoch and Emperor Nero. Frankly, I don't care, since I support initiatives to make old cards useful again. However, we need to be consistent. Does "clarifying text" even apply anymore, or not?
-
However, we need to be consistent.
Let's start with agreeing here, and move forward.
There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the second sentence is conditional.
It is worded the exact same way as all other conditional abilities ("If X then Y"), so it actually would be a conditional ability if it were on its own on a card.
My point is that, if we are going to be consistent, how do we know which periods separate 'clarifying text' from the 'actual' ability and which are truly two different abilities that activate separately? Discard and reveal are two different abilities, and so it would follow by the logic of other cards that they would be done sequentially on this card. Add to that that there is no reveal-if-you-can't rule, and it appears to have no way to be 'clarifying'...
...IF we read it as we would read today's cards. And there's the problem. We have old cards that don't follow the consistency we have established, and it is obvious why, but how do we as players all know right away which case it is? That's the problem I put forward.
TL;DR Not disagreeing with the ruling, but how do we know when a period separates two abilities or ability+clarifying with consistency?
-
There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the second sentence is conditional.
It is worded the exact same way as all other conditional abilities ("If X then Y"), so it actually would be a conditional ability if it were on its own on a card.
I meant that the second sentence was was not conditional upon the first completing. :)
-
There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the second sentence is conditional.
It is worded the exact same way as all other conditional abilities ("If X then Y"), so it actually would be a conditional ability if it were on its own on a card.
I meant that the second sentence was was not conditional upon the first completing. :)
So...we were saying the exact same thing and both want consistency? I'm fine with that...unless I'm misreading you again :P
-
So...we were saying the exact same thing and both want consistency? I'm fine with that...unless I'm misreading you again :P
Exactly. I was disagreeing with Guardian, who was disagreeing with you. ;D
However, I still believe that it is "clarifying text" and should be ruled as such. I just want to know if we are eliminating the phrase "clarifying text" and reading cards as-is (unless there is an official errata).
-
Okay then I misread everything from his post on...so I agree with YMT, if it is not clarifying text, then it would activate separately and in order. Checks for any ability only occur when that ability comes up unless otherwise specified.
-
If my opponent discards the last evil card in their hand from I am Holy, do they have to reveal their hand?
I Am Holy -
"Upon activation, holder may discard a good card from hand to make an opponent discard an evil card from hand. If opponent has no evil cards in hand, opponent must reveal hand."
The second part of the ability doesn't actually seem like its dependent on the first ability. It looks to me like its a separate ability, and would happen after the discard. It seems to me like if someone discards their last evil card from hand for it, they should have to reveal their hand.
You could even choose to not discard a good card, and if your opponent has no evil cards in hand, they would have to reveal their hand.
-
The Current Rule on cards like this is as follows, This covers I Am Holy I believe.
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!
So it is clarifying text that your opponent reveals hand if they have no evil cards at the onset of the ability.
-
That would revive the discussion, but it would not affect I am Holy, which came out after the Warriors Set.
-
That would revive the discussion, but it would not affect I am Holy, which came out after the Warriors Set.
Drat I always get my set order confused I thought Patriarchs and Apostles were before Warriors, but the presence of silver in both makes me go doh! Kindly disregard my earlier post. :)
-
FWIW, I agree that the second part of I Am Holy is not conditional, nor can it be clarifying text, due to the Blue Tassels ruling.
-
Bumping this because we never got Elder input after Guardian's odd statement about them activating simultaneously, and I was reminded of this question today.
-
We've had this conversation before (a long time ago). The second ability was ruled to be clarifying text. So if you discard your last evil card with IaH, then you do NOT have to show your hand.
This post of mine has a + 1 from ProfessorAlstad (also an Elder) so that should this is the status quo.
-
As I mentioned earlier, I would recommend adding this to the Errata-Reworded Abilities thread to make it official, and avoid recurring questions.
-
As I mentioned earlier, I would recommend adding this to the Errata-Reworded Abilities thread to make it official, and avoid recurring questions.
+1
-
We've had this conversation before (a long time ago). The second ability was ruled to be clarifying text. So if you discard your last evil card with IaH, then you do NOT have to show your hand.
This post of mine has a + 1 from ProfessorAlstad (also an Elder) so that should this is the status quo.
Given that us regular, non-special members can't see who gives +/-'s to posts can we refrain from using those as rulings confirmations in the future? I had no way of knowing that ProfessorAlstad has already agreed with Prof Underwood otherwise I wouldn't have needed to bump this. :P
-
That is a good reminder. I do try to actually post on ruling questions instead of + 1 for that very reason. I think the other Proffessor does as well usually. He probably just forgot on this one. Sorry for any confusion there.