Author Topic: Set Fire (Read 7187 times)

Sean · « **on:** October 26, 2009, 08:08:09 PM »

I was playing a game with Gabe and found out that I've been reading Set Fire "wrong." I don't see how this card only works on the holder's upkeep. Could somebody please explain why the discard only happens on the holder's turn? It seems very clear to me that a discard should happen on each players' turn. There is no mention of what upkeep is which, it just says "Each upkeep."

Professoralstad · « **Reply #1 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:17:07 PM »

Interesting question. It seems like one of those "obvious" things that will probably merit clarification/play as because of nitpicky people like yourself...

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #2 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:18:58 PM »

"Each upkeep" is followed directly by "that player." That player can only perform an "upkeep ability" on his own upkeep.

Sean · « **Reply #3 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:26:13 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 26, 2009, 08:18:58 PM

"Each upkeep" is followed directly by "that player." That player can only perform an "upkeep ability" on his own upkeep.

That makes no sense because a comma separates "Each upkeep" from the rest of the sentence. It seems to me that the punctuation would lead to a discard during all players' upkeep phases. Also, Gabe said that the discard took place on the upkeep of the holder of Set Fire, not the player who has it in their territory.

Another question:
Who does "player" refer to? Am I the one who discards the Fortress or does the player with Set Fire in his territory choose what to discard?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #4 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:31:13 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 26, 2009, 08:26:13 PM

That makes no sense because a comma separates "Each upkeep" from the rest of the sentence.

I would disagree. I think the whole sentence is meant to be read as a single unit.

Quote from: Sean on October 26, 2009, 08:26:13 PM

Also, Gabe said that the discard took place on the upkeep of the holder of Set Fire, not the player who has it in their territory.

I would disagree with Gabe also.

Quote from: Sean on October 26, 2009, 08:26:13 PM

Another question:
Who does "player" refer to? Am I the one who discards the Fortress or does the player with Set Fire in his territory choose what to discard?

The SA sspecifies that the player with Set Fire in his territory does the discarding, and therefore it has to be in his own Upkeep Phase.

Gabe · « **Reply #5 on:** October 26, 2009, 08:38:04 PM »

I may have messed up the turn on which Set Fire discards. When Priests was released I originally assumed that it discarded on each person's upkeep, just like Sean. There was a thread a long time ago about this and it was explained why it only works on one players turn. YMT is probably correct. I can't recall the logic behind the ruling.

Sean · « **Reply #6 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:30:47 PM »

Quote

I think the whole sentence is meant to be read as a single unit.

And yet, there is a comma which divides the sentence...

I still don't see how the current wording supports just one upkeep.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #7 on:** October 26, 2009, 09:54:48 PM »

I don't think a comma supports using it in anyone else's upkeep.

As a random example, take the following sentences.

The bridge is on fire. Under the circumstances, I think we should jump off the bridge.

Jumping off the bridge is contingent upon the circumstances. The comma does not separate the two ideas. They are linked. I would argue that the same is true in the Set Fire example.

Sean · « **Reply #8 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:00:55 PM »

You still have to somehow explain how "each upkeep" actually means "each upkeep of the player with Set Fire in territory." A player can easily discard something during another player's upkeep phase.

Master KChief · « **Reply #9 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:05:14 PM »

i agree the card does need clarification. you can read the card as it happening during the targeted players upkeep, but i believe most could easily read it as it happening during each players upkeep.

edit: upon further inspection, it is rather bad grammar towards its true intent. by wording, the comma and clause does refer back to 'each upkeep', and not the players territory it was placed in.

Ironica · « **Reply #10 on:** October 26, 2009, 10:13:41 PM »

English...another skill learned while playing Redemption

.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #11 on:** October 26, 2009, 11:07:53 PM »

Chemosh and Doctrine like Leaven are worded the same as set fire, saying "Each upkeep, ..." how do these ones work?

browarod · « **Reply #12 on:** October 26, 2009, 11:17:18 PM »

If my opponent plays Set Fire, where does it get put? In my territory. When do I update cards in my territory or set aside? During my upkeep phase. I don't decrease my heroes from poisons during other people's upkeeps, I don't mark my set asides during other people's upkeeps, why would I discard during other people's upkeeps?

Sean · « **Reply #13 on:** October 26, 2009, 11:29:01 PM »

Set Fire is not a set aside card so maintenance of it is not the same. It is more similar to Abomination of Desolation. The trigger for Set Fire is "each upkeep" just as the trigger for Abom is "each time opponent draws cards." If anything, this means that Chemosh and DlL need clarification as well because of poor wording.

browarod · « **Reply #14 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:09:07 AM »

It just seems to me that anything with upkeep would default to the player doing it's upkeep unless otherwise specified.

Master KChief · « **Reply #15 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:56:20 AM »

set fire is an exemption because it happens during your opponents upkeep. it does not have a normal upkeep maintenance as normal upkeep cards (ie. set asides), therefore it does not 'default' to the holders upkeep.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #16 on:** October 27, 2009, 12:51:08 PM »

also i think this is a very important ruling to look at because of future interaction of other cards.
Will there ever be other cards targeting other players upkeep phases?

ex. place in a players territory, while there that player skips thier upkeep phase
(although i would rather see it as an artifact)

in any case i think that we need to pay close attention to these details.

SirNobody · « **Reply #17 on:** October 28, 2009, 12:22:58 PM »

Hey,

"That player" refers to the player previously mentioned, the player whose territory the card is put in. Only the player whose turn it is can perform actions during their upkeep phase. So if Set Fire is in my territory, on my opponent's upkeep phase I am not allowed to discard a OT Fortress or Single Color site to Set Fire whether I want to or not.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Sean · « **Reply #18 on:** October 28, 2009, 04:40:07 PM »

Quote

Only the player whose turn it is can perform actions during their upkeep phase.

Where is this stated?

More importantly though, special abilities always override game rule. If the game rule is "you can only do stuff during your upkeep" then Set Fire provides an avenue to "break" that rule because of its special ability when it says, "each upkeep."

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #19 on:** October 28, 2009, 04:47:39 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 04:40:07 PM

More importantly though, special abilities always override game rule.

Well that's not true, otherwise Wrath would discard protected characters because "it says all."

Sean · « **Reply #20 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:00:38 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 28, 2009, 04:47:39 PM

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 04:40:07 PM
More importantly though, special abilities always override game rule.

Well that's not true, otherwise Wrath would discard protected characters because "it says all."

What game rule is protecting them?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #21 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:16:45 PM »

So I can choose to rescue my own lost souls with Jacob's Ladder?

Sean · « **Reply #22 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:20:12 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 28, 2009, 05:16:45 PM

So I can choose to rescue my own lost souls with Jacob's Ladder?

You don't have access to your own Lost Souls; therefore, no you cannot use Jacob's Ladder to rescue your own Lost Soul.

I answered your question. Your turn to answer mine.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #23 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:21:47 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 05:20:12 PM

You don't have access to your own Lost Souls; therefore, no you cannot use Jacob's Ladder to rescue your own Lost Soul.

What special ability is preventing me from rescuing my own lost souls?

Sean · « **Reply #24 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:26:33 PM »

The one on Jacob's Ladder.

Please, it is annoying and frustrating that you are answering questions with questions. Just get to the point.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #25 on:** October 28, 2009, 05:31:44 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 05:26:33 PM

The one on Jacob's Ladder.

The only definition for "access" is found here:

Access to a Site

To rescue a Lost Soul in a site, a Hero must have access to the site. If a Hero does not have access to a Lost Soul, then the battle is a battle challenge. A Hero has access to a site if:

1. the Hero’s icon box contains a matching brigade color in the icon box of the site, or

2. a special ability gives the Hero access to the site, or

3. An unoccupied site is placed in battle with the Hero and the icon box on the unoccupied site contains a matching brigade color in the icon box of the occupied site. The unoccupied site can be added at any time during the battle, but it must come from the player’s territory. If the Hero is defeated in battle, the site returns to the owner’s territory. The special ability on a multi-colored site is active only when the site is in battle and being used to give a Hero access to a site.

So, if I RA with a red hero and I have a LS in Babylon, then my hero has "access" to that LS. What SA is preventing me from doing that?

Sean · « **Reply #26 on:** October 28, 2009, 06:18:50 PM »

You need to read a little bit before that section. In order to make a rescue attempt your opponent has to have a Lost Soul in their Land of Bondage. You can find this directly following the subtitle: Battle Phase. Access is based on your opponent's Lost Souls in relation to your Heroes, not your Lost Souls in relation to your Heroes.

I think you've spent enough time trying to escape the question I posed. I'll go ahead and answer it for you. There is no game rule that protects Heroes from Wrath of Satan, it is special abilities that do so. Such as the special ability on Josiah's Covenant.

Furthermore, I still have not been shown where SirNobody's explanation is found in the rulebook. All that I see for the Upkeep Phase is the following:

Quote from: Rule Book

You must change counters if needed. Add counters to any
of your characters that were set aside on a previous turn.
Mark reductions on any of your characters that were poisoned
or infected on a previous turn.

This doesn't even address placed cards (only counters for set asides and poisons).

In addition, SirNobody's idea is already made invalid by the very fact that any player may a Dominant at any time, including during an opponent's upkeep phase. In addition, a player is also allowed to use I Am Healing during an opponent's upkeep phase in order to heal one or more of their Heroes. Two examples of how, "Only the player whose turn it is can perform actions during their upkeep phase," is false. One example by a game rule and one by a special ability.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #27 on:** October 28, 2009, 06:37:20 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 06:18:50 PM

You need to read a little bit before that section. In order to make a rescue attempt your opponent has to have a Lost Soul in their Land of Bondage. You can find this directly following the subtitle: Battle Phase. Access is based on your opponent's Lost Souls in relation to your Heroes, not your Lost Souls in relation to your Heroes.

"Access" is only defined as "Site Access." The fact that a Lost Soul has to be in your opponent's LoB is a game rule. According to you, Jacob's Ladder's SA overrides the game rule that there has to be a LS in my opponent's LoB.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #28 on:** October 28, 2009, 08:23:36 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 06:18:50 PM

In addition, SirNobody's idea is already made invalid by the very fact that any player may a Dominant at any time, including during an opponent's upkeep phase. In addition, a player is also allowed to use I Am Healing during an opponent's upkeep phase in order to heal one or more of their Heroes.

Is that actually true? I think there's a discussion recently about what happens during the upkeep phase, and I think it was argued that the only things that can happen during the upkeep phase are updating counters, and performing abilities that specifically occur during the upkeep phase. No dominant or artifact abilities could take place. I don't know what the resolution of that argument was, but I believe it came up in a Mayhem/Sin in the Camp question.

Here is the thread. There did seem to be a conclusion that you could play dominants between phases, but not necessarily during draw or upkeep phase. At least SirNobody seems to think you can't.

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18235.0

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #29 on:** October 28, 2009, 09:25:03 PM »

what a can of worms

SirNobody · « **Reply #30 on:** October 28, 2009, 11:27:19 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 04:40:07 PM

Quote
Only the player whose turn it is can perform actions during their upkeep phase.
Where is this stated?

You might be more familiar with the idea that "'Each upkeep phase' means 'each of your upkeep phases'." It the same idea. I'm not sure where in the rulebook it is, but that's the ruling that's been made on dozens and dozens of threads over the years (you might be able to find it on a google group thread from circa 2001 if you really wanted to go looking).

Quote

More importantly though, special abilities always override game rule.

There are two types of rules: (1) Rules that define the normal events of the game and (2) Rules that define the framework within which special abilities work. Rules of Type 1 are overridden by special abilities. Rules of Type 2 are not overridden by special abilities. This is a Type 2 rule.

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 06:18:50 PM

In addition, SirNobody's idea is already made invalid by the very fact that any player may a Dominant at any time, including during an opponent's upkeep phase. In addition, a player is also allowed to use I Am Healing during an opponent's upkeep phase in order to heal one or more of their Heroes. Two examples of how, "Only the player whose turn it is can perform actions during their upkeep phase," is false. One example by a game rule and one by a special ability.

We did away with the Dominants can be played at any time rule several years ago. I've also said in several threads in the last month or two that I believe the upkeep phase is like battle resolution in that it is instantaneous and does not allow a player to choose to perform any actions more than what existing rules and abilities require.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Sean · « **Reply #31 on:** October 28, 2009, 11:48:35 PM »

*This message typed prior to the last reply by SirNobody*

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 28, 2009, 06:37:20 PM

Quote from: Sean on October 28, 2009, 06:18:50 PM
You need to read a little bit before that section. In order to make a rescue attempt your opponent has to have a Lost Soul in their Land of Bondage. You can find this directly following the subtitle: Battle Phase. Access is based on your opponent's Lost Souls in relation to your Heroes, not your Lost Souls in relation to your Heroes.

"Access" is only defined as "Site Access." The fact that a Lost Soul has to be in your opponent's LoB is a game rule. According to you, Jacob's Ladder's SA overrides the game rule that there has to be a LS in my opponent's LoB.

This can't be true because an OT Hero does not have access to the NT Only Lost Soul.

Special abilities are "special" because they do something that changes the flow of normal game play by "breaking" normal rules. You can't get around this fact. The reason you picked Jacob's Ladder is because you know, in no circumstance, would it ever be allowed that a player be able to rescue his own Lost Souls, even if that is what the card says it can do. However, the clear intent of Jacob's Ladder was not to do that and the wording is poor at best. I also think you are not applying it correctly. I'm trying to get an explanation of how "each upkeep" doesn't actually mean "each upkeep" but all you're offering are questions that don't offer the explanation being sought.

Quote from: Professoralstad

I think there's a discussion recently about what happens during the upkeep phase, and I think it was argued that the only things that can happen during the upkeep phase are updating counters, and performing abilities that specifically occur during the upkeep phase. No dominant or artifact abilities could take place.

Really? That seems absurd to me. The clear and concise rule for Dominants is that they can be played at any time. There is no reason to believe that this would be untrue during the upkeep phase or any other phase for that matter. The only think that keeps them from being played are special abilities, those that protect them from doing what they do and those that prevent the playing of cards until a certain effect happens (hand discarding). What am I supposed to do with The Gates of Hell? It specifically says, "at any time." Are you telling me that "at any time" doesn't actually mean "at any time?" Really? What kind of poorly worded cards are we using?

Sean · « **Reply #32 on:** October 29, 2009, 12:06:12 AM »

Quote

You might be more familiar with the idea that "'Each upkeep phase' means 'each of your upkeep phases'." It the same idea. I'm not sure where in the rulebook it is, but that's the ruling that's been made on dozens and dozens of threads over the years (you might be able to find it on a google group thread from circa 2001 if you really wanted to go looking).

If this is what "each upkeep" actually means then it needs to be in at least one of two places. First, on the card(s) and second, in the rulebook. I do not see it on the cards and I cannot find it in the rulebook. That is a problem.

Quote

There are two types of rules: (1) Rules that define the normal events of the game and (2) Rules that define the framework within which special abilities work. Rules of Type 1 are overridden by special abilities. Rules of Type 2 are not overridden by special abilities. This is a Type 2 rule.

This is the first time I have heard anything of the sort. Where are you getting this from?

Quote

We did away with the Dominants can be played at any time rule several years ago.

I don't remember changing the way Dominants are played. I do remember how we better defined the rule that abilities complete before a new ability can be played. This yielded the current way in which it give the appearance that Dominants cannot be played at any time because of how special abilities target the hand and do not allow for Dominants to played from hand while that hand is being targeted.

Quote

I've also said in several threads in the last month or two that I believe the upkeep phase is like battle resolution in that it is instantaneous and does not allow a player to choose to perform any actions more than what existing rules and abilities require.

That fact that a series of things occurs during the phase indicates to me that there is ample opportunity to play cards and abilities.

STAMP · « **Reply #33 on:** October 29, 2009, 09:34:21 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on October 28, 2009, 09:25:03 PM

what a can of worms

so let's go fishing!

SirNobody · « **Reply #34 on:** October 29, 2009, 10:13:35 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: Sean on October 29, 2009, 12:06:12 AM

Quote
You might be more familiar with the idea that "'Each upkeep phase' means 'each of your upkeep phases'." It the same idea. I'm not sure where in the rulebook it is, but that's the ruling that's been made on dozens and dozens of threads over the years (you might be able to find it on a google group thread from circa 2001 if you really wanted to go looking).
If this is what "each upkeep" actually means then it needs to be in at least one of two places. First, on the card(s) and second, in the rulebook. I do not see it on the cards and I cannot find it in the rulebook. That is a problem.

I agree that this rule is not as well documented as it should be, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a rule and pretty much every redemption player I've run across in the last five years knows that it's a rule (unless they've been playing for under three months).

Quote

Quote
There are two types of rules: (1) Rules that define the normal events of the game and (2) Rules that define the framework within which special abilities work. Rules of Type 1 are overridden by special abilities. Rules of Type 2 are not overridden by special abilities. This is a Type 2 rule.
This is the first time I have heard anything of the sort. Where are you getting this from?

I came up with it off the top of my head. You like it? I do. You know why I like it? Because it works.

Quote

Quote
We did away with the Dominants can be played at any time rule several years ago.
I don't remember changing the way Dominants are played.

Trust me, it happened. I could get into my "Redemption Time" vs "Human Time" explanation but this post is going to be far too long as it is.

Quote

Quote
I've also said in several threads in the last month or two that I believe the upkeep phase is like battle resolution in that it is instantaneous and does not allow a player to choose to perform any actions more than what existing rules and abilities require.
That fact that a series of things occurs during the phase indicates to me that there is ample opportunity to play cards and abilities.

Battle Resolution would be a counterexample that disproves your point. Just because there is a series of things happening, doesn't mean you are allowed to insert new things into the middle of the series.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Sean · « **Reply #35 on:** October 29, 2009, 10:47:21 AM »

Quote

I agree that this rule is not as well documented as it should be

Let's make it happen.

Quote

I came up with it off the top of my head. You like it? I do. You know why I like it? Because it works.

I'm completely fine with this being used as long as it is approved by the PTB.

Quote

Trust me, it happened. I could get into my "Redemption Time" vs "Human Time" explanation but this post is going to be far too long as it is.

If you're willing I'd like that explanation, either through PM or by posting.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #36 on:** October 29, 2009, 01:13:21 PM »

I'd like it posted as well, I've heard the argument and counter argument a number of times in person with you Tim, and I agree with you, however I feel it would be good to have it in text somewhere (Besides the non-existant september REG).

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #37 on:** October 29, 2009, 02:40:32 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on October 29, 2009, 01:13:21 PM

...september REG).

Gabe · « **Reply #38 on:** October 29, 2009, 03:18:22 PM »

I thought the new REG was coming out around Thanksgiving. They just didn't say what year...

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #39 on:** October 30, 2009, 12:11:28 AM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on October 29, 2009, 03:18:22 PM

I thought the new REG was coming out around Thanksgiving. They just didn't say what year...

I'm fairly certain they meant whenever the new REG came out it would be a cause for Thanksgiving.

SirNobody · « **Reply #40 on:** October 30, 2009, 03:08:23 PM »

Hey,

"Redemption Time" vs. "Real Time"

In a game of Redemption everything happens instantly. When Net is played, a hero is captured instantly. When Authority of Christ is played all evil characters are discarded instantly. ...In theory. In reality, there is a period of time during which the intended target for net is being shared by the player that played it or the evil characters killed by Authority of Christ are being picked up and moved to the discard pile. It takes time for us to carry out instantaneous effects and sometimes to determine exactly what effects need to be carried out.

The difference in the theory of it and the reality of it is the difference between Redemption Time and Real Time.

Basically, Redemption time moves faster than Real time. When I play Net, in Redemption Time, the next "moment" in time the character is in the land of bondage. In Real Time, the next few moments are spent moving the character to the land of bondage. To account for this difference we "pause" Redemption Time frequently to allow Real Time to catch up.

This ultimately results in the idea that dominants can be played at any time that exists in Redemption Time, but not at any time that exists in Real Time.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Professoralstad · « **Reply #41 on:** October 30, 2009, 03:48:18 PM »

If only you added something about the speed of light in there, you could publish those findings and win a Nobel Prize.

Sean · « **Reply #42 on:** October 30, 2009, 04:33:30 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on October 30, 2009, 03:48:18 PM

If only you added something about the speed of light in there, you could publish those findings and win a Nobel Prize.

Or you could do like Obama and simply go about his business as usual, not really doing anything, and he could get a Nobel Prize.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #43 on:** October 30, 2009, 04:44:37 PM »

Quote from: Sean on October 30, 2009, 04:33:30 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on October 30, 2009, 03:48:18 PM
If only you added something about the speed of light in there, you could publish those findings and win a Nobel Prize.
Or you could do like Obama and simply go about his business as usual, not really doing anything, and he could get a Nobel Prize.

I was going to say something like that, but decided it would be better to leave it alone, as I would rather that no political discussions are generated on this particular forum.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #44 on:** October 30, 2009, 05:40:48 PM »

Well clearly it is the Democratic majority in our government that has bogged down the publishing of the new REG. The Republicans would have passed it through the red tape by now.

News:

Author Topic: Set Fire (Read 7187 times)

Ironica

browarod

browarod