Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Lamborghini_diablo on July 14, 2010, 08:48:24 PM
-
Ok, heres the situation:
Say I have a copy of Michael in my territory and chamber of angels set aside. I have a copy of Michael in my hand, and an opponent discards it with an ability. What happens?
Michael would go to be discarded by the opponent, but chamber of angels would stop him from being discarded, and shove him back into my territory. That means I now have two copies of Michael in play, and one must be discarded. However, each time I go to discard him by game rule, chamber of angels would bring it back into play.
Is there any way to stop this infinite loop?
Chamber of Angels: Set this fortress aside. If holder’s angel is being discarded, place it here instead. After two turns, return Hero to the top of your draw pile.
-
I would just say they both go to Chamber.
-
From the REG:
No player may control duplicates of a unique character or cause them to fight each other. This includes unique characters in play, in battle, in a side battle, face down, or in a set-aside area.
They cant both be under my control at the same time. One of them must be discarded, but chamber doesn't let them.
-
I would just say they both go to Chamber.
they cant
Also this same loop applies to Pottersfield lol
-
They cant both be under my control at the same time. One of them must be discarded, but chamber doesn't let them.
Well then maybe you should remind Chamber that the rules say it can't do that. ::)
-
Just for reference:
Potters Field: Set this site aside. Holder's Heroes to be discarded are instead placed in this site, Treat them as discarded Heroes.
And to make this thread even MORE confusing: If I have both Potters Field and Chamber of Angels out... which one gets a discarded angel? The angel could end up in either.
-
Whichever one activates first ;)
-
Wait a minute. Discarding a card from hand is not the same as discarding an angel.
-
Since when? I am Holy + 3 Angels + Chamber has always been a common combo.
-
Well, what if I play both at the exact same time! :o
Wait a minute. Discarding a card from hand is not the same as discarding an angel.
It is if that card is an angel.
-
Maybe I'm just confused, but Chamber of Angels is Set-Aside... right? So the Michael being discarded would not be in play, he would be in the Set-Aside area. How is this creating a situation where they are both in play at once?
From the REG:
No player may control duplicates of a unique character or cause them to fight each other. This includes unique characters in play, in battle, in a side battle, face down, or in a set-aside area.
-
I always thought Micheal (or any unique angel) would just be discarded because you can't put it in Chamber so he just goes to the discard pile. Even though chamber of angels isn't an optional ability I would still think that is how it should be ruled.
-
Im with ChristianSoldier, One Micheal should be sent to the Discard Regardless of protection ablities.
-
Since when? I am Holy + 3 Angels + Chamber has always been a common combo.
I just learned something that I did not know. The REG supports what you are saying.
Now I know! ;D
-
Im with ChristianSoldier, One Micheal should be sent to the Discard Regardless of protection ablities.
it's not about protection, it's about redirecting the card to Chambers instead of the discard pile.
-
We're still talking about a special ability, though. The general rule is that you can not force something that is not allowed. Your card's SA may say "band a hero into battle," but if it is a duplicate then you cannot. Likewise, Chamber may want to keep both Michaels, but it simply cannot.
-
We're still talking about a special ability, though. The general rule is that you can not force something that is not allowed. Your card's SA may say "band a hero into battle," but if it is a duplicate then you cannot. Likewise, Chamber may want to keep both Michaels, but it simply cannot.
I agree with this. If a card said "All purple heroes in must join the battle" and I played it on my ET, I couldn't band my opponent's ET into battle because of the no duplicates in battle rule. I view this similarly. The only conclusion I can see is one Michael goes to the discard pile in spite of Chamber.
EDIT: I just saw that YMT included a banding example in his post too...I missed that the first time around. Anyway, I believe YMT is correct in ruling and reasoning.
-
ok noob here so i dont understand the problem here, cause my question is, is this a made up question? cause i thought u cant have 2 of the same card in 1 deck meaning u cant have 2 michels which would solve the problem
-
My Type 2 Deck has 2 Michaels and 2 Strong Angels
You are right about Type 1 but we have Type 2 for multiples
-
is thet the differense in types the fact that u can have 2 of one card?
-
In Type 1, you can have duplicates of some cards if your deck is large enough.
Forts, Arts, Lost Souls, and Single brigade cards with special abilities are done on a 1 per 50 basis. Meaning, if your deck is 50-99 cards, you can only have 1 of the listed cards per deck. However, 100-149 allows you to have two copies of those cards.
-
and T2 you can have 5 of any Character or Enhancement which is one reason it's better than T1.
-
and T2 you can have 5 of any Character or Enhancement which is one reason it's better than T1.
+1 XD This made me laugh so hard! :thumbup:
-
We're still talking about a special ability, though. The general rule is that you can not force something that is not allowed. Your card's SA may say "band a hero into battle," but if it is a duplicate then you cannot. Likewise, Chamber may want to keep both Michaels, but it simply cannot.
I agree with this. If a card said "All purple heroes in must join the battle" and I played it on my ET, I couldn't band my opponent's ET into battle because of the no duplicates in battle rule. I view this similarly. The only conclusion I can see is one Michael goes to the discard pile in spite of Chamber.
EDIT: I just saw that YMT included a banding example in his post too...I missed that the first time around. Anyway, I believe YMT is correct in ruling and reasoning.
I disagree, the situation seems more like a situation where I capture my opponents ET (I have one in my territory) and place him in my land of bondage . Then I have to discard one of them, but to my knowledge I can still capture ET.
-
I disagree, the situation seems more like a situation where I capture my opponents ET (I have one in my territory) and place him in my land of bondage . Then I have to discard one of them, but to my knowledge I can still capture ET.
The difference in that example is that the other ET is your opponent's. The Chamber scenario is more like the banding scenario because one player owns and controls both.
-
Actually, if you have an ET in your territory, I'm not entirely sure that you can capture your opponent's ET. I don't believe you can willfully cause a situation where you control two copies of the same character.
-
Why would the following quote be in the REG if it was not allowed?
Instant Abilities > Capture > How to Use
Captured characters retain their identity, therefore must conform to the restrictions of duplicates in play. Should a character by the same name be already in a player’s territory or set aside area, the holder of the duplicates determines which duplicate to discard.
-
I disagree, the situation seems more like a situation where I capture my opponents ET (I have one in my territory) and place him in my land of bondage . Then I have to discard one of them, but to my knowledge I can still capture ET.
The difference in that example is that the other ET is your opponent's. The Chamber scenario is more like the banding scenario because one player owns and controls both.
okay I will by that.
-
This came up with out Tuesday night playgroup and the consensus was that a game rule (no duplicates are allowed to be controlled by the same player; if this happens then discard one) overrides the Chamber's special ability therefore one of your Michael's gets discarded. To my knowledge (as a non-elder) this is how it should be played...
-
Actually, if you have an ET in your territory, I'm not entirely sure that you can capture your opponent's ET. I don't believe you can willfully cause a situation where you control two copies of the same character.
I agree with the "other Prof" in that I'm not sure you can capture ET if you also have ET in your territory.
As for YMT's quote of the Reg, it doesn't say it is allowed, it just says what to do if it happens. So if you played a card that said that you got to capture a character of you opponent's choosing, then they could give you ET to force you to discard one (so that they could get their ET back).
-
Actually, if you have an ET in your territory, I'm not entirely sure that you can capture your opponent's ET. I don't believe you can willfully cause a situation where you control two copies of the same character.
I agree with the "other Prof" in that I'm not sure you can capture ET if you also have ET in your territory.
As for YMT's quote of the Reg, it doesn't say it is allowed, it just says what to do if it happens. So if you played a card that said that you got to capture a character of you opponent's choosing, then they could give you ET to force you to discard one (so that they could get their ET back).
There are no captures that do that. It seems odd that the Reg would address this at all if there is no way in redemption to do this. I
-
As for YMT's quote of the Reg, it doesn't say it is allowed, it just says what to do if it happens.
This is a contradictory statement. How can it happen if it is not allowed to happen?
So if you played a card that said that you got to capture a character of you opponent's choosing, then they could give you ET to force you to discard one (so that they could get their ET back).
What card says that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This quote is from the rulebook p.10:
Something could happen in the game that would cause you to have two cards named Moses in your territory or Field of Battle. If it does, you must select and discard one of these cards.
I find it hard to believe that the rulebook and REG both address something that is not allowed to happen. The glossary and REG specify what you are not allowed to do:
Glossary > Duplicate Cards
No player may control duplicates of a unique character or cause them to fight each other. This includes unique characters in play, in battle, in a side battle, face down, or in a set-aside area.
Instant Abilities > Band > Special Conditions
• Duplicate unique characters cannot be banded into battle under any conditions
Based on the above, you are not allowed to:
1. Cause a unique character to fight themself
2. Band a unique character to themself
3. Control more than one duplicate - the other must be discarded
The "no player may control" statement is not a "it can never happen" statement. It is a directive that something must be done about it when it happens. The "band" and "fight each other" statements are "it can never happen" statements. No such statement exists for capture, which is why there is a "Special Condition" statement to clarify what to do when it happens (which it can).
-
This is a contradictory statement. How can it happen if it is not allowed to happen?
I'm sorry for not being more clear. I meant to say that although you may not be allowed to purposefully create a situation where you control more than 1 unique character at a time, it still might happen that you end up in that situation.
So if you played a card that said that you got to capture a character of you opponent's choosing, then they could give you ET to force you to discard one (so that they could get their ET back).
What card says that?
No card currently says that. I was just pointing out a hypothetical situation that was the first to pop in my mind to illustrate how it would be possible for that rule to be used without you actually forcing it to happen.
-
This was discussed recently, and I was the one who brought it up. I'm 100% sure that the rules are clear about being able to Capture when it would cause duplicates, and that you are allowed to (but must then Discard one). The PTB agreed, with perhaps one exception who just said he wasn't too sure.
-
Hey,
I disagree, the situation seems more like a situation where I capture my opponents ET (I have one in my territory) and place him in my land of bondage . Then I have to discard one of them, but to my knowledge I can still capture ET.
This is correct. You can use a special ability and choose a target that causes you to control two copies of the same unique character (as long as that special ability does not add the character to battle).
This came up with out Tuesday night playgroup and the consensus was that a game rule (no duplicates are allowed to be controlled by the same player; if this happens then discard one) overrides the Chamber's special ability therefore one of your Michael's gets discarded. To my knowledge (as a non-elder) this is how it should be played...
While I haven't found any explanation that I'm comfortable with for why this happens, I believe uthminister has the correct end result.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
You can use a special ability and choose a target that causes you to control two copies of the same unique character (as long as that special ability does not add the character to battle).
You are probably right, but I wonder why battle is treated differently. If you are not allowed to band in Moses from deck using Transfig when there is a captured Moses in your LoB, then why are you allowed to capture a Moses to your LoB if you are using one in battle.
Both times you would end up with 1 Moses in battle, and 1 in LoB. But the first isn't allowed and the 2nd is. Why the difference?
-
How would a Moses in battle capture a Moses in your opponent's territory?
-
How would a Moses in battle capture a Moses in your opponent's territory?
This is completely hypothetical, but I convert 1 of your Moses GCs. Then I attack with my own Moses. You block with your Moses EC, and I want to capture him so that I can win the RA. According to what people are saying, I CAN do that (which would put a Moses in my LoB and also in battle.
But they are saying that if I already have your Moses captured in my LoB, then I can't play Transfig to add my Moses to battle.
I'm just trying to figure out why.
-
Because the rules specifically disallow you from making duplicates via banding or just playing from hand.
-
How would a Moses in battle capture a Moses in your opponent's territory?
But they are saying that if I already have your Moses captured in my LoB, then I can't play Transfig to add my Moses to battle.
I was under the assumption it was the other way around, since you RA'd with your Moses and he blocked EC Moses...... But then wouldn't one of them have to be d/c because there CANNOT be two unique characters in the FOB at the same time?
-
This is completely hypothetical, but I convert 1 of your Moses GCs. Then I attack with my own Moses. You block with your Moses EC, ....
I just addressed this a few posts up. The glossary specifially says that you cannot cause duplicates to fight each other.
-
All this duplicate stuff was confusing me...... You monsters.
-
This is completely hypothetical, but I convert 1 of your Moses GCs. Then I attack with my own Moses. You block with your Moses EC, ....
I just addressed this a few posts up. The glossary specifially says that you cannot cause duplicates to fight each other.
Are characters of different alignments still duplicates, though? Redemption already has weird match-ups that didn't happen in history (Adam battling Judas Iscariot, for example) so I don't see why a good Moses couldn't be blocked by a converted-to-evil Moses. It's perfectly within the rules to have a converted-to-evil Moses in your territory, so it doesn't seem fair to punish its holder by basically creating a cannot be negated (because the ability isn't on any card) ignore that prevents him from entering battle. Even TGT ignores have weaknesses (IoJ, Destructive Sin, etc.) but this ignore is insurmountable. If they took the time to convert Moses, they should be able to use him to block as normal regardless of whether another Moses is the rescuer. I can understand the duplicates not being able to battle in the case of side battles where it's 2 identical versions of the same person (of the same alignment), but an evil Moses obviously is not the same person as a good Moses any longer considering his entire Philosophy has changed.
-
An evil Moses would have the same physical body as a good Moses. That is why evil Moses should not be able to block good Moses, unless Moses has some complicated issue with multiple personalities.
-
unless Moses has some complicated issue with multiple personalities.
We don't know that he didn't ;).
-
The dulicate rule addresses the same unique character. Saul/Paul (as Saul) and Saul/Paul (as Paul) are the same unique character, therefore Saul/Paul (as Saul) cannot block Saul/Paul (as Paul). The REG and rulebook are very clear about this. Alignment has nothing to do with it. There are the same physical person.
-
Self can block. And Self is part of a character, as well as Doubt and Madness are things we battle withing ourselves. So I think there is reason why a character could block himself. In fact I'm sure much of the time WE ARE OUR WORST ENEMIES. However I really don't see why that's a problem because the chance of the "I essentially ignore you because you converted your own hero, who happens to be the same as the attacking character, to an evil character and have not other evil characters to block with" scenario is really that much of a problem. Yes technically is a CBN pre-battle ignore but its VERY VERY specific and will rarely come into play. TGT even though it has counters is FAR better because it will actually happen more than a random fluke.
-
FWIW, I am talking about Redemption rules, not psychoanalysis.
-
FWIW, I am talking about Redemption rules, not pyschoanalysis.
wyn.
has this been resolved yet? I'm far too lazy to read all of the posts...
-
has this been resolved yet? I'm far too lazy to read all of the posts...
The consensus has been that only one Michael stays in Chamber. The other is discarded. The REG is clear that you cannot control duplicates, which is what you are trying to do.