Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: soul seeker on August 14, 2009, 12:40:36 PM
-
What I do know is that it is a female hero with a John reference...her ability is along the lines of look through opponent's deck and pull out a lost soul and a human evil character.
My question:
does she have to pull out both to complete the ability or against certain decks (a demon deck) she can just pull out a lost soul? are the two abilities connected?
If she can, then I know of a couple of cards that just got a lot more playing time in my decks.
-
Name: The woman as the well
To answer your question, if there is no human EC (or lost soul) It is my understanding she can grab one, and not the other because of the "do as much as you can ruling", but if they are both there you must grab both.
-
Name: Professoralstad's new favorite hero
To answer your question, if there is no human EC (or lost soul) It is my understanding she can grab one, and not the other because of the "do as much as you can ruling", but if they are both there you must grab both.
Fixed. ;)
I see no reason why she couldn't do one without the other if there is a lack of one of the types. I can use Vengeance to discard one site without discarding another or KotW, and I can use Zeal to discard only one EC. Should be the same thing.
-
But like Smokey said, if both are available, you must take both. Zeal works that way.
-
But like Smokey said, if both are available, you must take both. Zeal works that way.
I see no reason why she couldn't do one without the other if there is a lack of one of the types. I can use Vengeance to discard one site without discarding another or KotW, and I can use Zeal to discard only one EC. Should be the same thing.
I know...
-
You knew..........
-
Right. Do both if you can, as much as you can otherwise.
-
Need I contribute my opinion? ::)
-
Need I contribute my opinion? ::)
Nah, I won the thread with the first post ;D.
-
Okay, thanks for the answer guys. It was played the right way in my game...it was just devastating to me and I wanted to be sure. Like I said, one of 2 cards are going to become popular in my decks. She's got to stop!
-
Jerusalem Tower and Hezekiah's Ring are nice now.
-
Jerusalem Tower and Hezekiah's Ring are nice now.
They're both prevents, and Her sa is CBN.
-
Jerusalem Tower and Hezekiah's Ring are nice now.
They're both prevents, and Her sa is CBN.
Precisely. Behold the power of The Woman at the Well.
-
Maybe Standing in the Gap will be more popular from now on. ;)
-
New can of worms:
How are they prevents and not protects? Those were the two cards I was thinking of. Doesn't Jerusalem Tower protect your deck in addition to preventing your opponent? Kind of like Household Idols is both prevent and protect? This is disturbing if those two cards can't do what they are designed to do: PROTECT your deck.
-
New can of worms:
How are they prevents and not protects? Those were the two cards I was thinking of. Doesn't Jerusalem Tower protect your deck in addition to preventing your opponent? Kind of like Household Idols is both prevent and protect? This is disturbing if those two cards can't do what they are designed to do: PROTECT your deck.
If you go by wording, it would seem they would be a protect, however they are both ruled as being prevents. Card design means nothing (split altar). Household Idols is an ignore, not a prevent and protect. This might be because of them being viewed as overpowered if they were a protect, maybe there was a combo that could have come about if your deck was protected we are not considering.
-
I don't think that's the case; just look at the wording of JT: "No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled." If it said, "Cards in your deck cannot be removed by an opponent..." it would be a protect, but the way it's worded affects the remover, not the removee.
-
Just a minute - part of the point of drawing out a lost soul is having to give them an EC to defend it. Isn't that a cost that must be paid in order to get the benefit? I don't believe this is a "do as much as you can" situation.
Mike
-
There's no "to" or "if" in her ability, so I don't think it's a cost/gain thing.
And darn them if they don't have a LS by the time she attacks anyway!
-
I don't think that's the case; just look at the wording of JT: "No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled." If it said, "Cards in your deck cannot be removed by an opponent..." it would be a protect, but the way it's worded affects the remover, not the removee.
From the REG:
All opponents are prevented from removing cards from holder’s draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled.
-
The Woman at the Well
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search opponent’s deck for a Lost Soul and a human Evil Character and put them in opponent’s territory. Cannot be negated.
This doesn't appear to be a cost/benefit ability. I'm not sure why you wouldn't complete as much as possible. For example, vs a demon defense you should be able to just pull out a Lost Soul if there are no human Evil Characters available.
Jerusalem Tower
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled. • Play As: All opponents are prevented from removing cards from holder’s draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled.
JT is a prevent, not a protect. It does nothing against cannot be negated cards like Harvest Time, Seeker of the Lost and The Woman at the Well. Then again it does virtually nothing in every game I've ever seen it played so nothing really changes here. /end rant about how worthless JT is.
Hezekiah’s Signet Ring
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No opponent may search any draw pile or discard pile. • Play As: Opponents are prevented from searching any draw pile or discard pile.
Once again, a prevent, not a protect.
Standing in the Gap
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Red • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set your Hero aside for up to 5 turns. While that Hero is set aside, protect your hand, deck, multi-color Sites, and good Fortresses from opponent’s evil cards.
Finally we have a card that protects your deck, but it doesn't help against HT, SotL or TWatW. :P
-
At present, I only state that my personal opinion is that it is a cost/benefit. If I found no human EC in my search, I would not take the LS out. If I had wanted it to be an "as much as you can", I would have worded the SA to say "Search opponent’s deck for a Lost Soul and a human Evil Character (if possible) and put them in opponent’s territory. Cannot be negated."
Isn't "and" true if both A is true and B is true? Isn't that the straightforward interpretation? What the "do as much as you can" phrase does is add to the meaning, something a new player would not know.
Mike
-
I can see how "do as much of you can" works with "interrupt, draw 3, and may play next enhancement" type cards. Notice that these card types don't effect anyone else, so have no cost. However, if there is a cost to several abilities connected by "and", there should be no "do as much as you can" in my opinion.
Mike
-
this has gotten really complex. I'm sure we haven't even scratched the surface on all the cards that can be played as "do as much as you can". It seems like there must first be a discrepancy between whether a card is involving your cards or your opponents cards, and then a strict rule must be made about whether you do as much as you can, or if you cannot do it all you can't do any. Reach of Desperation, and Books of Hozai are examples of cards that only effect your cards...you are drawing from your deck. Jephthah and Woman at the Well are two cards that effect your opponents cards. So then for those cards that only effect your cards there doesn't need to be any new rules set in place. But for those cards like Jephthah and Woman at the Well either you do as much as you can, or you don't do anything if you can't do it all. And then that rule must be used for EVERY card like that no exceptions. That is how I see this going because like I said this is getting really complex.
-
While we're giving opinions...
The Woman at the Well
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search opponent’s deck for a Lost Soul and a human Evil Character and put them in opponent’s territory. Cannot be negated.
I see it at "Search opponent's deck for a Lost Soul and human evil Character", I look through my opponents deck, there is no human.
"and put them in opponent's territory." Because there was no human evil Character, I'll do as much as I can and place the lost soul in their territory.
-
The way I see it is you search for a lost soul and (not or) an EC. You look for both. If there is not both you cannot take either.
-
I think people are overcomplicating it, mostly on trying to perceive the benefit of a certain ability.
Maybe I have some wacky combo to play Zeal, and I want to band to Woman at the Well and fish out my opponent's Prince of This World. In that instance, grabbing the EC is the "benefit" because of what I gain from having that character in your territory. Using this method to determine cost/benefit is subjective and riddled with potential problems.
Differentiating between cost/benefit abilities and others boils down simply to the word "to" in like 95% of cases. Do ability X "to" do ability Y. Discard this "to" capture that.
If an ability says "Draw a card. Band a Hero into battle. Discard the top card of your deck", those are separate abilities, and each one is completed independently of the other. If there are no cards left in deck, obviously you cannot do the last one, and probably not the first one. You can still band a Hero into battle because it's not tied to anything.
If an ability says "draw three cards" and you only have two cards, do you draw nothing? No, you just draw what's left, and that's all you get. If an ability says "discard four Evil Characters" and there are only two in play, do you discard nothing? No, you discard what's there, and that's all you get. If there are four ECs, and two are yours, too bad for you, four Evil Characters get canned.
Notice the card Mayhem: shuffle hand into deck TO draw six. Why "to"? Cost/benefit was actually employed as a safeguard here. If the card said "discard hand and draw six", and your hand was protected from discard, you got six free cards. Instead, discard TO draw dictates that if you do not discard, you cannot draw. However, even if you have no cards in deck, the discard is required no matter which way the ability is written.
If there is not a cost/benefit involved, and there is not a "may" that makes an ability/abilities optional, then you always must carry out the full ability of the card as much as you are able.
-
I think people are overcomplicating it, mostly on trying to perceive the benefit of a certain ability.
Maybe I have some wacky combo to play Zeal, and I want to band to Woman at the Well and fish out my opponent's Prince of This World. In that instance, grabbing the EC is the "benefit" because of what I gain from having that character in your territory. Using this method to determine cost/benefit is subjective and riddled with potential problems.
Differentiating between cost/benefit abilities and others boils down simply to the word "to" in like 95% of cases. Do ability X "to" do ability Y. Discard this "to" capture that.
If an ability says "Draw a card. Band a Hero into battle. Discard the top card of your deck", those are separate abilities, and each one is completed independently of the other. If there are no cards left in deck, obviously you cannot do the last one, and probably not the first one. You can still band a Hero into battle because it's not tied to anything.
If an ability says "draw three cards" and you only have two cards, do you draw nothing? No, you just draw what's left, and that's all you get. If an ability says "discard four Evil Characters" and there are only two in play, do you discard nothing? No, you discard what's there, and that's all you get. If there are four ECs, and two are yours, too bad for you, four Evil Characters get canned.
Notice the card Mayhem: shuffle hand into deck TO draw six. Why "to"? Cost/benefit was actually employed as a safeguard here. If the card said "discard hand and draw six", and your hand was protected from discard, you got six free cards. Instead, discard TO draw dictates that if you do not discard, you cannot draw. However, even if you have no cards in deck, the discard is required no matter which way the ability is written.
If there is not a cost/benefit involved, and there is not a "may" that makes an ability/abilities optional, then you always must carry out the full ability of the card as much as you are able.
I get what you are saying but the only thing I'm having trouble figuring out is what your take is then on Woman at the Well...In your opinion can you grab a LS if there is no EC in your opponents deck?
-
To avoid Walls of text I'm not going to quote you, but I think he is saying he agrees you can do one and not the other if one of the cards isn't there.
-
mmmmmm...then I disagree...but really i don't think a correct answer can be reached...there really must be a rule made on this. There are two views that can't be reasoned into one "correct" view.
-
Pulling out an EC in general is a cost - it gives my opponent something to defend with. One case of that EC being helpful to me is no reason to through out the baby with the bathwater.
Mike
-
It seems to me like this is perfect for the demon-hating theme of Luke heroes: If your opponent has only demon EC's, there is no "cost" to the search ability of TWatW.
-
mmmmmm...then I disagree...but really i don't think a correct answer can be reached.
There is a correct answer that can be reached because cost/benefit is laid out in the syntax of a card. WatW does not say "search for an EC TO search for a Lost Soul." It does not say "Search for an EC and place in opponent's territory. If you place an EC, you may search for a Lost Soul." It says to search for two cards of these specific types.
Cost/benefit types are clearly laid out as having one ability that MUST take place and one that takes place IF the condition of the first is met. Something might be included as a balancing factor, but that unto itself does not constitute a cost. Only syntax denotes cost.
-
agreed. there is no cost/effect to woman at the well, just pure effect. consistency with precedence is the more important thing.
-
mmmmmm...then I disagree...but really i don't think a correct answer can be reached.
There is a correct answer that can be reached because cost/benefit is laid out in the syntax of a card. WatW does not say "search for an EC TO search for a Lost Soul." It does not say "Search for an EC and place in opponent's territory. If you place an EC, you may search for a Lost Soul." It says to search for two cards of these specific types.
Cost/benefit types are clearly laid out as having one ability that MUST take place and one that takes place IF the condition of the first is met. Something might be included as a balancing factor, but that unto itself does not constitute a cost. Only syntax denotes cost.
Ok I think I get it now...you made it pretty clear. Since it does say do X TO do Y.