Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Master KChief on December 19, 2009, 01:17:12 PM
-
just wanted to get an official ruling on this: if i use the branch on elders of the city, does that mean after i make a successful rescue, i can place 2 evil characters in my opponents land of bondage?
The Branch
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: A male Hero's abilities increase by fifty percent of the value printed on the Hero card. • Identifiers: OT, Based on Prophecy • Verse: Zechariah 6:12 • Availability: Prophets booster packs (Uncommon)
Elders of the City
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 6 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: After a successful rescue attempt, place one Evil Character just defeated into your opponent's Land of Bondage. • Identifiers: Generic OT Male Human • Verse: Ruth 4:2 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)
-
Abilities increase, not Special Abilities.
-
Yeah, abilities are the numbers, not the Special Ability.
-
if thats the case, then the thankful leper is a useless card?
-
the tipoff on branch is "increase"... you cant increase a special ability. TTL however, says that abilities cannot be negated... and */* cant be made CBN.
-
However, there is a clear distinction between abilities and special abilities. Thankful Leper says nothing about "special abilities."
-
the tipoff on branch is "increase"... you cant increase a special ability.
um, why?
-
the tipoff on branch is "increase"... you cant increase a special ability.
um, why?
Increase captian of the host by 50%. uhmm... or how about faithful servent, do you protect 150% of the lost souls in play from shuffle?
Increasing a special ability makes less than 4% sense.
-
the tipoff on branch is "increase"... you cant increase a special ability.
um, why?
Increase captian of the host by 50%. uhmm... or how about faithful servent, do you protect 150% of the lost souls in play from shuffle?
Increasing a special ability makes less than 4% sense.
is a special ability without a number a 'value'? no? ok.
-
Just to remind everyone, this has been discussed before (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17748.0)...
-
i know, i brought it up again looking for an official answer. i see no reason that branch couldnt work if ttl works.
-
Hey,
The Branch has an increase/decrease ability. Increase/decrease abilities affect strength and toughness. The Thankful Leper has a can't be negated ability. Can't be negated abilities affect special abilities.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
The Branch has an increase/decrease ability. Increase/decrease abilities affect strength and toughness. The Thankful Leper has a can't be negated ability. Can't be negated abilities affect special abilities.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
This is exactly what I was getting at with my post above.
-
you can increase/decrease numbers. parmenas/elders have numbers in their special abilities.
also, you say */* cant be made cbn...even though they inherently are.
-
you can increase/decrease numbers. parmenas/elders have numbers in their special abilities.
Increase/Decrease is a special ability that has defined rules. They only affect strength and toughness, not numbers in general. From the REG:
Ongoing Abilities > Increase or Decrease Ability > General Description
These cards increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters in a prescribed way.
-
that reg quote doesnt tell me anything besides what cards increase or decrease abilities (numbers). it does not say increase/decrease is exclusive to numbers only, which was your opening argument, of which remains unproven by your REG quote.
-
OK. But in the mean time, the rest of us will use the REG definition of Increase/Decrease special abilities to make our rulings. In this case, you now have a 9/6 Elders of the City who, if he has a successful RA, will place one EC in your opponent's LoB.
-
OK. But in the mean time, the rest of us will use the REG definition of Increase/Decrease special abilities to make our rulings. In this case, you now have a 9/6 Elders of the City who, if he has a successful RA, will place one EC in your opponent's LoB.
fixed. you still have yet to prove your opening argument.
my point is there is nothing in the REG saying increase/decrease exclusively affects only abilities. up until malys (which is good as gold in my book) ruling, there has been no precedent.
-
Here's the full text:
REG > Ongoing Abilities > Increase or Decrease Ability
General Description
These cards increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters in a prescribed way. The increase or decrease is a fixed number. Some cards may affect more than one character. The increase or decrease lasts until the end of the battle unless specified otherwise (i.e. end of turn). After the battle, the characters not discarded in battle return to the territory with their original ability. See Greater Worth on page 5 for cards that increase at a variable rate, the rate dependent on other conditions.
The parenthesis defines "ability" in this REG entry.
-
These cards increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters in a prescribed way. The increase or decrease is a fixed number...
I bolded the most relevant stuff from that.
I just have to say, how on earth can you increase a verb? Is there such a thing as superplace?! how can you affect one and a half cards? What is your line of reasoning for something like that?
-
Here's the full text:
REG > Ongoing Abilities > Increase or Decrease Ability
General Description
These cards increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters in a prescribed way. The increase or decrease is a fixed number. Some cards may affect more than one character. The increase or decrease lasts until the end of the battle unless specified otherwise (i.e. end of turn). After the battle, the characters not discarded in battle return to the territory with their original ability. See Greater Worth on page 5 for cards that increase at a variable rate, the rate dependent on other conditions.
The parenthesis defines "ability" in this REG entry.
again, this only explains how to increase and decrease strength and toughness.
I just have to say, how on earth can you increase a verb?
what are you talking about?
how can you affect one and a half cards?
you tell me, how can you?
What is your line of reasoning for something like that?
irrelevant. if it works, it works, if it doesnt, then it doesnt. parmenas would get to draw 3 cards if this worked. however, this is a moot point since maly chimed in...sooooo...
-
Here's the full text:
REG > Ongoing Abilities > Increase or Decrease Ability
General Description
These cards increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters in a prescribed way. The increase or decrease is a fixed number. Some cards may affect more than one character. The increase or decrease lasts until the end of the battle unless specified otherwise (i.e. end of turn). After the battle, the characters not discarded in battle return to the territory with their original ability. See Greater Worth on page 5 for cards that increase at a variable rate, the rate dependent on other conditions.
The parenthesis defines "ability" in this REG entry.
again, this only explains how to increase and decrease strength and toughness.
Correct. If it was even possible for special abilities to be increased or decreased, they would have needed to be listed as well, as this is the place in the REG designated to explain increase and decrease abilities. Since special abilities are not listed, special abilities cannot be increased or decreased.
I just have to say, how on earth can you increase a verb?
what are you talking about?
His point is that you cannot increase "negate all special abilities" or "discard a giant" by 50%. You don't have "level 2 discards" or anything... you either discard or you don't.
-
i did not say the branch increased all special abilities. i suggested the branch could increase a numerical value on a card, of which elders and parmenas both have. clauses such as 'negate all special abilities' and 'discard a giant' do not have values.
-
Discard a Giant doesn't have a value?
-
not a printed numerical value, as the branch suggests. how do you increase 'a' by 50%?
-
"A" is exactly equal to "One."
-
if 'a' = 'one' and is defined as such by redemption context, and if the branch worked in the way i originally thought, then yeah, i see no reason why you couldnt discard 1.5 giants.
-
if 'a' = 'one' and is defined as such by redemption context, and if the branch worked in the way i originally thought, then yeah, i see no reason why you couldnt discard 1.5 giants.
What card is a half a giant, wouldnt that be a normal sized person?
How do you discard half a card?
-
How do you discard half a card?
Duh. Tear it in half and put half of it in the discard pile.
-
Haman's Giant
12/12 Brown Evil Character
"Rip this card in half to make two half-giants with abilities 6/6."
-
if 'a' = 'one' and is defined as such by redemption context, and if the branch worked in the way i originally thought, then yeah, i see no reason why you couldnt discard 1.5 giants.
What card is a half a giant, wouldnt that be a normal sized person?
How do you discard half a card?
do you? or dont you?
-
if 'a' = 'one' and is defined as such by redemption context, and if the branch worked in the way i originally thought, then yeah, i see no reason why you couldnt discard 1.5 giants.
What card is a half a giant, wouldnt that be a normal sized person?
How do you discard half a card?
do you? or dont you?
What?
-
well, sinning hand is able to discard half a hand, even if that hand is an odd number. i'd say the branch is pretty similiar, even though it doesnt give room for explaining away the decimals. if such a thing were possible, i'd rule to do as much as you can. since you cant discard half an evil character, then you can only discard one.
-
OK. But in the mean time, the rest of us will use the REG definition of Increase/Decrease special abilities to make our rulings. In this case, you now have a 9/6 Elders of the City who, if he has a successful RA, will place one EC in your opponent's LoB.
fixed. you still have yet to prove your opening argument.
Sorry, but your "fix" is invalid. Increase/Decrease is a special ability. The quote tells what those special abilities affect, which would be the abilities of the character (which ironically the same REG quote also defines). The one REG quote defines Increase/Decrease Special Abilities and what abilities they affect.
You can't get much more clear than that.
-
What card is a half a giant, wouldnt that be a normal sized person?
fallen warrior could be half a giant. :D
-
OK. But in the mean time, the rest of us will use the REG definition of Increase/Decrease special abilities to make our rulings. In this case, you now have a 9/6 Elders of the City who, if he has a successful RA, will place one EC in your opponent's LoB.
fixed. you still have yet to prove your opening argument.
Sorry, but your "fix" is invalid. Increase/Decrease is a special ability. The quote tells what those special abilities affect, which would be the abilities of the character (which ironically the same REG quote also defines). The one REG quote defines Increase/Decrease Special Abilities and what abilities they affect.
You can't get much more clear than that.
sure you can, by saying increase/decrease doesnt affect special abilities, which the REG does not make clear. natch.
-
sure you can, by saying increase/decrease doesnt affect special abilities, which the REG does not make clear. natch.
LOL. The REG would be ten times larger than it already is if every special ability category said what it didn't do as well as what it does do.
I can just imagine a dictionary that included what each word doesn't mean alongside the actual definition. ;)
-
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLULZ!!!!1!111!!! or, the REG could just include that increase/decrease only affects abilities. duh.
-
or, the REG could just include that increase/decrease only affects abilities. duh.
It does:
Ongoing Abilities > Increase or Decrease Ability > General Description
These cards increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters in a prescribed way.
These cards (cards with an Increase or Decrease Ability) increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters (people, demons, animals) in a prescribed way (what the card says to do).
-
...and then it goes on to list what increase/decrease ability cards there are in redemption. NOTHING MORE. it does not say increase/decrease is EXCLUSIVE to abilities only. im failing to see your point.
-
This is what you asked for:
or, the REG could just include that increase/decrease only affects abilities. duh.
That's what the REG says.
The REG only says what it affects, not what it doesn't affect. Therefore your point is moot:
it does not say increase/decrease is EXCLUSIVE to abilities only.
It is exclusive to "ability (strength and toughness)" because that is what it says.
im failing to see your point.
You are refusing to see my point. There is a difference.
I think you will find that you see better in the daylight of you are not wearing your night-vision visor.
-
This is what you asked for:
or, the REG could just include that increase/decrease only affects abilities. duh.
That's what the REG says.
The REG only says what it affects, not what it doesn't affect.
really? where? because i dont see the word only ANYWHERE. i see nothing that even suggests increase/decrease is exclusive only to numbered abilities. what i see is a LIST of cards that increase/decrease numbered abilities.
It is exclusive to "ability (strength and toughness)" because that is what it says.
nowhere does it say that.
and for the record, NVGs own.
-
and for the record, NVGs own.
...just not in the daylight.
A different analogy:
You are looking for an answer in English. However, the REG is written in Spanish. You refuse to learn Spanish, so those of us who speak Spanish translate the REG for you. However, that was not the answer you wanted to hear, so now you have decided that since the REG does not have the answer in English, it does not have the answer at all.
-
let me break it down...
Ongoing Abilities > Increase or Decrease (up or down) Ability (what it affects) > General Description
These cards increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters in a prescribed way.
where does this even suggest that increasing and decreasing is EXCLUSIVE ONLY TO ABILITIES? that is what im asking. that is what you are failing to prove. that is what you CANNOT PROVE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE. does it say increase/decrease ONLY affects strength and toughness? no. this was not proven to be the case until maly ruled. does the above REG excerpt say what maly said? no? ok then.
-
this was not proven to be the case until maly ruled. does the above REG excerpt say what maly said? no? ok then.
The Branch has an increase/decrease ability. Increase/decrease abilities affect strength and toughness.
What is it that Maly said that the REG did not?
-
he made increase/decrease exclusive to number abilities only.
-
he made increase/decrease exclusive to number abilities only.
where does this even suggest that increasing and decreasing is EXCLUSIVE ONLY TO ABILITIES? that is what im asking. that is what you are failing to prove. that is what you CANNOT PROVE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE. does it say increase/decrease ONLY affects strength and toughness? no.
-
Hey,
Ongoing Abilities > Increase or Decrease (up or down) Ability (what it affects) > General Description
These cards increase or decrease the ability (strength and toughness) of characters in a prescribed way.
where does this even suggest that increasing and decreasing is EXCLUSIVE ONLY TO ABILITIES?
While it probably doesn't say this anywhere in the Rulebook or REG, if the rules or a special ability don't say that you can do something, then you can't do it. Redemption has an "illegal until proven legal" ideology. So the onus is on MKC to show where the rules say Increase/Decrease abilities can affect special abilities rather than on YMT to show where the rules say that they can't.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
i did it by adding two and two together. branch says to increase the [abilities] by 50% of the value printed on the card. on ttl, [abilities] = [special abilities]. adding both together, what do you get? there was my proof.
-
i did it by adding two and two together. branch says to increase the [abilities] by 50% of the value printed on the card. on ttl, [abilities] = [special abilities]. adding both together, what do you get? there was my proof.
TTL is not an Increase/Decrease Ability card. The REG entry for Increase/Decrease Ability cards (which The Branch is) specifically states that [abilities]=[strength and toughness].
-
additionally, as ruled by bryon...
The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise.
according to this, if 'abilities' includes 'all of those' (being numerical and special), then i was correct in my logic. again, there was my proof.
-
additionally, as ruled by bryon...
The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise.
Increase/Decrease Abilities say otherwise.... in the REG.
-
you're misconstruing what he said. he meant on the card itself (ie capture ability, discard ability, etc). obviously those 'say otherwise'. even so, the REG doesnt say otherwise. it merely has a list of cards that increase or decrease abilities.
-
it merely has a list of cards that increase or decrease abilities.
You keep saying that. Are you aware that there are two links in the online REG? One that says Ongoing Abilities and another that says Ongoing Ability Cards. I just want to make sure that we are on the same page, so to speak. ;D
-
it merely has a list of cards that increase or decrease abilities.
You keep saying that. Are you aware that there are two links in the online REG? One that says Ongoing Abilities and another that says Ongoing Ability Cards. I just want to make sure that we are on the same page, so to speak. ;D
YMT, I believe MKC is aware of that.
His claim is that Bryon specifically ruled otherwise and said that abilities include both numbers and special abilities. Do you disagree that official ruling from Bryon override the REG? Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's statement that "The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise." is an official ruling? Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's ruling is applicable in this case?
Merely repeating the same argument over again does not clarify your position.
-
YMT, I believe MKC is aware of that.
He kept saying "list of cards" so I wanted to be sure. That was not meant as a slight.
His claim is that Bryon specifically ruled otherwise and said that abilities include both numbers and special abilities. Do you disagree that official ruling from Bryon override the REG?
I disagree that this overrides any use of the word "abilities," especially since he specifically said "unless specified otherwise." The REG specifies otherwise in this case.
-
Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's statement that "The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise." is an official ruling? Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's ruling is applicable in this case?
FWIW, I think "abililties" should mean what the REG defines it as. The Thankful Leper should get a "Play As." I agree with MKC's argument in that thread. I actually posted after Bryon that I agree with the concept of "we know what we meant," but in retrospect I think that will only cause this kind of lack of clarity.
-
Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's statement that "The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise." is an official ruling? Or are you disagreeing that Bryon's ruling is applicable in this case?
FWIW, I think "abililties" should mean what the REG defines it as. The Thankful Leper should get a "Play As." I agree with MKC's argument in that thread. I actually posted after Bryon that I agree with the concept of "we know what we meant," but in retrospect I think that will only cause this kind of lack of clarity.
The problem is that Bryon apparently overruled the definition of ability in the REG. (The same definition found in the The Thankful Leper case is exactly the same one that is linked to in the discussion of Increase/Decrease Abilities in the REG.) Bryon could not have been more clear about his intent to have the ruling override the REG...
Perhaps the REG needs editing.
The way I see it, a card has numerical abilities and special abilities. Abilities includes all of those, unless specified otherwise.
So the question that is open is whether or not MKC has found an unexpected consequence of an official ruling (like actions must complete stopping multiple simultaenous set asides). If not, why not (without using a portion of the REG that Bryon claims may need editing)?
-
The problem is that Bryon apparently overruled the definition of ability in the REG. (The same definition found in the The Thankful Leper case is exactly the same one that is linked to in the discussion of Increase/Decrease Abilities in the REG.) Bryon could not have been more clear about his intent to have the ruling override the REG...
If that were true, then there would have been no need for the "unless specified otherwise" exclusion. This would be an example of an exception since the REG definition for Increase/Decrease does not just say "abilties," it clarifies the exact affect in parentheses.
(without using a portion of the REG that Bryon claims may need editing)?
This is not where we should be. The REG needs to be updated. Period. If the PTBs can't do it, then let those of us who have time do it, because this is simply ridiculous.
I saw a recent news report that the new REG accidently lifted off in an experimental weather balloon. They are just waiting for the balloon to come down to see if the new REG is still there and still OK.
-
Hey,
The word "bear" is used in the phrases "polar bear" and "right to bear arms" and in those two phrases it means completely different things. The word has multiple definitions and you determine which definition is being used based on the context.
In Redemption, "abilities" is the same way. In The Branch's special ability it means "strength and toughness." In The Thankful Leper's ability it means "special abilities." Why is this so hard to grasp?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
The word "bear" is used in the phrases "polar bear" and "right to bear arms" and in those two phrases it means completely different things. The word has multiple definitions and you determine which definition is being used based on the context.
In Redemption, "abilities" is the same way. In The Branch's special ability it means "strength and toughness." In The Thankful Leper's ability it means "special abilities." Why is this so hard to grasp?
I don't usually confuse nouns with verbs, but that isn't relevant to ruling questions. As a host, I rely on the REG to spell it out for me when I am not sure. "Abilities" is only defined one way in the REG.
The Thankful Leper was not carefully proofed, therefore it needs a "Play As"/"Errata." Why is that so hard to grasp?
-
Abilities
Abilities (numbers) are points of offensive strength (*/), and defensive toughness (/*) of a character or enhancement. The card’s abilities are listed in the icon box. See Anatomy of a Card.
Ability
When the word “ability” immediately follows a game term like “first strike” or “discard,” then “ability” is short for “special ability.” If the word “abilities” appears apart from other game terms, it refers only to a card’s numerical abilities (*/*).
THIS is why clarification is needed.
-
Hey,
The word "bear" is used in the phrases "polar bear" and "right to bear arms" and in those two phrases it means completely different things. The word has multiple definitions and you determine which definition is being used based on the context.
In Redemption, "abilities" is the same way. In The Branch's special ability it means "strength and toughness." In The Thankful Leper's ability it means "special abilities." Why is this so hard to grasp?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
I think we all get the difference between an "ability" (numbers) and "special ability" (words). But there isn't a context to define "ability" as "special ability" on The Thankful Leper. If SA was meant, and I know it was, a super simple play as is all that is needed!
-
In Redemption, "abilities" is the same way. In The Branch's special ability it means "strength and toughness." In The Thankful Leper's ability it means "special abilities." Why is this so hard to grasp?
The card description for The Thankful Leper links to the REG definition of "abilities."The Increase/Decrease Abilities listing in the REG links to the exact same definition of "abilities." The numbers only definition of "abilities" was overruled by Bryon for TTL, who stated the REG might need some updating. This appears to raise a legitimate question as to why the modified definition of "abilities" does not hold for The Branch.
I hope this helps to answer your question.
-
Wow. This has nothing to do with the definition of "abilities." It has everything to do with the definition of "increase/decrease."
Increase/Decrease ONLY targets the strength and toughness of the card.
Period. The end.
-
Increase/Decrease ONLY targets the strength and toughness of the card.
I already tried that on pages 2,3 and 4 of this thread and it didn't work. :-\
Wow. This has nothing to do with the definition of "abilities." It has everything to do with the definition of "increase/decrease."
Based on what MJB is arguing, your previous ruling for The Thankful Leper overrides any reference to "abilities" in the REG. Whether you meant that or not, the Pandora's Box has been opened. I think a "Play As" for TTL is a better idea than a broader acceptance of the word "abilities," especially since the current REG clearly differentiates the words "ability" and "abilities."
-
Increase/Decrease ONLY targets the strength and toughness of the card.
I already tried that on pages 2,3 and 4 of this thread and it didn't work. :-\
because you had no proof. your proof is there now. operative word: ONLY.
Wow. This has nothing to do with the definition of "abilities." It has everything to do with the definition of "increase/decrease."
Based on what MJB is arguing, your previous ruling for The Thankful Leper overrides any reference to "abilities" in the REG. Whether you meant that or not, the Pandora's Box has been opened. I think a "Play As" for TTL is a better idea than a broader acceptance of the word "abilities," especially since the current REG clearly differentiates the words "ability" and "abilities."
yeah, it kinda has everything to do with the definition for 'ability'...as written, ttl needs a play as.
-
Based on what MJB is arguing, your previous ruling for The Thankful Leper overrides any reference to "abilities" in the REG. Whether you meant that or not, the Pandora's Box has been opened. I think a "Play As" for TTL is a better idea than a broader acceptance of the word "abilities," especially since the current REG clearly differentiates the words "ability" and "abilities."
Hmm. So, if I protect my EC "from discard abilities," then I am only protecting it from numbers?! Clearly the word "abilities," when it follows a certain type of special ability, is refering to special abilities.
So, the word "abilities" can be used for numbers, or for certain types of special abilities.
To clarify, we include the word "special" when there might be confusion. Apparently we should have done so on TTL. It is odd is that 20+ people who read and reread that list never doubted it refered to special abilities. I'd be willing to bet that the players who question it now still know the intent of the card.
Still, to be fair, we should have included "special" to avoid confusion and be most precise. Sometimes we drop words to save space on cards that we should not drop. This was one of those times.
Regardless, for the question at the top of this thread, increase/decrease applies ONLY to strength/toughness.
-
Hmm. So, if I protect my EC "from discard abilities," then I am only protecting it from numbers?! Clearly the word "abilities," when it follows a certain type of special ability, is refering to special abilities.
This is explained in the definition for "Ability" in the REG by the phrase "apart from other game terms":
Ability
When the word "ability" immediately follows a game term like "first strike" or "discard," then "ability" is short for "special ability." If the word "abilities" appears apart from other game terms, it refers only to a card's numerical abilities (*/*).