Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Lamborghini_diablo on August 20, 2010, 12:49:02 AM
-
Can Matthew recur Authority of Christ (Promo)?
I was talking with Isildur, and he said it could not because theres no reference written ON AoCP itself. However, I said Matthew only specifies a Good Matthew enhancement, not that a Matthew reference is written on the card.
I'd like to hear from some playtesters/elders about this, as Isildur said it wasn't supposed to recur AoCP, just AoC.
Matthew (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 7 / 7 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may draw up to X cards (limit 3) or search discard pile for a good Enhancement with a Matthew reference and place it beneath deck. • Play As: You may draw up to X cards (limit 3) or search discard pile for a good Matthew enhancement and place it beneath deck. • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Disciple • Verse: Luke 6:13-16 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
Authority of Christ (P)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard all Evil Characters in play. May not be interrupted, negated, or prevented. • Play As: Discard all Evil Characters in play. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Matthew 8:27 • Availability: Promotional cards (2001 National Tournament)
-
No, Isildur's reason is correct on why you can not recur it.
-
why is that?
its matthew?
-
It does not have a reference on the card (see Warriors Might of Angels vs. The Book of Life for a similar situation).
-
So N.T. promo ECs would not be discarded by Book of Life? that seems stupid to me.
-
That is correct, because it discards all ECs with an NT reference, which is defined as having an NT book on the card. I am unsure of Nero and other Jospehus cards which are considered NT are treated by it.
-
neither card specifies reference. They just say N.T. Evil characters. If you look in the identifiers list for every N.T. evil character, it says N.T.
-
Is this from the REG?
Authority of Christ (P)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard all Evil Characters in play. May not be interrupted, negated, or prevented. • Play As: Discard all Evil Characters in play. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Matthew 8:27 • Availability: Promotional cards (2001 National Tournament)
-
Interesting, I had forgotten the on the card part of the ability of Might of Angels. I may be wrong. Wait for someone higher than me to approve of my answer.
-
The Book of Life (Wa)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: 3 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard all New Testament Evil Characters in play. • Identifiers: NT, Based on Prophecy • Verse: Revelation 20:12 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Rare)
Might of Angels (Wa)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard all Evil Characters in play having a New Testament reference on card. • Identifiers: NT, Based on Prophecy, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: II Thessalonians 1:7-8 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Rare)
Actually, if you look there you'll see that the two cards do have a difference.
Might of Angels cannot discard Nero, and Matthew cannot recur AoCP.
-
Yes JSB, that quote is from the REG.
-
Matthew does not specify on the card though, which is why I have some confusion.
-
It says reference. AoCP does not have a matthew reference. It doesn't have a reference at all.
We talked about it during playtesting, and the concensus was that he cannot recur AoCP.
-
Yes he can because AoCP is listed as a Mathew enhancement in the REG
If Mathew said...
"Search discard pile for a good enhancement with a Matthew reference and place it beneath deck"
then RDT would be correct
-
Yes he can because AoCP is listed as a Mathew enhancement in the REG
If Mathew said...
"Search discard pile for a good enhancement with a Matthew reference and place it beneath deck"
then RDT would be correct
... that's exactly what Matthew's SA is.
-
You're partially correct but once we look at the play as we see....
"Play As: You may draw up to X cards (limit 3) or search discard pile for a good Matthew enhancement and place it beneath deck."
-
I'm the official score keeper for this thread.
JSB: 1
Everyone else: 0
__________
But, the play-as wasn't given to clarify or change the SA. It means nothing, it was just used for linking purposes in the REG.
__________
Rawrlolsauce!: 1
JSB: -1
Everyone Else: 0
-
That, along with almost every play as currently in the REG, is just there to auto-link to terms. It is not a change to Matthew's SA.
I think they need a new term for a Play As that's really just for linking. It's too confusing to call it a play as.
edit: Instaposted by Rawrlolsauce!
-
It says reference. AoCP does not have a matthew reference. It doesn't have a reference at all.
We talked about it during playtesting, and the concensus was that he cannot recur AoCP.
Thats the same thing Bryon said in playtesting.
-
Of course one could argue that because it is has a Mathew reference in the REG entry it still counts....
(I hope I'm wrong)
-
SCORING UPDATE:
Rawrlolsauce!: 1
JSB: -1
Whoever -1'd my last post: -1 (unless it was JSB or I, then it'd be -2 and 0 respectively)
Everyone else: 0
-
As a note, the REG's list of Matthew enhancements includes the promo version of Authority of Christ (as well as the older versions).
-
Also note that the Reg has verses for Saul and Paul ::) lol. Where it got those verses from I have no idea.
-
And it lists Seeker of the Lost as Luke. o_0
-
Isaiah
7/8 Green Brigade Hero
Search deck for the current REG and discard it, because it's totally irrelevant.
verse: "The new REG is coming!" Isaiah 9001:1
-
May use Dukem Nukem forever regardless of brigade
-
may retain a Time for Treason as a weapon
-
Negate this card if "byLenis" appears anywhere in the room (including on this card)
-
and i would say for gameplay purposes, AoC(p) has a Matthew reference.
-
Can not be negated if Jericho the movie is in play
-
A Matthew enhancement is an enhancement with a Matthew reference. AoCp has no reference. Therefore, AoCp is not a Matthew enhancement.
Duke Nukem: 1
People who pretend that the word Matthew appears on a card: 0
-
AoCp has no reference. Therefore, AoCp is not a Matthew enhancement.
A New Beginning has no "remove this card from the game to" on it. Therefore, ANB doesn't remove itself from the game.
I thought that was what the REG was for, among other things: to clarify things that, for whatever reason, aren't directly printed on cards. I understand why it would be very bad to be able to recur AoCP, but it makes things very inconsistent overall (and gives unwritten protect effects to any characters without printed references) when cards that don't have printed references are outside of time and space. I never understood why those promos didn't get their references (they do have references, they just don't have "printed" references) printed on them to begin with.
-
Once again, another argument that would be fixed with simple consistency...if the original card had a reference, the promo card should also have a reference, end of story. Was this done specifically because the playtesters were too scared of seeing a recurring AoCp?...with all of the other craziness in this set, I would argue that's the LEAST of their concerns...
-
Once again, another argument that would be fixed with simple consistency...if the original card had a reference, the promo card should also have a reference, end of story. Was this done specifically because the playtesters were too scared of seeing a recurring AoCp?...with all of the other craziness in this set, I would argue that's the LEAST of their concerns...
So, if I'm playing Emperors / Any NT character without a reference on it I can't use Herod's temple's effect on them?
Worst. Ruling. Ever.
-
it is a pretty horrible ruling. matthew doesnt say to search for an enhancement with a matthew reference on the card. it says to search for a ge with a matthew reference. according to the REG, aocp has a matthew reference. if it doesnt, then it needs to be removed from the REG.
-
The key to all of this is the word reference. That means that the card has a Book/Chapter/Verse in the scripture box on the card.
So, if I'm playing Emperors / Any NT character without a reference on it I can't use Herod's temple's effect on them?
Herod's Temple does not use the word reference so any NT character will qualify, whether or not there is a NT reference on the card.
matthew doesnt say to search for an enhancement with a matthew reference on the card.
On the card is redundant and not needed. Where else are you going to look for a card's reference? In the REG? Sheesh! ::) :laugh:
-
'on [the] card' is most certainly not redundant, for the exact reason of might of angels/book of life.
-
I would argue that consistancy is needed, but that isn't the goal of redemption, so I'll stick with childish insults in capslock.
A Matthew enhancement is an enhancement with a Matthew reference. AoCp has no reference. Therefore, AoCp is not a Matthew enhancement.
Duke Nukem Forever: Soon
People who pretend that the word Matthew appears on my face: -9001
YOUR FACE DOESN'T HAVE A REFERENCE.
On the card is redundant and not needed. Where else are you going to look for a card's reference? In the REG? Sheesh! ::) :laugh:
Thats the first place I look for things anymore, and It would be better to just play things like they say on the card since the reg is so misleading, my ANBs no longer remove themselves from the game.
-
the answer is NO.
just face it. there is no easy was to recur AOCP.
I know it is sad but oh well for u.
-
Where else are you going to look for a card's reference? In the REG? Sheesh! ::) :laugh:
If rulings can/should be made using only the information printed on cards then all erratas are useless and do not apply. If the REG is acceptable for rulings but not for "references" then the inapplicable information should be removed as it is useless and does not apply (what's the point in AoCP having a "reference" if it cannot be targeted, affected, or even considered using that information?). Either way, the status quo is not where it should be.
-
AoCp has no errata. I have no idea why it has a reference added to it in the REG. It should not be there.
Some cards in Redemption have no reference. The end.
-
...because it has a reference?
-
Some cards in Redemption have no reference. The end.
That seems odd for a card game purported to be based on the Bible.
-
Why would references be added to those cards in the REG on purpose if they aren't ever supposed to be used or noticed or mentioned? I mean, obviously it was deliberate (the REG update thread even notes, "A few cards do not have verses printed on the text. The following texts have been given to them and will appear in the REG card descriptions..."), so I'm a bit lost.
-
Im really wondering right now why so many people want a Matt. Reference to be on Aocp do you guys REALLY want to make aocp that much more op'd?
-
Why would references be added to those cards in the REG on purpose if they aren't ever supposed to be used or noticed or mentioned? I mean, obviously it was deliberate (the REG update thread even notes, "A few cards do not have verses printed on the text. The following texts have been given to them and will appear in the REG card descriptions..."), so I'm a bit lost.
I'm guesing that years ago, Mike thought it would be nice to have that so that players could know what story the card is based on. Maybe so they could look it up and read about it. He could have just as easily listed Mark 8 or Luke 8 (and then we wouldn't be having this discussion... yet).
But it is NOT errata. It is not an official part of the card. It will not appear in the new REG, so that it does not cause confusion. Treat it currently as a way to kook up the story, and nothing more. It is not an official addition to the card, just like the Luke reference in the Seeker of the Lost entry is not official.
-
I don't know why this is such a big deal because with one of the new disciples, the AoC becomes the AoCP because it cannot be negated on him. Just recur that one instead because it does have a reference "on the card"...
-
Thomas + Aoc recursion FTW!
Man, now you let one of my cats out of its bag..... drat.
-
I don't know why this is such a big deal because with one of the new disciples, the AoC becomes the AoCP because it cannot be negated on him. Just recur that one instead because it does have a reference "on the card"...
Now you just have to use Chemosh on Thomas three times so he'll get initiative...
-
And there you go... :P
-
But then couldnt I use a copy of backwards shadow or brass serpent to reset your Thomas?
-
no! just use face of death after you have poisoned all other heroes.
-
well im glad we've got that settled (even if its for reasons i dont understand).
side battle with AoC (non promo) FTW
-
Matthew (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 7 / 7 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may draw up to X cards (limit 3) or search discard pile for a good Enhancement with a Matthew reference and place it beneath deck. • Play As: You may draw up to X cards (limit 3) or search discard pile for a good Matthew enhancement and place it beneath deck. • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Disciple • Verse: Luke 6:13-16 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
-
We all know the Play As says Matthew Enhancement. But a Play As doesn't actually change how cards work. It was made a Play As for linking reasons for the new cards in the new REG, but it doesn't change the fact that the card says Matthew reference.
-
But, the play-as wasn't given to clarify or change the SA. It means nothing, it was just used for linking purposes in the REG.
That, along with almost every play as currently in the REG, is just there to auto-link to terms. It is not a change to Matthew's SA.
I think they need a new term for a Play As that's really just for linking. It's too confusing to call it a play as.
-
I don't know why this is such a big deal because with one of the new disciples, the AoC becomes the AoCP because it cannot be negated on him. Just recur that one instead because it does have a reference "on the card"...
Paul works too....
-
genius moment.
get aoc back and play it on thomas!
yayame!
-
And its not really hard to recur AoCp, just mix white in, Then you have a deck that can use Disciples and TGT women (with TGT) and you can recur AOCp with Lost Coin Found or Moses and Elders, and you fix the problem with the Matthew reference.
-
And its not really hard to recur AoCp, just mix white in, Then you have a deck that can use Disciples and TGT women (with TGT) and you can recur AOCp with Lost Coin Found or Moses and Elders, and you fix the problem with the Matthew reference.
SHHHHHHHHHH you don let me secret out the bag xp
-
I for one found this discussion very interesting,
Now I know I can ignore what the REG says whenever it would be inconvenient for me
-
I for one found this discussion very interesting,
Now I know I can ignore what the REG says whenever it would be inconvenient for me
Opponent plays a battlewinner: "discard your dude."
JSB: "nope, the REG may list that card as having a special ability, but its actually a 2/2 no ability enhancement with no reference."
-
sad really- and we dont even care if its too powerful or not. just if we can count on the consistancy of the rules...i think its about security really. there are players that feel abandoned by thier game. with statements as JSB's above
whenever it would be inconvenient for me
peolpe just want to know they can be given a certain perimeter to function and even a little scolding if they push the boundries too far. aka 16 card hand limit, one side battle per turn per player, remove card instead (and dont even get me going on the new instead abilities) character cant be immune to self (does this include protects as well?)- but to be given a certain perimeter and then shorten it suddenly without even a good explanation? well it sort of feels like what a dog would suffer, when its leash is jerked to hard by its master- a little hard to swallow, if you will. :)
-
I'm sorry you feel jerked around by your misinterpretaion of a mysterious REG entry.
AoCp has no reference, and has never had errata to give it one.
The answer to this question has been answered conssistently by every elder on this thread. It has been ruled the same way all the way from inception, through playtesting until this very moment. Nothing has changed. If you feel jerked around, it is because you thought that something was added to AoCp when it wasn't. It is a simple misunderstanding. Those "in case you want to look it up" references will be removed from the REG in the next update.
-
Just for fun and because I'm not veteran enough to have seen this type of ruling, but, does AOCP usurp fortresses? I mean, I don't see why everyone's so "AOCP is way op'd" because if my Headquarters at Riblah is protecting my territory based Babs, then there isn't too much to worry about. ::) If a card is absolutely unstoppable by any means, THEN I say the card MIGHT be Op'd. Just my curious non-caring 2 cents. <<Please don't get offended or over-excited about my opinion because I just see it simply as a game. If my peeps get the boot, then that tells me to keep at least 1 character in hand (Preferably one who can get some of my posse back from the mausoleum).
-C_S
-
I'm sorry you feel jerked around by your misinterpretaion of a mysterious REG entry.
misinterpetation? how can you possibly misinterpret something that is blatantly there? as for 'mysterious', i raise the hogwash flag. the original had the matthew verse. it stands to logically reason that the verse was put in the reg for aocp because it is the verse.
-
I'm sorry you feel jerked around by your misinterpretaion of a mysterious REG entry.
misinterpetation? how can you possibly misinterpret something that is blatantly there? as for 'mysterious', i raise the hogwash flag. the original had the matthew verse. it stands to logically reason that the verse was put in the reg for aocp because it is the verse.
It's a misinterpretation because you think the REG still means something
-
I'm sorry you feel jerked around by your misinterpretaion of a mysterious REG entry.
misinterpetation? how can you possibly misinterpret something that is blatantly there? as for 'mysterious', i raise the hogwash flag. the original had the matthew verse. it stands to logically reason that the verse was put in the reg for aocp because it is the verse.
It's a misinterpretation because you think the REG still means something
You mean the 'GER' as in "GERRRRRRRR, it's so frustrating!!!!" (Only because it seems like the REG/GER frustrates you... frankly, I just go by what's said on the boards.)
-
The vocal minority on these boards whines far too much. :preach:
You've got your ruling. A few of you don't like it. We get it. :thumbup:
It's just a card game folks. Time to move on with your life. :prayer: