Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: DJWeb on December 26, 2014, 04:35:34 PM
-
"Convert a human Hero to a crimson heretic and take it to your territory. That heretic gains the ability, 'Protect a N.T. Lost Soul from rescue.'"
Is this ability similar to an ability gained via set-aside in that it stays with the hero the whole game and cannot be negated?
-
Yes, all gained abilities are like abilities gained from set aside, so it will keep it until the hero is reset (in hand, deck or discard pile) and it's CBN.
-
Is this ability similar to an ability gained via set-aside in that it stays with the hero the whole game and cannot be negated?
The ability is CBN starting the phase after that battle, but it will not necessarily stay the whole game, as ChristianSoldier pointed out. Interestingly, the SA would remain if the heretic is then converted back to a hero, but it may actually backfire if that hero is trying to rescue the only LS in play and it is N.T. Even more interesting is that if the original hero that was converted was a Territory Class hero, the ability would be in effect even while not in battle. :o
Which I guess brings up the question as to whether the TC hero with that gained ability could switch targets each turn, or if it remains fixed after the first choice. :scratch:
-
Don't take this as an official ruling yet (because it really hasn't come up before and I would prefer to have further input), but I would be inclined to think that just as Magicians who are converted to Heroes lose their "Magician" identifier, so too would Heretics. Therefore, if a Hero was converted to an EC Heretic via LOA, and then converted back to a Hero, it would lose the Heretic identifier and the special ability would also be lost since LOA says "That heretic."
-
Don't take this as an official ruling yet (because it really hasn't come up before and I would prefer to have further input), but I would be inclined to think that just as Magicians who are converted to Heroes lose their "Magician" identifier, so too would Heretics. Therefore, if a Hero was converted to an EC Heretic via LOA, and then converted back to a Hero, it would lose the Heretic identifier and the special ability would also be lost since LOA says "That heretic."
I'd agree with this. It would make sense that Heretic would be an evil only identifier.
-
Don't take this as an official ruling yet (because it really hasn't come up before and I would prefer to have further input), but I would be inclined to think that just as Magicians who are converted to Heroes lose their "Magician" identifier, so too would Heretics. Therefore, if a Hero was converted to an EC Heretic via LOA, and then converted back to a Hero, it would lose the Heretic identifier and the special ability would also be lost since LOA says "That heretic."
I would certainly agree with this interpretation. It is consistent with placed cards that say "that hero" or have the colon meaning the same thing that won't be working if that character is converted, since it is not "that hero" anymore (it is "that evil character").
Heretic would certainly be one of the identifiers that does not transfer (as you cannot have a follower of God also be a heretic at the same time here...), and the logic follows as you pointed out.
YMT does bring up a great point about TC characters, but I feel that this is also easily dealt with. Based on how they work, I would say that only printed abilities on cards are TC. A character can have 'gained' abilities through the course of the game, but those are not tied to the 'Territory-Class' component of the card. So in the case of a TC hero being converted, their new ability is not TC. Though I think we'd need more confirmation of that interpretation, since it is not explicit.
-
Don't take this as an official ruling yet (because it really hasn't come up before and I would prefer to have further input), but I would be inclined to think that just as Magicians who are converted to Heroes lose their "Magician" identifier, so too would Heretics. Therefore, if a Hero was converted to an EC Heretic via LOA, and then converted back to a Hero, it would lose the Heretic identifier and the special ability would also be lost since LOA says "That heretic."
The only potential problem I have with this interpretation is that the ability says that the new Heretic gains the Protect ability, it doesn't say the character has to be a heretic to use it.
-
"Gain" is an instant ability that does not need to reactivate. As long as the original ability to convert is not negated, the character was a heretic at the time of the gained ability, and it cannot be negated after the phase ended.
I disagree that this card works as a "placed" card would, since the protect ability is not tied to the heretic, only the gain ability is.
-
I see it as an instant deal:
If: character = heretic, give ability: "Protect a N.T. Lost Soul from rescue."
-
This is also NOT an official ruling, but another possible way to look at it would be that protecting LSs from rescue goes against the very nature of a hero in Redemption and therefore that ability doesn't convert when an EC converts to a hero. We already do this with abilities that target other heroes.
-
... goes against the very nature of a hero in Redemption and therefore that ability doesn't convert when an EC converts to a hero. We already do this with abilities that target other heroes.
As far as I know, the current rule is just that the SA cannot target a hero. The "nature of a hero" condition had been removed.
-
... goes against the very nature of a hero in Redemption and therefore that ability doesn't convert when an EC converts to a hero. We already do this with abilities that target other heroes.
As far as I know, the current rule is just that the SA cannot target a hero. The "nature of a hero" condition had been removed.
This is true, and 'by the rules' YMT makes good points.
I think that it would solve this (and other?) issues if we just specified that evil abilities on characters do not convert if they target a Hero or a Lost Soul. I cannot think of a situation where this would cause a problem instead of solving it. That's not the rule now, but I would think that change would make sense.
-
This is true, and 'by the rules' YMT makes good points.
I think that it would solve this (and other?) issues if we just specified that evil abilities on characters do not convert if they target a Hero or a Lost Soul. I cannot think of a situation where this would cause a problem instead of solving it. That's not the rule now, but I would think that change would make sense.
I know that the "nature of a hero" ruling was thrown out a looong time ago, and we'd have to go back and revisit why we did that. As I recall it was more about avoiding having to decide on a case by case basis what really went against the nature of a hero.
However it would seem that we could have some general rules that would cover it pretty well. Here's a starting point:
"Evil abilities include:
1 - an ability on an evil card (EE, EC, Curse, Evil Fort) that targets a hero
2 - an ability targeting LSs that makes them harder to rescue"
Having these NOT convert would go with the current rule that evil identifiers (magician, heretic, demon) don't convert. Just some things to think about :)
-
2 - an ability targeting LSs that makes them harder to rescue"
If we want to avoid any more subjectivity on it (which I agree with as a reason to have the old rule go away), we can just have any ability that targets heroes or souls fail to convert. That would stop protection, shuffle, discard, underdeck, topdeck, place, or any other ability that EC use to make rescues harder, but it would be objective and clean as a rule. It would also keep the same concept as the current rule, just expand it, so there would not be any confusion.
-
I agree that a blanket change of "no targeting heroes or LSs" would be easier to implement, and easier to make spot rulings on.
-
Are we really discussing changing the definition of "what abilities convert" based simply on a case of a what happens when you re-convert a hero after it has been converted to an EC using one specific card?
Is this really a problem?
-
Are we really discussing changing the definition of "what abilities convert" based simply on a case of a what happens when you re-convert a hero after it has been converted to an EC using one specific card?
Is this really a problem?
In the past, we simply wanted to avoid an EC converted to a Hero from harming other Heroes. There were few (if any) EC abilities that targeted LS. Now that we have several of those, it would be wise to explore if we need to expand the range of abilities that do not convert.
-
Let me clarify that I do not support a change at this time, but if we are going to change the rule, it needs to be less subjective than what Mark is suggesting. We want to make rulings as objective as possible, especially for new hosts.
The proposed change would hurt nice conversion SAs, like Nebushasban ("You may exchange a LS in opponent's territory with a LS in your territory.") or King Asnapper ("You may capture an Egyptian or a Syrian, or you may transfer a captured character from your territory to opponent's Land of Bondage.").
I think that there should simply be an inherent penalty for converting ECs that protect LSs and trying to use them for a rescue. They could still do a BC.
-
Are we really discussing changing the definition of "what abilities convert" based simply on a case of a what happens when you re-convert a hero after it has been converted to an EC using one specific card?
Is this really a problem?
Redemption's biggest pitfall is that it's incredibly complex while trying to appeal to a young demographic. Anything that simplifies the rules even a little bit is probably a good thing. Frankly, I would rather just change the rule to be no special abilities convert either way, but that's just me.
-
Redemption's biggest pitfall is that it's incredibly complex while trying to appeal to a young demographic. Anything that simplifies the rules even a little bit is probably a good thing. Frankly, I would rather just change the rule to be no special abilities convert either way, but that's just me.
This would also be my preference--especially given the amount of rigamarole that changes to this same ruling have had in the past. *If* it is determined that a change should be made, then saying "nothing converts" is simple, clean, easy to teach, and has very little chance of causing an unforeseen issue.
Let me clarify that I do not support a change at this time,...
FWIW, that was how I read your posts.
-
Personally I think keeping the status quo is the best option, since we are all used to it now.
-
we can just have any ability that targets heroes or souls fail to convert.
I like this. It's simple, and makes sense thematically. Having a hero make a "rescue attempt" at the same time as making a LS harder to rescue, just doesn't make sense. So I think it's worth having this simple rule to stop that from happening.
-
we can just have any ability that targets heroes or souls fail to convert.
I like this. It's simple, and makes sense thematically. Having a hero make a "rescue attempt" at the same time as making a LS harder to rescue, just doesn't make sense. So I think it's worth having this simple rule to stop that from happening.
I actually disagree with this from a thematic point of view. Especially in this example. Think about it, a heretic reforms but the legacy of their heresy could still keep people from being redeemed by that person.
Of course I really don't care how this ends up getting resolved, I'd be in favor of not allowing any abilities to convert, just for simplicity's sake, but I'm not strongly on any side of the argument.
-
I actually disagree with this from a thematic point of view. Especially in this example. Think about it, a heretic reforms but the legacy of their heresy could still keep people from being redeemed by that person.
However, their 'old self' is gone, and we have a perfect example to counter that thought in Saul. He was responsible for imprisoning and killing followers of Christ, and while perhaps they were hesitant to accept him at first he was the most influential missionary of all time and spread the Gospel to many regions and cities.
A true convert cannot still be a 'stumbling block' to the redemption of others, thematically.
-
Thematically, having a converted King Asnapper or Nebushasban be awesome as heroes makes more sense than making them useless. I think the idea of nixing all converted EC abilities is a terrible idea. It will kill self-conversion as a strategy for all but Paul.
There are two few cards that the current rule affects, and too many cards that would be hurt by it, to make it a good choice at this time.
-
Thematically, having a converted King Asnapper or Nebushasban be awesome as heroes makes more sense than making them useless. I think the idea of nixing all converted EC abilities is a terrible idea. It will kill self-conversion as a strategy for all but Paul.
That's certainly not true. Proud Pharisee is a fantastic hero, and Abimelech is arguably the best judge in the game. Those are just two that I have personally used, but there are more, including Namaan or The Dreaming Pharaoh.
Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.
-
Thematically, having a converted King Asnapper or Nebushasban be awesome as heroes makes more sense than making them useless. I think the idea of nixing all converted EC abilities is a terrible idea. It will kill self-conversion as a strategy for all but Paul.
That's certainly not true. Proud Pharisee is a fantastic hero, and Abimelech is arguably the best judge in the game. Those are just two that I have personally used, but there are more, including Namaan or The Dreaming Pharaoh.
Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.
You missed the part about "nixing all converted EC abilities," which is one of the ideas being contemplated... ;)
-
Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.
Because it is unnecessary. Right now there is one single example which involves re-converting a character who had previously been Lead Astray (i.e., converted from hero to EC via Leading Others Astray) that has been put forward as a possible reason for such a change. This strikes me as a very thin reed, especially given that even in the worst case, it is a minor inconvenience.
-
Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.
I don't know. Why is it so bad to just leave things the way they are currently? Right now there is one single example which involves re-converting a character who had previously been Lead Astray (i.e., converted from hero to EC via Leading Others Astray) that has been put forward as a possible reason for such a change. This strikes me as a very thin reed.
Does not actually address my question, but I'll answer yours. If we have abilities that convert when an EC becomes a Hero, that new ability should be 'herolike' and that's the way it has always been designed. It was agreed awhile ago that this led to subjectivity, so an objective rule was put in place instead, and that's the rule we have now. However, it is being shown that there still a simple way to have an objective rule that encompasses more of the 'herolike' component that was the rule for so long.
It's not as if this rule hasn't already changed over time, and it's good we have gotten away from something that was easy to interpret multiple ways. But that's the idea behind these rules, that they adapt as we go. Resisting change just to avoid it doesn't make sense, there needs to be a good reason to avoid moving forward on something than 'it is a change.' We have a good reason to go forward. I don't see a good reason being given not to.
On to YMT's post, I did not miss that, but I actually thought you were replying to the Prof U post not the Guardian post since that was earlier and other discussion had happened, sorry about that :) Though I do agree with you, I'd rather avoid taking out evil abilities converting altogether, because converting your EC should be thematically encouraged IMO.
-
Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.
I don't know. Why is it so bad to just leave things the way they are currently? Right now there is one single example which involves re-converting a character who had previously been Lead Astray (i.e., converted from hero to EC via Leading Others Astray) that has been put forward as a possible reason for such a change. This strikes me as a very thin reed.
Does not actually address my question, but I'll answer yours.
Sorry, you must have missed that I updated my post prior to your response. The reason is that changing the rule is (almost) completely unnecessary at this time. Rules stability is a very, very good thing for any game, and changes should only be made when necessary.
Resisting change just to avoid it doesn't make sense, there needs to be a good reason to avoid moving forward on something than 'it is a change.' We have a good reason to go forward. I don't see a good reason being given not to.
Making changes simply to effect change also doesn't make sense. There should be a good reason *to* make a change. The single example given does *not* rise to that level in my opinion. Even if you disregard the importance of rules stability, YMT has provided more and better examples where the game play is hurt by making the change than it wpould be benefited by it.
It seem strange that you brush aside YMT's examples as merely "some combo usage" while simultaneously arguing in favor of changing a rule based on a singular case of much rarer and more minor combo.
-
I did read your previous post, where you just said it is unnecessary because of this being 'one instance' but also where you seemed to be in favor of a change to remove all conversion instead of implementing the change to stop conversions that affect LS, were a change made.
I responded by saying that 'herolike' (or 'anti-hero') has been a thing and was the previous rule, making rescues harder would have certainly fallen under that umbrella, and this is just an objective way to work with all such situations instead of just case-by-case.
Lastly, I never brushed aside YMT's examples, but instead responded to his assertion that the proposal would neuter self-conversion completely, since I misunderstood which proposal he was referring to (he was talking about the 'remove all' that you seemed in favor of if a change is made, while I thought he was still on what I had suggested earlier).
So, I am not advocating a rule change based on a single case, but rather to make the conversion of abilities fit the mold that has been the design since evil abilities could be converted (I said as much), I do not think that removing all abilities from conversion is a good idea (thematically we should be encouraged to self-convert), and I don't see any good reason not to go forward with this change (I'm not seeing any actual argument beyond 'we don't really need it' and I disagree with that for reasons already stated).
Hopefully we are all on the same page now.
-
Just to clarify, I would prefer:
- That the current status quo be retained
- Failing #1 that we do away with all EC abilities on conversion similar to how the rule was changed a long ways back to do away with SA when heroes fall. (This I would prefer less by about two orders of magnitude.)
I responded by saying that 'herolike' (or 'anti-hero') has been a thing and was the previous rule, making rescues harder would have certainly fallen under that umbrella, and this is just an objective way to work with all such situations instead of just case-by-case.
The "harder" bit is true for precisely one limited case that has been discussed where it causes minor discomfort. To this I have three responses:
- YMT has already provided multiple examples where a converted EC ability targeting a LS makes it easier to make a rescues. These would all clearly fall under your definition of a "hero-like" ability.
- I could with the same justification note that having certain evil fortresses in play makes it harder to make rescues. Thus by your reasoning any SA which allows you to search for an Evil Fortress is not "hero-like."
- A single marginal edge case should not be sufficient cause to change a rule.
Lastly, I never brushed aside YMT's examples,
It is hard to read...
Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.
as anything other than brushing YMT's examples off as nothing more than "some combos usage."
I don't see any good reason not to go forward with this change
Which is *not* in itself a reason to make a change.
-
You seem to continue to move past the point being made that evil abilities targeting souls are not hero-like and should not be converted. That is my point, not that there is a single card combination necessitating a change. I have said over and over that the one card in question is not the only one I am referring to, but you keep going to that. And again, you are not reading my comments in the light they were given. I have tried my best to clarify where you seem to be interpreting them differently, like YMT did with me, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere, so I'm going to just have to let that go.
We'll see what other opinions are on this, but I would certainly like to see this minor update to the rule so that it reads "that target heroes or Lost Souls" for what does not convert.
-
You seem to continue to move past the point being made that evil abilities targeting souls are not hero-like and should not be converted.
It seems to me that in saying this you are discounting something Christ commanded the disciples to do. In these YMT's two examples you are putting an unreceptive (un-winable) LS behind you (in your territory) and moving on to try to redeem a LS that can be won (transferring one of yours into their territory). Is this not what Christ was commanding be done in Mark 6:11? How would this not be Hero-like?
-
Wow... we haven't had a good debate like this in years... :o ... ;D
FWIW MJB, I do not question Redoubter's sincerity in not intending to disregard my examples. I think we just had some misunderstandings. No worries. ;D
I am interested in other Elders' input. I will simply end with my vote to not change the current ruling that converted EC SAs cannot target a hero. I would rather have annoying backfires on a couple ECs, than to lose the plethora of possibilities associated with conversions of other EC SAs. I also would rather not take away Soul Swappers and the like, just to appease Soul Protectors. ;)
-
Personally I don't see a need to change the current rule.
-
You seem to continue to move past the point being made that evil abilities targeting souls are not hero-like and should not be converted.
I am moving past this point, because I do not believe that it correct. I understand that you have asserted this to be true, but just because you claim something as fact does not make it so. Let me clarify...
I agree that we have an example that appears to support your argument (even that is iffy--if certain lost souls can be protected even from the Son of God, why should any given hero be able to rescue any particular lost soul?). That being said, there are three additional items related to this that touch on a possible ruling...
First, while there is an example that supports your contention, YMT has provided multiple examples where a converted EC ability targeting a lost soul seems to be *very* hero-like. Was YMT's analysis incorrect or does your single example outweigh the multiple examples he provided?
Second, there are other converted EC abilities (my example was Fortress Search and Play) that have edge case examples that hinder rescuing lost souls. Should those abilities also be considered "not hero-like" and prevented from converting--why or why not?
Lastly, even *if* one accepts your underlying assertion at face value, there is an opportunity cost to making rule changes. Adding confusion to experienced players/hosts, complicating the learning curve for new players, etc. If someone is arguing in favor of a rule change they need to make a positive argument in favor of it (i.e., an argument where the benefits to the game are shown to be greater than the drawbacks). Why is this a particular issue significant enough (either now or in the future) that it warrants all of the added costs of making a rule change?
I disagree with your current argument insofar as I understand it. I admit that it is possible that I have simply misunderstood you. It is, however, hard for me to tell whether I have misunderstood you or not because I have not seen you *meaningfully* address any of the three issues raised above. Simply answering the questions that conclude the previous three paragraphs would greatly clarify the matter.
FWIW MJB, I do not question Redoubter's sincerity in not intending to disregard my examples. I think we just had some misunderstandings. No worries. ;D
I also do not doubt Redoubter's sincerity. Your examples are, however, direct counter-examples to his underlying premise, and I feel that it is worth pointing out that Redoubter still has *not* addressed them.
-
You seem to continue to move past the point being made that evil abilities targeting souls are not hero-like and should not be converted.
It seems to me that in saying this you are discounting something Christ commanded the disciples to do. In these YMT's two examples you are putting an unreceptive (un-winable) LS behind you (in your territory) and moving on to try to redeem a LS that can be won (transferring one of yours into their territory). Is this not what Christ was commanding be done in Mark 6:11? How would this not be Hero-like?
I like the logic argument there, but we also have plenty of examples of not giving up on the unrighteous to do other things. Acts 18 with Paul is a perfect example, where he is literally shaking the dust and about to leave an unreceptive audience, yet God does not want them to be ignored and Paul ended up staying a year and a half. Or all of Hosea works, even if most of that is supposed to be figurative. Or multiple parables about focusing on and caring about the one lost person at the expense of everything else. That's a fun debate to have though, I like that counterpoint :)
Based on abilities already printed and the precedents there, though, I have always argued that soul manipulation of this sort should be exclusive to EC, which is also why I advocate changing the rule here (which I have also said multiple times, MJB, addressing the YMT examples throughout). I also advocate for a subjective rule so that we don't have to pick and choose among those abilities that target souls (like in the old days).
-
Based on abilities already printed and the precedents there, though, I have always argued that soul manipulation of this sort should be exclusive to EC, ...
This is where we will have to agree to disagree. Although it has been primarily given to ECs as a SA, I think soul manipulation is an awesome hero ability that helps the rescuer, which I will always support for the sake of new and young players. Getting locked out of rescues because you do not have a N.T. Female that is */4 or greater is annoying for beginners. ;)
-
Based on abilities already printed and the precedents there, though, I have always argued that soul manipulation of this sort should be exclusive to EC,
We have a good dominant (Harvest Time), multiple heroes (e.g., Faithful Servant, Paladin, the Fighter, Angel of Deliverance), and good enhancements (e.g., Wedding Party) that specifically target lost souls. Moreover, abilties such as the ones found on Faithful Servant (promo) and Paladin, the Fighter are protect abilities that target lost souls.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "soul manipulation of this sort."
-
Based on abilities already printed and the precedents there, though, I have always argued that soul manipulation of this sort should be exclusive to EC,
We have a good dominant (Harvest Time), multiple heroes (e.g., Faithful Servant, Paladin, the Fighter, Angel of Deliverance), and good enhancements (e.g., Wedding Party) that specifically target lost souls. Moreover, abilties such as the ones found on Faithful Servant (promo) and Paladin, the Fighter are protect abilities that target lost souls.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "soul manipulation of this sort."
We don't have evil abilities that search out souls to add them to play or protect them from evil cards (obviously on the latter). We do have evil abilities that protect souls from rescue or manipulate souls (placing them on/in decks, moving them around, etc.). I really am not sure why I have to define what I mean by 'soul manipulation of this sort' when it is clear that there are very different things that target souls from a good and evil side. You prove that with your own examples.
-
You have to define it because it's a completely subjective, opinion-based definition. You think that soul manipulation like exchanging is solely an evil ability, other people disagree. You think a change should be made to the rules because of your opinion despite the fact that people have shown you examples of why this would be more of a detriment to creativity and options than a help. Rules shouldn't ever have subjective aspects or be based on any one person's individual opinion. I thought that was why the "harm" aspect of the rule was finally removed?
Discarding a hero, that's easily determined as inherently evil. Discarding a lost soul, that's also inherently evil. Discarding an EC, that's inherently good (though perhaps shouldn't be, see my note below about withdraw). Exchanging lost souls/heroes? That could be evil or good (or even neutral, see Stalks of Flax). Just because an ability is more often found on an EC than a Hero doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently an evil ability. I believe there were more cards (at least prior to I/J) that were evil and withdrew heroes than were good and withdrew evil characters. Does this mean withdraw is an inherently evil ability? Nope. I would, in fact, argue the opposite: that thematically withdraw makes more sense as a hero ability than an evil ability because the hero would be more likely to end the conflict (battle) non-violently (via returning the EC to territory rather than killing/removing them) and show God's grace.
TL;DR: While some things (demons, angels, heretics, magicians, discarding opposite alignment, etc) are obviously aligned one way or another, there are a lot of abilities in Redemption that don't inherently have an alignment either way. If any change to a rule is to be made it should be based on the necessity for a change as well as the change that makes the most logical sense apart from subjective opinion. Since there is disagreement over what constitutes "harming" a hero/lost soul I would vote in favor of not making a change at this time until if/when a better definition can be determined.
-
You have to define it because it's a completely subjective, opinion-based definition. You think that soul manipulation like exchanging is solely an evil ability, other people disagree.
This is actually my point. We used to have a subjective rule about what counted as 'hero-like' and it changed based on who was looking at it (I would look at soul-swaps as not hero-like, while others would see it as more vague or not applicable). This is why the rule changed in the first place.
Based on the fact that we have plenty of cards that target souls in purely evil ways (protecting them from rescue alone we have more than a couple handful, not even counting the card that started this). Instead of something subjective, a blanket rule about targeting is far better.
Uzzah and the whole mess of heretics have an evil ability. That's pretty clear and I'm not sure could be up for debate. I'd rather not go case-by-case like the old way and make a blanket rule. If you're suggesting that something about that is subjective, I'll need your help getting to the same place you are.
-
Why is this even being discussed?
It's such a niche case, why does it matter?
-
While this particular case is niche (and highly unlikely to even happen since we're talking about double conversion), the issue of EC abilities converting at all is worth discussion.
For the record, I think we are in a good place with the ruling that EC abilities that target a Hero (which unfortunately has to include banding) do not convert.
BTW, if you're in town on break, you and your Dad should come to the tournament tomorrow, would be great to see you guys! :)
-
If you're suggesting that something about that is subjective, I'll need your help getting to the same place you are.
It's subjective because you want to change the rule to target additional abilities based on your opinion that most/all abilities targeting lost souls are evil. That's my point. I agree that your suggestion for the new rule is sufficiently blanketing and not inherently subjective in and of itself, but your reasoning for wanting to change it to that is what is subjective.
For the record, I think we are in a good place with the ruling that EC abilities that target a Hero (which unfortunately has to include banding) do not convert.
I agree with this.
-
That's my point. I agree that your suggestion for the new rule is sufficiently blanketing and not inherently subjective in and of itself, but your reasoning for wanting to change it to that is what is subjective.
My reasoning is that evil abilities that target souls are just that, evil, and should not convert. I'm still not understanding how protecting lost souls from rescue or removing them from play should remain if an EC is converted. If you want to argue about soul manipulation in play, then fine I can have a discussion on that. But to say my reasoning is somehow flawed when I'm pointing out cards like Uzzah and Creeping as justification is baffling. And it makes no sense.
-
uzzah is a horrible example. He has a may ability so you have to choose to use it in order for it to activate; if you choose to use a converted Uzzah's ability while making a RA with him you are either a very new player, and I would hope that after your opponent pointed out your mistake he/she would let you take it back, or you deserve what results...
-
That's my point. I agree that your suggestion for the new rule is sufficiently blanketing and not inherently subjective in and of itself, but your reasoning for wanting to change it to that is what is subjective.
My reasoning is that evil abilities that target souls are just that, evil, and should not convert. I'm still not understanding how protecting lost souls from rescue or removing them from play should remain if an EC is converted. If you want to argue about soul manipulation in play, then fine I can have a discussion on that. But to say my reasoning is somehow flawed when I'm pointing out cards like Uzzah and Creeping as justification is baffling. And it makes no sense.
I never said your reasoning was flawed, just subjective. You think certain abilities are inherently evil, others disagree, just that and nothing more. Your opinion leads you to the conclusion that we should add "abilities that target lost souls" to the list of evil character abilities that don't convert. Others think the current "abilities that target Heroes" is sufficient for evil character abilities that don't convert. All I'm saying is that there is room for different interpretations, it's not as cut-and-dry as you're seeming to think it is.
Personally, I feel that both positions are at least somewhat valid but I don't think your position has enough urgency or necessity to actually warrant a changing of the rule. The rules shouldn't be changed casually (especially when adding clauses and/or making them more complicated) and I really don't see anything at this juncture that your change would solve that would break the game if the change isn't made.
However, I can accept that you disagree, and I will abide by whatever decision ends up being made by the Elders.
-
Just chiming in here
I'm with Chris on this one. If the goal (Which I feel it is) is to bring in new players, simpler rules are inherently better. Having no abilities convert is about a simple as it gets. The other option is that all abilities convert, technically that's simpler as it doesn't involve explaining why the ability doesn't convert, but I get that having certain abilities convert doesn't make sense.
-
I think the idea of nixing all converted EC abilities is a terrible idea. It will kill self-conversion as a strategy for all but Paul.
Sure. It will kill a strategy in a game that is growing less and less popular with each passing day. Part of the reason for that is that there's little reason for a 14 year old to pick up the game when there are mainstream alternatives that are a lot simpler to learn. Think about it: To be even remotely competent with G/H decks, you have to memorize a couple dozen different terms and rules minimum, a lot of which are needlessly complicated because of the lack of a solid foundation when Redemption was originally founded. Anything that simplifies rules that aren't a part of the core mechanics of the game, no matter how minor, is a win, because it's making the game more accessible. Simpler is better. Either allow all abilities to convert or no abilities to convert, and since the former will never happen because of ideological issues, that only leaves none. I love converting Proud Pharisee as much as the next guy, but at this point, I would rather see rule changes that encourage longevity of the game.
-
Just chiming in here
I'm with Chris on this one. If the goal (Which I feel it is) is to bring in new players, simpler rules are inherently better. Having no abilities convert is about a simple as it gets. The other option is that all abilities convert, technically that's simpler as it doesn't involve explaining why the ability doesn't convert, but I get that having certain abilities convert doesn't make sense.
The problem there is that we not only get away from the thematic element of wanting to have EC converted, but we also take away even more power from a recently-printed dominant, Namaan, technically The Roman Jailer (just printed), and more characters I can't think of at the moment.
Removing all abilities does not make sense based on the decisions that have been made on card design and thematic elements in the game.
-
For those not aware of the history, I just want to clear up a misconception that seems to have taken root in this thread...
The "what types of SAs convert" rule changed when it was recognized that there were certain abilities (specifically the suicide abilities) whose conversion could no longer be forbidden based on their "goodness/evilness" but that they didn't want to allow to occur for game play purposes. It was decided at that time to completely throw out the thematic basis for deciding which abilities converted in favor of making that decision solely based on game mechanics/balance.
This whole discussion of the inherent evilness of certain SAs is really beside the point.
Simpler is better. Either allow all abilities to convert or no abilities to convert, and since the former will never happen because of ideological issues, that only leaves none.
And by "allow all abilities to convert" do you mean both evil => good conversion and good => evil conversion?
-
Just chiming in here
I'm with Chris on this one. If the goal (Which I feel it is) is to bring in new players, simpler rules are inherently better. Having no abilities convert is about a simple as it gets. The other option is that all abilities convert, technically that's simpler as it doesn't involve explaining why the ability doesn't convert, but I get that having certain abilities convert doesn't make sense.
The problem there is that we not only get away from the thematic element of wanting to have EC converted, but we also take away even more power from a recently-printed dominant, Namaan, technically The Roman Jailer (just printed), and more characters I can't think of at the moment.
Removing all abilities does not make sense based on the decisions that have been made on card design and thematic elements in the game.
So?
-
And by "allow all abilities to convert" do you mean both evil => good conversion and good => evil conversion?
I meant all conversion, including good to evil and evil to good. And in fact, in thinking about it again, I don't even think allowing all abilities to convert is even the right call either. I think simply saying "Characters converted to the opposite alignment have no special abilities" is the best way to go about this. It's short, sweet, and above all, simple. Will it neuter some strategies and cards? Yep. Will it completely retcon a few cards - even ones printed in the last few months? Yep. Do I think either of these arguments are enough to outweigh the advantages of elegant simplicity? Nope.
-
I might agree with elegant simplicity if this one change would actually make a difference or was the only thing complicated about the game. Making one thing simpler does not make the game simple. It's a complex game and for me (and many others) the complex interaction of abilities is what makes it fun.
Maybe the time will come when Rob is okay with removing older cards from the official tournament card pool thus beginning to reduce the complexity that older cards tend to create. Until that time comes though, saying that "EC abilities convert except for those that target a Hero" is really not all that complicated.
-
I might agree with elegant simplicity if this one change would actually make a difference or was the only thing complicated about the game. Making one thing simpler does not make the game simple. It's a complex game and for me (and many others) the complex interaction of abilities is what makes it fun.
"Easy to learn, difficult to master" is a phrase that really ought to describe a CCG that's primarily being marketed to a demographic comprised of children and teens. Redemption is anything but easy to learn. Look at other CCGs being marketed towards a similar demographic: Hearthstone, Pokemon, Yugioh. All games that a 14 year old can pick up and be mildly proficient in in 15 minutes. All of them filled with complex strategy. I've had the advantage to see Redemption taught to little kids and soccer moms for about 5 years at Creation, and it's complicated to learn and teach. I'm all for complexity in rulesets (the Game of Thrones board game, which takes at least an hour to teach, is one of my favorite games right now), but this is a game whose money gets made from 14 year olds. Requiring memorization of a couple dozen definitions just to get through one game is a lot. Short of trimming down those definitions and reworking the entire rule set (which will never happen), the best thing we can do is work to simply as much as possible. Simplifying this one ability does not do much on it's own, but it is, I believe, a start, and a pretty good one, considering the fact that the Early Church made conversion a much more prominent ability than it has been traditionally, especially to new players who don't have access to Holy Grail. I think a major focus of the leadership needs to be simplifying anything that can be to make the game more accessible, because at the moment, it isn't. Changing this one ability won't make the game simpler on it's own, but no single snowflake is responsible for the avalanche either.
"EC abilities convert except for those that target a Hero" is really not all that complicated.
It's not just that though, it's also the already-established stipulation that Heroes who are converted to Evil Characters do not retain their abilities. Then you throw in Evil Characters converted to Heroes do retain their abilities, except for abilities that target Heroes. Conversion now has three clauses to memorize (Converted Heroes don't retain abilities, Converted ECs do retain abilities, EC abilities which target Heroes do not get retained), when it really could only be just one.
-
Just as an aside, I played DJWeb in T2 today and the reason for the question in the first place was a pretty cool combo idea (if Hero abilities converted).
Use LOA to convert Joseph to a Heretic. If Joseph's ability converted, you would then have a 2/2 Heretic who could protect a NT Lost Soul from rescue and was protected from discard. 8)
-
Just as an aside, I played DJWeb in T2 today and the reason for the question in the first place was a pretty cool combo idea (if Hero abilities converted).
Use LOA to convert Joseph to a Heretic. If Joseph's ability converted, you would then have a 2/2 Heretic who could protect a NT Lost Soul from rescue and was protected from discard. 8)
I actually wasn't asking about Joseph's ability converting, I assumed that would transfer like from ECs to Heroes. I just didn't know if the ability was negateable or would reset in deck or hand. Good thing it didn't come to that in the game.
If my opinion means anything, I think all abilities should transfer both ways except the ones that target heroes. It just makes sense to me. If the goal is to make the game simpler to learn, there's probably a lot better places to start than this issue.