Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Minister Polarius on November 01, 2009, 07:12:41 PM
-
Nebuchadnezzar says to add a Crimson card in your draw pile to battle if your opponent has no Daniel Heroes, CBN. Is there any reason why it wouldn't work as a Hero?
-
It conflicts with the theme of the game ::)
-
How does adding a character to battle conflict with the them of the game?
-
I thought it was ruled before that "Add to battle" with a character was the same as banding. A CTB ability must specifically say Choose the Blocker.
I dont have proof to back myself up, but this is my very strong gut response.
-
I thought it was ruled before that "Add to battle" with a character was the same as banding. A CTB ability must specifically say Choose the Blocker.
I dont have proof to back myself up, but this is my very strong gut response.
I agree with this.
-
I suppose the effect would be similar to Woman at the Well's. They both would be good cards that search for evil cards. I can see it going both ways.
-
I thought it was ruled before that "Add to battle" with a character was the same as banding.
This is only true if there was already a character on that side of the battle. Polarius is suggesting adding a character to the other side of the battle, which is subsequently why it will not work.
When you RA, your opponent presents a blocker. In the case of CtB, you choose the character, but the opponent still presents the blocker (per the REG). A converted Neb would have to present the blocker in Polarius' scenario (since he is adding a character) and the rules do not allow that.
-
Yeah it doesn't work that way. Also, searching for an evil card is an "evil" ability and therefore doesn't work.
-
Also, searching for an evil card is an "evil" ability and therefore doesn't work.
That doesn't have anything to do with the current rule for abilities converting. I know where you're coming from because I still get stuck in that old line of thinking sometimes. :P
-
It doesn't harm a hero, I see no reason for it to not work. (I'm not sure why you would want to convert Neb though, he's an AWESOME EC)
-
But I could use him to get Crimson into my hand, right?
-
I would think so... You can look for evil stuff with Search...
-
That doesn't have anything to do with it anymore.
-
Neb would still add an OT crimson evil card to your hand. If he's a Hero he cannot add an evil card to your side of the battle and you're not allowed to add cards to the opponent's side of the battle unless it's a CTB ability.
-
Neb would still add an OT crimson evil card to your hand. If he's a Hero he cannot add an evil card to your side of the battle and you're not allowed to add cards to the opponent's side of the battle unless it's a CTB ability.
+1
-
Neb would still add an OT crimson evil card to your hand. If he's a Hero he cannot add an evil card to your side of the battle and you're not allowed to add cards to the opponent's side of the battle unless it's a CTB ability.
+1
+1
-
I'm glad to know the band all Hero/EC cards are now broken, then :) (eg: Siege)
-
I'm glad to know the band all Hero/EC cards are now broken, then :) (eg: Siege)
In those cases, you're not really adding cards to your opponent's side of battle, you are forcing your opponent to add cards to his or her side of battle. Not the same thing.
-
So then Siege isn't stopped by Wall of Protection? That's new.
-
So then Siege isn't stopped by Wall of Protection? That's new.
How did you come to that conclusion with what he said?
-
In those cases, you're not really adding cards to your opponent's side of battle, you are forcing your opponent to add cards to his or her side of battle. Not the same thing.
Wall of Protection
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place this site in your territory. No character in your territory may be brought into battle by an opponent. • Play As: Place this site in your territory. Characters in your territory are protected from being brought into battle by an opponent.
If Siege isn't having me bring them in, but forcing you to, then it stands to reason the WoP's protection would not apply.
-
This has already been addressed with CtB abilities and WoP:
Instant Abilities > Choose Blocker or Rescuer > Default Conditions
• “Choose opponent” allows the holder to select a character but the opponent presents the chosen character into battle.
Instant Abilities > Choose Blocker or Rescuer > Special Conditions
• Wall of Protection protects its holder’s cards from being chosen to block.
-
Siege isn't a CtB/R ability, though. It's a band.
you're not allowed to add cards to the opponent's side of the battle unless it's a CTB ability.
-
Siege isn't a CtB/R ability, though. It's a band.
Are you trying to say that you think Neb works like a CTB card? If not, what's your point?
-
Hey,
Are you trying to say that you think Neb works like a CTB card?
I believe that Nebuchadnezzar's ability shouldn't work when converted. But if it does work when converted, I believe it works like a choose the blocker ability.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
While the REG doesnt say it, it should be pretty obvious that the only abilities that can force opponents to block with certian characters must SAY "Choose opponents blah blah blah."
The whole REG section for CTB always says "choose opponent cards", while the banding section uses the term "add to battle" a lot... that should be enough of a distinction.
-
No, What i'm saying is that if the ONLY way to add cards to the other side of battle is CtR/B cards then Siege, Seal, etc do not work.
-
GUYS!! The answer to this question is really, really, really, really, really, simple. I can't believe nobody noticed it before.
Nebuchadnezzar
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Crimson • Ability: 6 / 8 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: If no Daniel Hero is in play, search deck for an O.T. crimson card and add it to hand or battle. Cannot be negated. • Attributes: Babylonian King, Fought Earthly Battle • Identifiers: OT Male Human, King (Babylonia), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Daniel 4:30
Notice the bold ;)
-
Hah! Epic win browarod, epic win.
-
Wow. browarod wins the thread
-
Wow, epic win browarod. Epid fail all the rest of us.
-
Haha, yeah, it was kind of an accidental find on my part :P. I was looking through my main deck this morning (Genesis and Bab's) as I randomly do sometimes. When I got to Nebby, I remembered this topic and sat there looking at him for awhile, and then all of a sudden it hit me and I was like *facepalm*
-
:laugh:
-
yes, because im sure R&D put that clause in there to preempt this exact situation. /sarcasm
i still think this issue should be resolved as if neb was not a daniel character, as this situation may apply to other situations as well, present and future.
-
Hhahahah that's pretty great, although I do think the overall topic is still relevant.
It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.
-
wow broward wins the whole ruling questions board.
-
Hhahahah that's pretty great, although I do think the overall topic is still relevant.
It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.
what if you use something like spirit as a dove?
-
It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.
head honchos being...who exactly? bryan being one official person? tim showing hesitancy?
thats the problem with you and most of the people on this board; too many quick to say yes with no explanation. its the ones that 'argue' and think outside the box that evolve the game, not the yes-men.
and just for the record, i wasnt 'arguing'. i had no argument to even begin with, as i've been sitting on the fence the entire time. i just want to see clear and concise reasoning on both sides, rather than seeing people merely agree with 'head honchos' because you have no clear logical reasoning of your own.
-
Hey,
It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.
head honchos being...who exactly? bryan being one official person? tim showing hesitancy?
I am not just hesitant, I disagree entirely. The Darkness adds a character to battle and is not banding. Siege bands cards to the opposite site of battle.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I am not just hesitant, I disagree entirely. The Darkness adds a character to battle and is not banding. Siege bands cards to the opposite site of battle.
Hmmm...
"Place an Evil Character from hand face down here. If an opponent begins a rescue attempt and chooses a blocker (or is unblocked), you may reveal this evil character. Blocking player may add it to the battle. Otherwise return it face down."
From the REG:
If a character is added to battle and joins another character already in battle, that action is considered banding. If it does not join another character already in battle, the action is not considered banding.
This means that Darkness CAN be considered banding, but only if the opponent CTB'd you first, and then you add the character into battle. If they are "unblocked," then it is not considered banding.
-
I believe that would fall under "specifically says so." ;)
-
Hey,
The fact that The Darkness is sometimes banding really isn't relevant to this thread. Sometimes it is not banding, which is adequate to act as a counterexample of what lightning ninja asserted.
I believe that would fall under "specifically says so." ;)
What wouldn't fall under "specifically says so"? Isn't the point of any ability to say specifically what it does?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
It's been decided by the head honchos that you can't add a character to battle without it being banding (or unless a card SPECIFICALLY says so) and you can't band to the opposite side of battle. Whether you agree with it or not it's simple and it makes sense. Stop arguing about that.
head honchos being...who exactly? bryan being one official person? tim showing hesitancy?
I am not just hesitant, I disagree entirely. The Darkness adds a character to battle and is not banding. Siege bands cards to the opposite site of battle.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Well, that should make Master KChief feel better. Nobody agrees with him. :o
-
i know. im far too liberal for these boards. :P
-
Hey,
The non-rule-related part of this discussion has been moved to Open Discussion (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18575.0).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly