Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Lamborghini_diablo on June 28, 2013, 08:56:23 PM
-
Here is the definition of Increase and Decrease Abilities:
Increase or decrease abilities can increase strength and toughness, decrease strength and toughness, or change the strength and toughness to a new specified amount.
Increase or decrease abilities can by dynamically conditional, statically conditional, or unconditional.
Dynamically conditional increase or decrease abilities are ongoing. Dynamic abilities are typically designated by a “*” or “x” on the card. All other Increase or decrease abilities are instantaneous. Increase or decrease abilities target the card(s) whose abilities are changed.
Now, here is my question:
King Abijam
...If blocking, decrease a Hero X/X.
Plagued with Diseases
Decrease all opponents’ Heroes by 0/2 (or 0/3 if you have the fewest Redeemed Souls).
I've played that Abijam is an instant and permanent decrease, while PwD is an ongoing and temporary decrease (while used as a curse).
... am I playing these two backwards? Should Abijam be a temporary decrease, and PwD be an instant decrease every turn it's active?
-
I think your playing it right. The reason PWD isn't permanent is because of the way artifacts function. Activating an artifact allows you to use its ability. Deactivating an artifact removes the effect of the artifact.
-
I think your playing it right. The reason PWD isn't permanent is because of the way artifacts function. Activating an artifact allows you to use its ability. Deactivating an artifact removes the effect of the artifact.
Artifacts can have instant and ongoing abilities. Using holy grail once and then deactivating it the next turn doesn't cancel the conversion.
-
The effect of Holy Grail is conversion, you can't convert an evil character with it while its deactivated that's what I ment. And neither can you decrease characters with PWD while its deactivated. You have asked the same question before and got the same answer. I understand your reasoning but there is no way the elders are going to let this fly;it would break the game.
-
This question was brought back up by someone else, and if a new player were to read those rules, they would not see ANY reason to play it the other way.
As it stands, the REG says that by definition, PwD should be an instant and permanent decrease every time it activates, and Abijam is a temporary ongoing decrease. Find a quote in the REG that disproves this.
-
I forgot to add:
I'm not trying to break Plagues with Diseases. I'm trying to make sure Increase/Decrease rules are correct.
I'm surprised that people will be rule lawyers when it comes to things like DoN not being able to target Lampstand due to its wording, but then let something like this go "because it would be OP."
If it's OP, errata the card. I would just like the rules to be consistent.
-
Under How to play it says all artifact abilities are instantaneous: http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Activate_an_Artifact (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Activate_an_Artifact) In your quote above it says that dynamic conditional decrease is ongoing, not instantaneous. Does that help?
-
Under How to play it says all artifact abilities are instantaneous: http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Activate_an_Artifact (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Activate_an_Artifact) In your quote above it says that dynamic conditional decrease is ongoing, not instantaneous. Does that help?
First, that link is talking about cards like The Meal in Emmaus: "Interrupt the battle. Holder may activate a new Artifact. Artifact takes immediate effect. Previous Artifact’s effect is negated."
Second, "Dynamically conditional increase or decrease abilities are ongoing. Dynamic abilities are typically designated by a “*” or “x” on the card."
Plagued with Diseases has neither X/X or */*.
-
I don't understand the problem then. I thought you were saying PWD's ability dishes out permanent decrease every activation. Isn't that an ongoing ability?
-
No, per definition of Increase and Decrease, ongoing is always temporary, instant is always permanent.
http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Increase_or_Decrease_Abilities (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Increase_or_Decrease_Abilities)
Ongoing increase or decrease abilities last until the end of the current phase.
Gains from instantaneous increase or decrease abilities are permanent.
To clarify:
If PWD is instant, then every time it activates, the opponent's heroes would go 6/6... 6/4... 6/2... 6/0.... discarded. If you deactivate PWD, the decreases stick.
If PWD is ongoing, then the decrease simply refreshes each time it activates. so the opponent's heroes never go below 6/4. If you deactivate PWD, the decrease is removed.
-
If I activate Darius' Decree my opponent can't play cards like Isaiahs call or provisions. When I deactivate Darius they can because when you deactivate an artifact you shut it off. Basically when you deactivate an artifact its ability is not active and cannot be used. Given this attribute of artifacts you can argue that PWD is on going, it turns on and off like a light switch.
-
If I activate Darius' Decree my opponent can't play cards like Isaiahs call or provisions. When I deactivate Darius they can because when you deactivate an artifact you shut it off. Basically when you deactivate an artifact its ability is not active and cannot be used. Given this attribute of artifacts you can argue that PWD is on going, it turns on and off like a light switch.
On the flip side, cards like Captured Ark are a single instant action.
So, Artifacts can be ongoing OR instant. Increase/Decrease can be ongoing or instant as well, and the REG has defined what increases/decreases are instant and ongoing.
It says the ones with X/X or */* are ongoing, and all others are instant.
See where I am coming from now? It doesn't really matter that it's an artifact, it comes down to the definition of what increases/decreases are instant, and which are ongoing.
-
Bump... Can I get some elder input on this question?
-
I hate to sound like a broken record, but does anyone have an answer to this?
-
I hate to sound like a broken record, but does anyone have an answer to this?
I don't have an answer to this, but I too would like to know the answer. Any of the elders wish to comment?
-
FWIW, I agree with you. The wording of PwD should make the decrease permanent. There are plenty of ways to get rid of curses, especially since they can be targeted as "evil cards," so I do not think it would become OP. Stronger, yes... OP, no.
-
PwD (as an Artifact) is constantly targeting Heroes, which makes it ongoing. The REG is clear that Ongoing increase/decrease abilities only last until the end of the phase. Thus, at the end of each phase that PwD is active, there is an instantaneous moment when the Heroes gain back the 0/2 (0/3) but then they lose it again at the beginning of the next phase assuming PwD is still active. PwD as an enhancement would be a permanent decrease, since it only targets Heroes once.
The bit about the * and X in the REG only refer to the abilities on cards (like Susanna, AwtSN, or Silly Women). Their abilities can dynamically increase or decrease during the same phase (i.e. if an Evil Enhancement wipes out 3 of the 6 Silver Heroes in play during battle, then AwtSN goes from 6/6 to 3/3, but then if he plays Wheel to get another Angel, he'll go up to 4/4. Abijam's decrease only depends on the number of cards drawn at the time of activation; the Hero doesn't decrease further if more cards are drawn.
-
That sounds like it contradicts the REG entry entirely.
The bit about the * and X in the REG only refer to the abilities on cards (like Susanna, AwtSN, or Silly Women). Their abilities can dynamically increase or decrease during the same phase (i.e. if an Evil Enhancement wipes out 3 of the 6 Silver Heroes in play during battle, then AwtSN goes from 6/6 to 3/3, but then if he plays Wheel to get another Angel, he'll go up to 4/4. Abijam's decrease only depends on the number of cards drawn at the time of activation; the Hero doesn't decrease further if more cards are drawn.
I think the */* or X/X bit is referring to cards like Broken Cisterns (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Broken_Cisterns_(RA)). Silly Women does not have an Increase/Decrease special ability, it just has a variable number.
PwD (as an Artifact) is constantly targeting Heroes, which makes it ongoing. The REG is clear that Ongoing increase/decrease abilities only last until the end of the phase. Thus, at the end of each phase that PwD is active, there is an instantaneous moment when the Heroes gain back the 0/2 (0/3) but then they lose it again at the beginning of the next phase assuming PwD is still active. PwD as an enhancement would be a permanent decrease, since it only targets Heroes once.
I still don't see anything in the REG that says why PWD (as an artifact) should be played as an ongoing ability in the first place. It clearly says ALL Increase/Decrease special abilities other than dynamic (*/* , X/X) ones are instant and permanent.
Dynamically conditional increase or decrease abilities are ongoing. Dynamic abilities are typically designated by a “*” or “x” on the card. All other Increase or decrease abilities are instantaneous.
Gains from instantaneous increase or decrease abilities are permanent.
-
PwD is an ongoing ability as an Artifact because it is an Artifact. Artifacts like PwD/Covenant of Salt/Crown of Thorns/etc. (and other constantly active cards like Broken Cisterns, as you reminded me) are exactly what that phrase in the REG is for.
Silly Women doesn't have an increase or decrease ability, but it does have dynamic abilities. You are correct that Broken Cisterns is a more accurate example however, I just couldn't think of it at the time.
-
PwD is an ongoing ability as an Artifact because it is an Artifact. Artifacts like PwD/Covenant of Salt/Crown of Thorns/etc. (and other constantly active cards like Broken Cisterns, as you reminded me) are exactly what that phrase in the REG is for.
What?
That clause is only talking about dynamic cards (Cisterns, Abijam, Desolate Gateways, Etc...), not decreases on artifacts vs enhancements. Right now it makes no such distinction between decreases on artifacts, characters, fortresses, or enhancements.
If this is not how these are *supposed* to be ruled, then can you guys rewrite that section of the REG to clarify? Right now, if I were to show the REG to a newer player, I guarantee they would interpret it the same way I am. I'm not the only one who reads it this way either.
-
PwD is an ongoing ability as an Artifact because it is an Artifact. Artifacts like PwD/Covenant of Salt/Crown of Thorns/etc. (and other constantly active cards like Broken Cisterns, as you reminded me) are exactly what that phrase in the REG is for.
What?
That clause is only talking about dynamic cards (Cisterns, Abijam, Desolate Gateways, Etc...), not decreases on artifacts vs enhancements. Right now it makes no such distinction between decreases on artifacts, characters, fortresses, or enhancements. According to the REG the fact that it is ongoing has nothing to do with its determination as permanent or temporary
If this is not how these are *supposed* to be ruled, then can you guys rewrite that section of the REG to clarify? Right now, if I were to show the REG to a newer player, I guarantee they would interpret it the same way I am. I'm not the only one who reads it this way either.
I agree with Lambo, PWD is not a dynamic decrease, a strict reading of the rule would be that is an instant decrease.
I'll break it down the way it reads(to me):
1. Dynamically conditional increase or decrease abilities are ongoing. (pretty self explanatory)
2. Dynamic abilities are typically designated by a “*” or “x” on the card. (If it has a "*" or an "x" it is a dynamic ability)
3. All other Increase or decrease abilities are instantaneous. (If its not a "Dynamic" ability, it is an "Instantaneous" one.)
4. PWD is not a Dynamic ability, because it has no "*" or "x".
5. Therefore PWD is an "Instantaneous" ability verified by the REG.
6. PWD is a permanent decrease because "Gains from instantaneous increase or decrease abilities are permanent."
The only way for PWD not to be permanent is to redefine what it means to be a "Dynamic" ability.
-
The only way for PWD not to be permanent is to redefine what it means to be a "Dynamic" ability.
Or to specifically mention that decreases on artifacts are ongoing. That'd be the cleanest way.
However, that still leaves Abijam in question. He has X/X, so according to the REG, he is ongoing, and therefore temporary.
-
Abilities can be dynamic without having * or X in them. Foreign Wives is a prime example of this.
-
Abilities can be dynamic without having * or X in them. Foreign Wives is a prime example of this.
So all ongoing abilities are considered dynamic?
The only way for PWD not to be permanent is to redefine what it means to be a "Dynamic" ability.
Or to specifically mention that decreases on artifacts are ongoing. That'd be the cleanest way.
However, that still leaves Abijam in question. He has X/X, so according to the REG, he is ongoing, and therefore temporary.
I think you meant to say dynamic? The REG make no mention of ongoing abilities being dynamic by nature so being ongoing doesn't automatically make it temporary.
-
I think you meant to say dynamic? The REG make no mention of ongoing abilities being dynamic by nature so being ongoing doesn't automatically make it temporary.
Dynamic, therefore ongoing, therefore temporary.
I skipped the dynamic part. :P
-
I think you meant to say dynamic? The REG make no mention of ongoing abilities being dynamic by nature so being ongoing doesn't automatically make it temporary.
Dynamic, therefore ongoing, therefore temporary.
I skipped the dynamic part. :P
Basically I am arguing that you got the order wrong it is whether or not:
Dynamic, therefore temporary.
Ongoing has nothing to do with it. The REG quote specifies the only criteria for the permanence of an increase or decrease is whether or not it is Dynamic.
-
I think you meant to say dynamic? The REG make no mention of ongoing abilities being dynamic by nature so being ongoing doesn't automatically make it temporary.
Dynamic, therefore ongoing, therefore temporary.
I skipped the dynamic part. :P
Basically I am arguing that you got the order wrong it is whether or not:
Dynamic, therefore temporary.
Ongoing has nothing to do with it. The REG quote specifies the only criteria for the permanence of an increase or decrease is whether or not it is Dynamic.
Dynamic, therefore ongoing:
Dynamically conditional increase or decrease abilities are ongoing. Dynamic abilities are typically designated by a “*” or “x” on the card.
Ongoing, therefore temporary:
Ongoing increase or decrease abilities last until the end of the current phase.
-
Dynamically conditional increase or decrease abilities are ongoing. Dynamic abilities are typically designated by a “*” or “x” on the card.
I think this is the word being missed. The quote that everyone is using does NOT say that all * or X abilities are dynamic and all others are not...
-
In the end we are saying the same thing:
Lambo: PWD is not Dynamic, therefore not ongoing, therefore not temporary(correct me if I am wrong).
Me: PWD is not Dynamic, therefore instantaneous, therefore permanent.
Either way, how is PWD a temporary decrease?
Dynamically conditional increase or decrease abilities are ongoing. Dynamic abilities are typically designated by a “*” or “x” on the card.
I think this is the word being missed. The quote that everyone is using does NOT say that all * or X abilities are dynamic and all others are not...
There is no other definition of a Dynamic ability in the REG. In what way does the ability on PWD meet the criteria for a Dynamic ability?
-
The part that's bothering me is that people want to rule PwD two different ways based on whether it's played as an enhancement or an artifact. Where is the actual in-the-rules justification for that? Because so far all I've seen essentially boils down to "because we said so" which makes no sense for a game that wants to actually be playable.
-
I'd like an elder to rule on this. And if they don't rule the way I want them to I'm going to carry on about how wrong they are. I can't imagine why the elders don't line up to respond to requests like that...
If this is not how these are *supposed* to be ruled, then can you guys rewrite that section of the REG to clarify?
I'd like to encourage you to give it your best effort. If what you present makes sense, lines up with what Jordan explained and the other elders agree, then it can be added to the REG.
-
I'd like an elder to rule on this. And if they don't rule the way I want them to I'm going to carry on about how wrong they are. I can't imagine why the elders don't line up to respond to requests like that...
There was never a "way I want" in this question. I simply want clarity in the rules, and I felt that this was inconsistent. I didn't really care what happened to PwD.
I'd like to encourage you to give it your best effort. If what you present makes sense, lines up with what Jordan explained and the other elders agree, then it can be added to the REG.
I will take up this offer. I feel the issue at hand is that Increase/Decrease is capable of being EITHER instant and ongoing. Every other ability is one or the other (with a few that tie both together cleanly, like negate)
-
I'd like an elder to rule on this. And if they don't rule the way I want them to I'm going to carry on about how wrong they are. I can't imagine why the elders don't line up to respond to requests like that...
I actually don't care what happens to PWD but I would like to be able to explain to someone when I rule at a tournament, why the rule the is the way it is, and where they can go to find it themselves in the REG. I am asking for an explanation but in the end I see no reason to rule PWD a temporary decrease based on the REG. I am not saying that its wrong, I am juts trying to understand how under the current REG that ruling makes sense. In the end I am only seeking to get as much of the unwritten rules codified into the REG as possible to make the game better, I am sorry if that offends you so much.
-
I'd like an elder to rule on this. And if they don't rule the way I want them to I'm going to carry on about how wrong they are. I can't imagine why the elders don't line up to respond to requests like that...
This is not a fair assessment of what has happened here, or of Lambo's attitude throughout.
Besides, I thought we needed two Elders to confirm a ruling.