No, your artifact pile is not an unknown location to you (you literally can pick it up and look at it whenever you want, afaik) so it would not require any kind of search since you already know the order and contents.
No, your artifact pile is not an unknown location to you (you literally can pick it up and look at it whenever you want, afaik) so it would not require any kind of search since you already know the order and contents.And the second question? Also, I put things in the Discard pile, so the contents and order *are* known to me, especially if I have an unusually good memory.
Then it appears that the real conversation we need to have is why we don't allow players to look at their discard pile whenever they want (as in other games).I honestly don't know why we can't, tbh. It would make things a lot simpler (and would undo a lot of the "implied searches" that people are so up-in-arms about).
And the second question? Also, I put things in the Discard pile, so the contents and order *are* known to me, especially if I have an unusually good memory.Congratulations on having a better-than-average memory, but in the game of Redemption the discard pile is not considered a known location, regardless of any individual player's ability to remember what is in there and/or the order.
For the first question, but it is an implied "look at" ability, then, since the player is looking at face-down cards because of a special ability? If we're giving a special ability other special abilities because they perform the action described by the English word "search" (yes, when you heal you technically "search" your Discard, but Heal and Search used to be two distinct, well-understood abilities in Redemption), should we not make every ability a look at ability when it looks at an unrevealed card? Doesn't Search have an implied "look" ability since you have to look at the cards while you're searching?
All this conflation of Healing does is add completely unnecessary convolution with no positives.
There's no exception for Heal. Heal always has been, and should be returned to just being its own ability that does things that sometimes other abilities also do, but is not actually any of those abilities itself. There are no "implied" special abilities, there never have been. You are exactly right, Heal and Exchange should not have a search. In fact, Nazereth has not stopped Exchange from working since it came out. "Implied search" is a brand new phrase that serves no positive purpose and reverses decades of easy, problem-free understanding of how Heal works, again, for no reason.
No, your artifact pile is not an unknown location to you (you literally can pick it up and look at it whenever you want, afaik) so it would not require any kind of search since you already know the order and contents.This is actually incorrect, so a lot of the thread after this point may need to be revisited by those who posted:
A search ability targets the deck, discard pile, or Artifact pile viewed by the player who used the ability, as well as the card(s) that the player performs the action with.Meal is a search of artifact pile by the definition of search.
...
An ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes an implied searchof the pile for the target.
There are no "implied" special abilities, there never have been.This isn't true, it's listed in the REG under Search (as well as the most common culprit, Exchange):
An ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes an implied searchof the pile for the target.
An exchange ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes a searchof the pile for the target.The phrase "implied search" is not new, and the concept is not new either. It was realized that it also applied to Heal, because Heal targets a card in discard pile that is not a specific location (such as "top card of discard pile"); by definition, that is a search, hence the ruling.
In fact, Nazereth has not stopped Exchange from working since it came out.Also not true. 2015 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/naz-and-exchange/) and 2014 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/questions-about-searching/) for some recent threads, but since I doubt that will satisfy everyone, we can go all the way back to 2010 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/does-nazareth-stop-exchange-abilities/msg359861/#msg359861) (with different Judges). That's always been the ruling.
"Implied search" is a brand new phrase that serves no positive purpose and reverses decades of easy, problem-free understanding of how Heal works, again, for no reason.You're set on the "heal" part of this, but the phrase is not new at all. Looks like it was in the old REG (1.0.2), and was also used as the basis of the ruling above back in 2010. It has been around for a long, long time, it just was not applied properly to Heal (there also wasn't a whole lot of healing going on until recently, comparatively).
so uzzah is a search ability which would also trigger music leader
No, your artifact pile is not an unknown location to you (you literally can pick it up and look at it whenever you want, afaik) so it would not require any kind of search since you already know the order and contents.This is actually incorrect, so a lot of the thread after this point may need to be revisited by those who posted:Quote from: REG 3.0.0 > Search > How to Play...ClarificationsA search ability targets the deck, discard pile, or Artifact pile viewed by the player who used the ability, as well as the card(s) that the player performs the action with.Meal is a search of artifact pile by the definition of search.
...
An ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes an implied searchof the pile for the target.
I don't know if I agree with this. Let's discuss.
Meal targets a card in Artifact Pile, which is not in a specific location in that pile, so by the current rules it is a search.
Meal targets a card in Artifact Pile, which is not in a specific location in that pile, so by the current rules it is a search.
This right here specifically is what I disagree with.
I think what a lot of people are having issues with, myself included,...
Naz and Music Leader are both likely to see play so it would be nice to know ahead of time how they will be ruled to work at Nats. Naz (apparently) has been ruled to stop Exchange so I assume it will continue to do so, but will ML then also trigger off exchange because it has the same wording as Naz?
Music Leader will trigger off an exchange to deck or discard pile ability.
I have not been to any tournaments this season (or even at all since the T2 only last year) to know how any groups have been ruling it, but I know myself and some others who have posted in threads in the last few months didn't think that ML would trigger off an exchange (or that Naz stopped exchange either). For me I know this was because of exactly what Noah explained above, that I didn't know "implied search" qualified certain non-"search" abilities as "search abilities."QuoteMusic Leader will trigger off an exchange to deck or discard pile ability.
Have people been playing that it doesn't? Pretty sure that in every game I've played in person or online this season everyone has been under the impression that an exchange to deck or discard is a search. If I exchange to hand (AutO to Gideon for example), that's not a search.
Does music leader trigger every time I change a different artifact since I have to search my artifact pile to find which one I want to activate
I have not been to any tournaments this season (or even at all since the T2 only last year) to know how any groups have been ruling it, but I know myself and some others who have posted in threads in the last few months didn't think that ML would trigger off an exchange (or that Naz stopped exchange either). For me I know this was because of exactly what Noah explained above, that I didn't know "implied search" qualified certain non-"search" abilities as "search abilities."I am also baffled why some think the Naz stopping Exchange is so universally understood. In all the tournaments I've been to since Naz's release (which, admittedly, is probably less than a dozen but most were big-ticket tournaments), and in all the people I've played on Lackey and RTS, I've never once heard of Naz stopping Exchange to deck and apparently neither had any of my opponents.
I think what a lot of people are having issues with, myself included,looking at it from this perspective, I totally agree with TripleplayNo3. I think that going off of what I know from playing Babs with Headquaters, Naz should only protect from specified search, while HSR would stop implied search as well, which says "No opponent may search any draw pile or discard pile" I would see that as stopping implied searches, but not Naz.
"Just because we've always done it that" way is horrible reasoning to continue on with a ruling that is being questioned by so many; so please, let's not rest on that as the sole reason not to change anything.
"Just because we've always done it that" way is horrible reasoning to continue on with a ruling that is being questioned by so many; so please, let's not rest on that as the sole reason not to change anything.
I'll ask you to point to where anyone has said "no we are not changing this because it is the way it has always been." We are giving the rules as they are right now, but we are constantly discussing what to do to make the game better.
The ruling being given is currently written out in the rulebook and has been for many years, so we aren't just saying "we're playing it like this because we say so."
We also cannot just simply change the rule without examining a lot of consequences. If Naz no longer stops exchange, or if cards specifically designed to allow "punishing" the use of cards that are heavy on the speedy exchange, then what is that going to do to the game? We've had untold pages of threads complaining about AutO, and yet that's what would get a huge buff if we decided to go change the way the rules current work and are written.
I'm not sure why this has suddenly become a huge issue for people, considering the ruling has been well-established for so long, but there are a few things those people with a problem with this need to understand:
- We are not ignoring any recommendations for changes or requests for rule changes.
- We cannot simply up and change this, or any, rule without major consequences.
- We are examining how changes to search, as well as many other things, could affect, benefit, or harm the game.
To claim that we're just trying to stifle the thoughts on this, or to say that "it's not changing because it's always been like this," is both incorrect and unfair to those who put a lot of work into this game.
"Just because we've always done it that" way is horrible reasoning to continue on with a ruling that is being questioned by so many; so please, let's not rest on that as the sole reason not to change anything.
I'll ask you to point to where anyone has said...
I never said that was your reason, I said please don't let status quo be the only reason.
...
What my point boils down to is "status quo" is a fine supporting argument, but IMO should not be your central argument.
As for saying that the Naz ruling is based on how the rules are written now, it would be better to say that the Naz ruling is based on an interpretation of how the rules are written since tripleplay pointed out a specific example of a ruling that seems to shine doubt on the current interpretation.
There is no shining of doubt because we are trying to compare things that are, by definition, different.
I haven't seen an inconsistency yet posted for situations that can actually be compared.
Dayne, I totally get where you're coming from and understand what you're saying. But I imagine the average player is going to read that and hear "status quo".
To the point you made Praeceps, as I pointed out, we're not talking about the same thing. "Discard abilities" means one thing, defined as "abilities that discard." "Search abilities" means another, defined as "abilities that search." Exchange to deck is included among "abilities that search."
So you are saying here for purposes of this discussion that exchange doesn't have an implied search ability, it just is a search ability that also does something more? Because if not I don't see how exchange can both be a search ability and not a search ability... (unless this is another "a captured character is a character that is captured he's just not a character" thing)
I think I might be understanding what you are saying, but why can there not be two abilities tied into the same effect? Look at Negate, for example; there, you have an Interrupt component, and a Prevent component, but that Prevent component isn't actually there on every Negate, correct? We have the same here. Not every Exchange is a Search, but when it meets the definition of a Search (that is, it targets a card not in a specified location in deck, discard, or artifact pile), then it is also a Search in addition to the normal components governing Exchange, the same way that Negate has an ongoing Prevent if it can target abilities on cards not yet activated.
Exchange is not Search, however, just like Negate is not Prevent, they do different things. They intersect at times, yes, but they are different abilities with different outcomes and different defaults and different conditions.
Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. But every square is still a square, and every rectangle is still a rectangle. Hopefully this makes a little more sense then? Or I've gotten closer to understanding what you mean?
#Geometry
If the above is pretty much correct, then I think most of us would be happy leaving Heal and Exchange as is (thus negating the necessity of an AUtO related meltdown of Redemption) if we could make the discard pile a Known Location thereby meaning that heal and exchange would no longer need a Search ability to interact with that pile. Would this be a more acceptable solution to the Redemption Leadership for the complaints raised by (some of) the Player Base?
Exchange is not Search, however, just like Negate is not Prevent, they do different things. They intersect at times, yes, but they are different abilities with different outcomes and different defaults and different conditions.Why are you able to use this logic far enough to get to the status quo, but not as far as the three people above me have gone into just recognizing the Heal is a different ability, Search is a different ability, and Exchange is a different ability, and while they may be looking at and moving cards around in overlapping piles at various times, are not actually subsets of or tacked onto each other. Certainly not if they're sometimes other abilities.
choose the rescuer/blocker (especially when the original character is protected from withdraw...because CTB/R has an implied withdraw probably?)
If any character in battle cannot be withdrawn by the choose opponent ability, then no character can be presented via that ability.
To me, it's more intuitive that CtB/R has a withdraw, because that's what you are doing. To choose a new blocker, you have to get rid of the original one first by withdrawing it.
To me, it's more intuitive that CtB/R has a withdraw, because that's what you are doing. To choose a new blocker, you have to get rid of the original one first by withdrawing it.
Unless you define CtB/R as their own ability.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but since Redemption makes its own rules, it could just define each unique "ability" as a unique ability. I.e. Exchanges are not Searches, because they are Exchanges. Heals are not Searches, because they are Heals. CtB is not a Withdraw, because it is a CtB. Sure, parts of some of these abilities do the same thing as other abilities, but if Redemption wanted, it could define each ability separately and, by default, declare that abilities are individualized and therefore do not contain other abilities; they just "are".
But for CtB/R, you are still "withdrawing" the character. Whether it counts as a withdraw ability or not, you are still performing the action of withdrawing. I'm not saying that if wouldn't work to have them as separate abilities, I just think it makes a bit more sense that when an ability does a withdraw (not the ability, the action) it counts as the withdraw ability.I have less issue with abilities that always include a component of another ability than I do with abilities that only sometimes contain other abilities. The former is consistent and clear, the latter is not.
But for CtB/R, you are still "withdrawing" the character. Whether it counts as a withdraw ability or not, you are still performing the action of withdrawing. I'm not saying that if wouldn't work to have them as separate abilities, I just think it makes a bit more sense that when an ability does a withdraw (not the ability, the action) it counts as the withdraw ability.I have less issue with abilities that always include a component of another ability than I do with abilities that only sometimes contain other abilities. The former is consistent and clear, the latter is not.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but since Redemption makes its own rules, it could just define each unique "ability" as a unique ability. I.e. Exchanges are not Searches, because they are Exchanges. Heals are not Searches, because they are Heals. CtB is not a Withdraw, because it is a CtB. Sure, parts of some of these abilities do the same thing as other abilities, but if Redemption wanted, it could define each ability separately and, by default, declare that abilities are individualized and therefore do not contain other abilities; they just "are".I really like this idea! It's so straightforward and simple. We would just need to print counters for things like exchange, add to battle, etc. – but that's fine! And Nazareth and Hezekiah Signet Ring would not be as powerful, which I personally think is a good thing.
I would be willing to sweeten the pot a bit by offering incentives for anyone who makes their way through each level (perhaps 5 levels including Host, Level 1 Judge, Level 2 Judge, Level 3 Judge, and Elite Judge).
This game can get a bit confusing sometimes.
All of that to say that I really think we need to work on putting together a training for hosts/judges to help them be more well equipped to teach the game and make rulings in a more consistent way.
In the thread about healing being an implied search the distinction was made that healing is not a search ability, and therefore music leader would not trigger when a character was healed. Why does music leader fire off an exchange?
The reason why CTR works with Agrippa is that Agrippa says if a hero withdraws, not if a withdraw ability is used. Yet I don't think anyone would rule that lies is able to be cbn off Praetorium.
If "discard" and "discard ability are different" then "search" and "search ability" should be too.
I actually disagree with the ruling. Heal includes an implicit search, just like exchange, but is not a "search ability" (neither is exchange). Music Leader specifies "draw or search ability" whereas Signet Ring simply restricts from "searching." A heal searches but is not a search ability so I would think that Signet Ring would restrict it but it would not trigger Music Leader.
You're correct that a heal does not trigger Music Leader because healing is not a search ability.
The point of my question was not specifically related to Music Leader, but to establish that healing a character in the discard pile requires an implied search.
What is the difference between looking and selecting a card and a search? Is it just the contents are made known to you by looking first? I'm just curious since that what searching in essence does.
I guess I'm just trying to figure out how to explain why heal is a search vice a look and select is part of it. I want to say it is cause the discard is not a known location or because the scope is the entire discard but I'm not sure. And in particular if the discard is ruled later to be viewed at any time and that makes it a known location does that change heal to no longer be a search. Just trying to follow the chain of logic to get to the ruling is all.What is the difference between looking and selecting a card and a search? Is it just the contents are made known to you by looking first? I'm just curious since that what searching in essence does.
This is a good question, and one that we've discussed among ourselves as well. There is indeed a difference in how the rules are worded now, because a "Look" or "Reveal" ability specifies targets that are in a particular location in deck, and then you act upon those cards. You are not viewing the deck and then acting upon a target; you already have cards revealed (either to one or all players) from the deck and are acting on those cards. It really is a scope of the available targeting that differentiates a Look/Reveal from a Search.
What is the difference between looking and selecting a card and a search? Is it just the contents are made known to you by looking first? I'm just curious since that what searching in essence does.
But certainly if music leader triggers off any search than Praetorium grants CTR cards CBN agaisnt N.T heroes.Since this hasn't specifically been replied to yet I want to draw attention to it. If we're ruling that things can trigger or restrict based on implied/additional-but-not-stated abilities, then it should be discussed/clarified about how other abilities react in the same situation. Example being Hobbit's one above, are any abilities that include an implied or additional withdraw then made CBN by Praetorium? Because if not then there's an inconsistency in how implied/additional abilities are being treated.
I got all that but was asking specifically about look with a select. And look affects more than just the deck. That's why I am being ambiguous. Deck, hand, artifact pile. Idk about discard. Yes look targets a location, part of deck, hand, artifact pile. But in essence a look with a select functions like a search. Search is limited to do, discard, artifact pile, but I'm just tryi mg to figure out the extent when something stops being a look and select vice a search. If a card was worded look through deck and select a good card it functions the same as search deck for a good card but doesn't say search so would this be an implied search, a look, or is there a limitation that look has that would prevent this ability from occurring that I am just missing? When it comes to heal targeting discard I am just trying to figure out why it is ruled as an implied search vice a look and select effect. Just looking for clarity is all.What is the difference between looking and selecting a card and a search? Is it just the contents are made known to you by looking first? I'm just curious since that what searching in essence does.
It is because for look, you are targeting a specific location in the deck (top or bottom X). Then, as you say, you then target a specific location, since you have seen them. The difference is that search doesn't target the whole deck. Just the card you are looking for. And I don't believe look has a stipulation that makes it so whenever you look at a card that is unknown it is called a look, so search wouldn't count as a look.
It's because when you play a heal, you are target a card that is in a location that isn't known to you in the discard pile. If it were a look, it would mean that you know where it is. There really isn't a difference in terms of the actions you take nor the English used to describe it. It just has to do with the whole targeting system that redemption uses.ok that at least answers part of my heal question. I'm still not sure why it was chosen to be one over the other if they are fundamentally the same? Im guessing game just based on how heal was worded in the reg? So I guess I'm just looking to find out the extent of look and select vice searching? Is it just semantics? And if so how does the process work for choosing semantics for an implied ability? Could something be an implied look and select vice a search? Can look affect an entire pile if that was it's specified location?
Can look affect an entire pile if that was it's specified location?John (Promo) looks at an entire draw pile, so yes. But he doesn't do anything else to it and returns it unshuffled.
Possibly because Search is more restrictive and more descriptive than Look. Look + Select isn't really a thing - Look just gives you the information, it's another ability that manipulates the cards (add to hand or battle, underdeck, etc.). So you'd really be implying 2 abilities, which would confuse things even more.I was thinking about divination in my remarks. It only affects a couple cards but it does look and select. I agree that a look and select through the draw pile is too much. Heal seems weird in that it's a search. You don't shuffle the discard after a heal. So it works like a look and select but is functions like search minus shuffling? So for at least for decks look + select really can't apply but for discards? I'm probably just being overly critical of it all here. And should move my question to a different topic.
It doesn't really apply to heal, but implying Search is safer than Look + whatever because Search shuffles, Look doesn't. Don't want to Look and pull something from deck and leave it in the same state, I think.QuoteCan look affect an entire pile if that was it's specified location?John (Promo) looks at an entire draw pile, so yes. But he doesn't do anything else to it and returns it unshuffled.
Possibly because Search is more restrictive and more descriptive than Look. Look + Select isn't really a thing - Look just gives you the information, it's another ability that manipulates the cards (add to hand or battle, underdeck, etc.). So you'd really be implying 2 abilities, which would confuse things even more.I was thinking about divination in my remarks. It only affects a couple cards but it does look and select. I agree that a look and select through the draw pile is too much. Heal seems weird in that it's a search. You don't shuffle the discard after a heal. So it works like a look and select but is functions like search minus shuffling? So for at least for decks look + select really can't apply but for discards? I'm probably just being overly critical of it all here. And should move my question to a different topic.
It doesn't really apply to heal, but implying Search is safer than Look + whatever because Search shuffles, Look doesn't. Don't want to Look and pull something from deck and leave it in the same state, I think.QuoteCan look affect an entire pile if that was it's specified location?John (Promo) looks at an entire draw pile, so yes. But he doesn't do anything else to it and returns it unshuffled.
Why are cards implied searches vice an implied look to make a location known, and then some selection process to do something with the card selected.
search itself has a selection element though as well so I'm not sure how that helps me. :/ I guess I feel if it doesn't shuffle it shouldn't be searching? Just feels like a look ability to me. But exchange gets weird under my logic cause if it's targeting the deck it searches but if it targets the discard it would be looking. I'll lay off with it though. Hopefully I'll gain some concrete clarity as to the distinct differences in time.QuoteWhy are cards implied searches vice an implied look to make a location known, and then some selection process to do something with the card selected.
Because Look + "Select" is 2 implied abilities, Search is 1. At least that's my view.
I don't have a problem with Heal being an implied Look. Besides Heal, there's a discussion on something like Sing and Praise (J) (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Sing_and_Praise_%28J%29) - is that a Search for all non-Heroes, or a Look and Remove all non-Heroes? That actually feels more like the recent Look abilities, since you're performing an action on multiple cards. You can Search for multiple cards, it just doesn't happen that often, I think.
I definitely think Exchange should stay an implied Search, because implying Search to deck and Look to discard just seems even more complicated.