Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Minister Polarius on February 08, 2012, 01:00:16 AM
-
I propose we give a simple blanket ruling about abilities that grant other abilities CBI/P/N:
"Abilities that grant CBI/P/N cannot be Negated."
Upside:
No more questions about convoluted situations, except by people who haven't read up on core rules and are likely to ask many questions anyway.
Downside:
A few minor gameplay changes, most notably the CBP LS will continue to function in spite of the FbtN LS, least notably Ethan will be able to use Magnificat after having played Blessings.
Overall I think a massive simplification, condensation, and consistentiation (?) of what's now a weird and inconsistent set of rules is worth the minor gameplay changes.
-
I agree with this proposal wholeheartedly.
-
I am starting to also think that this might be the best solution.
-
I am not an Elder but I too endorse this. Clears the muddy waters quite nicely.
-
Got my support. I get tired of asking Profs for rulings. Let's burn down that whole College. ;)
-
My support may not matter much, but this proposal has it.
-
I'm mixed on the rule, but after last night's chain of events, I'm forced to conclude it's probably for the best. I like the idea.
-
I support this as well.
-
(This page intentionally left blank.)
-
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Your just reporting Gabe's brain activity.
-
I agree. I don't understand how this affects Ethan and Magnificat though.
-
I agree. I don't understand how this affects Ethan and Magnificat though.
Pol means Asaph.
-
I agree. I don't understand how this affects Ethan and Magnificat though.
Pol means Asaph.
Asaph says cbn by evil cards. But I think I get the picture, if asaph said cpb he could play magnificat against kot or something. I just wanted to make sure nothing wierd was happening. Am I right in saying that for gameplay purposes this only affects cbp lost soul vs fbtn?
Yeah, I fail to see why magnificat would not negate Asaph if this went into effect.
-
It seems simple, and is a top-down ruling. I'm in support.
-
I agree. I don't understand how this affects Ethan and Magnificat though.
Pol means Asaph.
Asaph says cbn by evil cards. But I think I get the picture, if asaph said cpb he could play magnificat against kot or something. I just wanted to make sure nothing wierd was happening. Am I right in saying that for gameplay purposes this only affects cbp lost soul vs fbtn?
Yeah, I fail to see why magnificat would not negate Asaph if this went into effect.
Since Asaph provides a CBN ability (a conditional one but still a CBN ability) his ability under this rule would now be CBN so it can not be negated by Maginifcat, or Blessings, etc.
-
I support this. Simplifies things extremely well.
-
I'm mixed on the rule, but after last night's chain of events, I'm forced to conclude it's probably for the best. I like the idea.
Sure, now that you've already beaten me you decide to support this :)
-
Nothing like trying to get a ruling at 2am. :)
-
I support this, and honestly I thought it was already the rule. (not that my support means much)
-
I agree. I don't understand how this affects Ethan and Magnificat though.
Pol means Asaph.
Asaph says cbn by evil cards. But I think I get the picture, if asaph said cpb he could play magnificat against kot or something. I just wanted to make sure nothing wierd was happening. Am I right in saying that for gameplay purposes this only affects cbp lost soul vs fbtn?
Yeah, I fail to see why magnificat would not negate Asaph if this went into effect.
Since Asaph provides a CBN ability (a conditional one but still a CBN ability) his ability under this rule would now be CBN so it can not be negated by Maginifcat, or Blessings, etc.
That's why it wouldn't work. Or at least it shouldn't work
-
That's why it wouldn't work. Or at least it shouldn't work
You'd prefer the infinite loop that develops otherwise?
-
That's why it wouldn't work. Or at least it shouldn't work
You'd prefer the infinite loop that develops otherwise?
I'm guessing he's an Apple fan.
/yuk yuk yuk...
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.coolest-gadgets.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fusb-apple-fan-novelty-gadget-0.jpg&hash=07c3408698fa9cce55aaebc23b3e2ba4e626836b)
-
That's why it wouldn't work. Or at least it shouldn't work
Again, thats not correct.
The proposed rule is:
"Abilities that grant CBI/P/N cannot be Negated."
It is an ability that grants CBN, therfore it is CBN. It's conditionality would no longer be a factor. Which is the intent of the Rule to define what happens in conditional CBN instances as well as other issues. I won't argue f you believe the rule shouldn't implemented, thats your opinion, however logically the way the proposed rule is worded that is how it would work out. Any ability that provides a conditional or non-conditional CBN, CBP, CBI would in itself be a CBN ability.
-
I thought the proposed rule was already in effect, and I had nothing wrong with it before, so I suppose I'll support it now.
Which brings the number of downvoters to an approximate 0.
-
Does this mean if blocked by KOT, and you played an enhancement like Faith in our High Priest, or others that say your NEXT enhancement cannot be negated , and they will work?
Or is it that those already work, and this broadens it to CBI and CBP?
Thanks for this clarification.
-
Those already work, and this broadens it.
-
Asaph is not effected by this rule change, I think that is the source of some confusion.
How is Asaph not affected? He has an ability that grants CBN, therefore his ability is CBN. Someone please explain how the propsed ruling would not affect Asaph? Asaph from the REG:
Asaph (Pi)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: White • Ability: 6 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: Good Enhancements involving music cannot be negated by evil cards. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Musician • Verse: I Chronicles 6:39 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Uncommon)
Ethan:
Ethan (Pi)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: White • Ability: 5 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search discard pile for a good Enhancement involving music and add it to hand. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Musician • Verse: I Chronicles 6:44 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Uncommon)
Pol must have mistyped in his first post, Asaph is the one effected by this ruling, not Ethan. Unless the REG is totally wrong.
-
I don't know maybe I misunderstand because the things am thinking about are not the same. But take this example.
Ra Asaph, play blessings then magnificat (Ashera Pole is up) my opponent tries to negate magnificat with disobedience (negate on good enhancement in play). Can he negate maginificat? You are saying he could have, and I am saying he never could have. But it dm its cbn now anyway.
-
That's all moot. Blessings Negates Magnificat. Asaph only makes CBN by evil cards.
-
That's all moot. Blessings Negates Magnificat. Asaph only makes CBN by evil cards.
Right, All I was trying to say is that blessings no longer negates his ability.
I know. I am saying that my opponent cannot negate magnificat with a cbn negate afterwards.
I was never disputing that, I was just disputing that this ruling doesn't affect Asaph "at all" Just in a small way.
-
I think a better example would be Fallen Warrior blocking, dropping Bringing Fear, and then Wrath of Satan. Asaph would be able to interrupt WoS.
-
I see why the example is confusing. It would have been better to say that Magnificat followed by Passover Hymn would now make Hymn CBN.
-
this rule effectivly errata's asaph. I won't support any rule that directly effects card text.
-
I support this. Simplifies things extremely well.
Agreed. Thanks for the suggestion, Pol!
-
So now conditional CBN is no more? That's screwed up.
-
No I think that conditional CBN still works (if I understand right). It's just that conditional CBN would itself be CBN.
-
As I understood it abilities granted from set asides were CBN so why would granted abilities be any different, it makes sense to me...
-
So now conditional CBN is no more? That's screwed up.
What makes it screwed up? While in general I thought the previous rules were easy enough to understand, they did lead to some really awkward scenarios like the question of the CBP Lost Soul v. the FBTN Lost Soul, and changing this rule helps make that simpler, without really sacrificing much gameplay.
-
Artifacts can't turn off aspah's CBN,. Magnifact doesn't turn it off. FBTN needs to turn off ALL lost souls with abilites ETC... Basically this just took something that was already a problem(Rampant CBN) and made it worse even if only a little. Thus a bad desicsion. I hate scarificing gameplay for simplicity.
-
I don't think it is sacrificing gameplay though. As Pol noted in his first post, the uses of this are actually not really that many, especially since abilities that grant CBN status were already CBN to begin with. This just removes more obscure or complicated prerequisites and makes everything more streamlined.
-
Artifacts can't turn off aspah's CBN,. Magnifact doesn't turn it off. FBTN needs to turn off ALL lost souls with abilites ETC... Basically this just took something that was already a problem(Rampant CBN) and made it worse even if only a little. Thus a bad desicsion. I hate scarificing gameplay for simplicity.
I agree that we don't want to sacrifice game play for simplicity, because simplicity doesn't always translate to fun and challenging. However, Do you have specific examples of how this will turn destroy game play?
-
??? Could I please get just 2 examples of a "before and after" on how this would affect a play/combo differently? Thanks :laugh:
-
Before: Asaph plays Magnificat, then Passover Hymn. Passover Hymn is fully negatable.
After: Asaph plays Magnificat, then Passover Hymn. Passover Hymn CBN by an evil card.
Before: Eli is Gathered to TSA and plays Sword of Revealing Light. Opponent may negate Sword of Revealing Light.
After: Eli is Gathered to TSA and plays Sword of Revealing Light. Opponent cannot Negate Sword of Revealing Light,
-
Before: My opponent spoils my undefeated tournament hopes in ROOT because their FBN LS negates my CBP LS, and therefore causes my first EE in battle to be ineffective in a critical block.
After: My EE still works, and brings utter devastation upon my opponent, and allows me to have the greatest comeback ever told :)
-
Before: My opponent spoils my undefeated tournament hopes in ROOT because their FBN LS negates my CBP LS, and therefore causes my first EE in battle to be ineffective in a critical block.
After: My EE still works, and brings utter devastation upon my opponent, and allows me to have the greatest comeback ever told :)
Is there a reason that sounds like a true story??
-
Before: My opponent spoils my undefeated tournament hopes in ROOT because their FBN LS negates my CBP LS, and therefore causes my first EE in battle to be ineffective in a critical block.
After: My EE still works, and brings utter devastation upon my opponent, and allows me to have the greatest comeback ever told :)
Is there a reason that sounds like a true story??
I don't know why it would sound like a true story, since in that particular after, his opponent (who shall remain nameless, though I hear he's a handsome devil) still won.
-
That's what determined Jan. ROOT.
-
Ohhhh ouch,
Now here's the real question, would Prof really have won with the rule change?
-
Not being privy to the game, I can't say for certain, but I do know that most games come down to one rescue.
-
Ohhhh ouch,
Now here's the real question, would Prof really have won with the rule change?
Yes and no. Strictly speaking, he would not have won, because before he realized that the question of the FBTN Lost Soul and the CBP Lost Soul was up in the air, he used Angel of the Lord on his own evil character for the heck of it. Thus, if it had been ruled in his favor, I would have requested the ability to make a different move during my rescue attempt, since, if he had not allowed it, I would have just noted that he'd technically used Angel of the Lord, thus making me the winner. I know he would have afforded me the same grace I would have afforded him in taking his AotL back, so I still would have won. Now that said, had that rescue attempt not succeeded, we played it out long enough that it became apparent that I would not have another chance to break through his defense, and he would have won.
-
Yeah, in real life, I'm not actually sure that I would've won anyway. Chronic played a great game and deserved the win regardless of this rule change. But it certainly could have been a different outcome depending on how some things broke there at the end :)
-
Yeah, in real life, I'm not actually sure that I would've won anyway. Chronic played a great game and deserved the win regardless of this rule change. But it certainly could have been a different outcome depending on how some things broke there at the end :)
You certainly played a great game as well, and no, in real life, we would have timed out ages before I won. It was definitely a nail-biter, though I didn't know it until the very end. I pretty much thought I'd breezed my way to a win, not realizing a handful of bad plays made it so I only had one turn before I'd get locked out. Excellent 'bout, as we usually end up having.
-
in real life, we would have timed out ages before I won.
This is also true (and why turtles will never win nats unless the time limit is extended).
-
yup needs to be an hour an also people need to know there cards b4 major events local/districts are excused
-
With all of the consensus by the elders to the proposal, is this rule change in effect or is it waiting until August?
-
With all of the consensus by the elders to the proposal, is this rule change in effect or is it waiting until August?
Allow me to speed up the process...
"STAMP hereby disagrees with this rule change as much as he disagrees with ANB erratas!"
There. Should be in the REG by the end of the day.
;)
-
Wouldn't that mean any card w/ CBP becomes CBN?
-
Wouldn't that mean any card w/ CBP becomes CBN?
No, any ability that gives another card CBP abilities would be CBN.
-
With all of the consensus by the elders to the proposal, is this rule change in effect or is it waiting until August?
Considering that multiple Elders have responded in favor of this ruling, and none have been opposed, and considering that this really won't affect the game very much except for a couple of cards...
I think it's fair to assume that this is official at this point.
-
Should we sacrifice a goat?
-
Should we sacrifice a goat?
Leave Jordon out of this.
-
Not sure who Jordon is, but somehow I still feel offended...maybe its just because I had to see your avatar whilst reading this thread. The face on there evokes very negative memories for some reason.
-
Not sure who Jordon is, but somehow I still feel offended...maybe its just because I had to see your avatar whilst reading this thread. The face on there evokes very negative memories for some reason.
After all I've done to you ... I mean ... For you
-
So this would mean like a Character w/ 'Enhancements are CBI' becomes CBN instead of CBI?
And would this be the entire efffect, I.e. Joseph is completely CBN instead of just the Enhancements w/ Joseph in the title or reference is CBN?
-
I'm pretty sure only the CBN/I/P-granting ability would be CBN (i.e.: you can still negate Joseph's search/protection, just not the specified enhancements).
-
Then I thought for the most part this was already pre-defined... If it gives CBN it is CBN, if it gives CBI that part is CBI and same w/ CBP.
-
Then I thought for the most part this was already pre-defined... If it gives CBN it is CBN, if it gives CBI that part is CBI and same w/ CBP.
Yes. By making all those abilities just flat CBN by everything, this solves a lot of confusion.