Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: 3-Liner And Bags Of Chips on January 12, 2010, 02:36:38 PM
-
Lahmi's spear is a 3/2 weapon and says worth 6/8 if played on a giant. If it is played on Lahmi, does the name-on-name bonus work for the 3/2 orginial of the weapon or the 6/8 special ability of the spear? I just wanted to make sure... :P
-
Only the 3/2.
-
Lahmi's spear is a 3/2 weapon and says worth 6/8 if played on a giant. If it is played on Lahmi, does the name-on-name bonus work for the 3/2 orginial of the weapon or the 6/8 special ability of the spear? I just wanted to make sure... :P
NoN only affects the number abilities, not the special abilities of cards. So if you played it on Lahmi, it would be worth 6/8, or 6/4 if the ability is negated. It would never be 12/16.
-
Do you get to pick if you want the NoN or the sa?
-
I believe the SA always trumps the NoN unless it is negated. For example, the Warrior's Goliath's Spear is 4/6 and has the ability "worth 8/10 if used by a giant." NoN would of course make it 8/12. I have heard that in the past that you can choose whether it's 8/10 or 8/12, but I wouldn't think that's the case since the ability is non-optional. I would say it is 8/10 in all cases except when the ability is negated, in which case it would be 8/12 if used by Goliath.
I think Goliath+Goliath's Spear is the only case where the SA is a slight disadvantage compared to the NoN. If you are using Lahmi and his spear, I'm guessing you're not going for initiative, so 6/8 would almost always be better than 6/4.
Interestingly, the Warrior's Lahmi's Spear is 3/4, and is worth 6/8 when used by a giant. So it's 6/8 either way.
-
Hey,
The first bullet under Special Conditions on the Increase or Decrease Abilities page of the new REG says:
Increase abilities and name-on-name bonus are mutually exclusive. When an enhancement has an increase ability and qualifies for name-on-name bonus the player that plays the enhancement must choose when the enhancement is played if they want to gain the effect of the increase ability or the effect of the name-on-name bonus.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
So, in the case of Weapon-Class enhancements, would you choose the first time you play the enhancement onto the table, or each time it enters battle?
-
You would choose each time, WC ehns fully reactivate every battle.
-
You would choose each time, WC ehns fully reactivate every battle.
Well, the quote said "must choose when the enhancement is played" so I wasn't sure if putting it onto the table or it entering battle was "playing" it.
-
WC simply allows you to bring an ehn into battle before the opponent blocks. You still play it when it activates.
-
so you choose which ability you want when the spear enters battle?
and while we are on this topic. Weapons that enter battle always confuse me on this matter. Are they technically the last enhancement played in battle or not because it was brought in not played technically? I am not sure which one it is. xp
-
Interestingly, the Warrior's Lahmi's Spear is 3/4, and is worth 6/8 when used by a giant. So it's 6/8 either way.
It's 3/2 not 3/4....
-
Why do you have to choose one? How come you can't have both?
-
Name on name bonus is defined as doubling the numbers in the icon box of the card. That part I understand for certain.
The part I don't get is why we allow a choice in this case. It seems like special abilities should trump name-on-name bonus. Or maybe the other way around? But why do we get to choose? I know it is the way it has always been done (at least for the last 12 years), but now I wonder why one doesn't trump the other. Anyone have any reasons? Just tradition?
-
Hey,
But why do we get to choose? I know it is the way it has always been done (at least for the last 12 years), but now I wonder why one doesn't trump the other. Anyone have any reasons? Just tradition?
Because that's what Doug Gray said in 1999.
...so yeah, just tradition :)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Because that's what Doug Gray said in 1999.
I'm not trying to sully the name but that's a really bad reason.
-
Because that's what Doug Gray said in 1999.
I'm not trying to sully the name but that's a really bad reason.
Yeah, I agree. SA should trump numbers and if the SA is negated, then numbers should prevail.
-
I guess I had heard that you could choose in the past, but I had assumed that had been changed in favor of the more logical approach. Guess not.
Interestingly, the Warrior's Lahmi's Spear is 3/4, and is worth 6/8 when used by a giant. So it's 6/8 either way.
It's 3/2 not 3/4....
I referred to the Warrior's Lahmi's Spear, as in the set, not the class.
Lahmi’s Spear
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Gold • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Worth 6/8 if used by a giant. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: I Chronicles 20:5 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Common)
-
oh xp my bad
Because that's what Doug Gray said in 1999.
I'm not trying to sully the name but that's a really bad reason.
Yeah, I agree. SA should trump numbers and if the SA is negated, then numbers should prevail.
+1 but either way is fine with me. It would be cool to have a real legitimite reason of why we have a choice. :P
-
I don't see why both NoN and the special ability aren't both used. They aren't connected and they don't limit each other.
-
so you want lahmi to gain 6/4 for name on name and 6/8 for the sa? That'd be sick!!
-
so you want lahmi to gain 6/4 for name on name and 6/8 for the sa? That'd be sick!!
No, I think he wants the spear to be worth 12/16, which would be ultra sick. Though I'm pretty sure NoN will stick to only affecting printed abilities, not gained/special abilities.
-
ooohhhh....he wants to sa to get the name on name ok. Confused me a bit. That would be crazy
-
What I want is clarity. Tradition for the sake of tradition is not good.
Name-on-name bonus is an advanced rule (see Name-on-Name Bonus in the rulebook). When this rule is in effect, an enhancement card with a person’s name in the title is worth double its abilities (*/*) when played on a character card that has the same specific person’s name in the title. Play name-on-name bonus as “person's-name-on-same-person” bonus, because there are examples in the Bible where the same person has multiple names that are reflected in Redemption®. Name-on-name bonus does not affect nor is it affected by the special abilities on cards. Characters must be specific; generic characters cannot be used for name-on-name bonus.
Take note of the bolded part. Seems to me that Lahmi would get the NoN and then also use the special ability. This would mean that the special ability is separate from the abilities. NoN plays off of the abilities, not the special ability. Lahmi would get the 6/4 from NoN and then add the 6/8. Although, now that I look at the special ability I think it would actually be played differently. The special ability of Lahmi's Spear modifies the abilities of Lahmi's Spear if played on a giant. That would mean that the abilities would change to 6/8 rather than 3/2. The bonus from NoN would then change because the abilities changed. So the end result is Lahmi at 10/10 and Lahmi's Spear being 12/16.
-
Hey,
What I want is clarity. Tradition for the sake of tradition is not good.
I don't see how the quote from the new REG isn't clear enough. If a ruling works and has worked for the last ten years, that sounds like a good enough reason to keep using it to me.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
If a ruling works and has worked for the last ten years, that sounds like a good enough reason to keep using it to me.
The old ruling is wrong and on top of that "Because Doug said so" is a horrible way to make rulings. The new REG should be updated to reflect what the game play should actually be, not what Doug thought it should be. As far as I can tell the explanation I gave fits exactly into how it should work. The idea of picking one comes out of thin air.
Rather than just saying, "Because that's how we've always done it," maybe you would actually give an answer to somebody that carries weight around here?
The part I don't get is why we allow a choice in this case. It seems like special abilities should trump name-on-name bonus. Or maybe the other way around? But why do we get to choose? I know it is the way it has always been done (at least for the last 12 years), but now I wonder why one doesn't trump the other. Anyone have any reasons? Just tradition?
-
If I had to pick, I'd say the special ability trumps everything.
Lahmi's Spear is 3/2 on the average gold EC.
Due to name-on-name bonus, it is worth 6/4 on Lahmi.
However, the special ability replaces the value it is normally worth (even the normal value under name-on-name bonus rules), and makes it worth 6/8 on a giant.
In Redemption, you can't choose to disregard the special ability on a card, right?
-
the special ability replaces the value it is normally worth (even the normal value under name-on-name bonus rules), and makes it worth 6/8 on a giant.
I see the logic here and wouldn't argue against it.
In Redemption, you can't choose to disregard the special ability on a card, right?
I don't think so, unless it includes "may."
-
Now, Would one be allowed to switch from using the SA to using Name on Name if say, the battle became FBTN?
-
Now, Would one be allowed to switch from using the SA to using Name on Name if say, the battle became FBTN?
According to the idea posted by Bryon and myself, as well as Sean's slightly different understanding, it would seem so (since the ability is not optional, nor is NoN in most T1 tournaments). According to the prevailing tradition, which leaves it as a choice, I'm not sure.
-
I would say that it should work like this.
NoN is a game rule, and effectively changes the printed numbers to double when applied. However, in Redemption, Special Abilities can't just be arbitrarily disregarded. So if a 4/4 card becomes 8/8 on a certain Hero, but has the SA to be worth 10/6 when played on him, it's 10/6 unless the ability is Negated. If so, it goes back to "face value" at 8/8.
-
I would say that it should work like this.
NoN is a game rule, and effectively changes the printed numbers to double when applied. However, in Redemption, Special Abilities can't just be arbitrarily disregarded. So if a 4/4 card becomes 8/8 on a certain Hero, but has the SA to be worth 10/6 when played on him, it's 10/6 unless the ability is Negated. If so, it goes back to "face value" at 8/8.
Perfect. :)
-
I would say that it should work like this.
NoN is a game rule, and effectively changes the printed numbers to double when applied. However, in Redemption, Special Abilities can't just be arbitrarily disregarded. So if a 4/4 card becomes 8/8 on a certain Hero, but has the SA to be worth 10/6 when played on him, it's 10/6 unless the ability is Negated. If so, it goes back to "face value" at 8/8.
I agree. If that's not the way it is, that's the way it should be. Let logic prevail!
-
How does this apply to cards like Betrayal (All abilities (*/*) on good enhancements are worth half.) or Strength in Weakness (Thorn in the Flesh is negated and prevented. All good enhancements of 1/1 or less are worth triple their face value until end of battle.)? Does any modification of the printed numbers remove the NoN bonus?
-
Strength in Weakness states they are worth triple the face value. That trumps name on name bonus.
Betrayal halves number abilities, which I suppose could halve the abilities before NoN bonus (or after, since the result is the same). In other words, Betrayal does not say what the abilities ARE, only what operation is done to them.
SiW states a worth as an function of FACE VALUE, which means we do not apply NoN bonus.
Betrayal states worth as a function of (current) value, which means NoN bonus can apply.
Does that make sense?
-
Only if Betrayal is applied after NoN, since you'd be applying NoN to something other than face value if Betrayal was applied beforehand.
-
On Betrayal, it doesn't matter. Either it's applied to the printed abilities (making a 2/2 a 1/1, ending up with a 2/2 when NoN kicks back in by game rule) or it's applied to the NoN-modified numbers (making a 4/4 a 2/2, the same result).
-
The problem is not what Betrayal is applied to, but what NoN is applied to - it should only apply to face value, which it won't if Betrayal is applied first (otherwise, why doesn't it apply to the 6/8 for being a giant?).
In the case of conflicting changes to face value, which takes precedence - the one that was active first, or the one that was active last? Does that have any bearing on the order NoN and a change to face value should be applied?