Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Master KChief on September 04, 2009, 07:32:21 PM
-
The Thankful Leper
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 1 / 10 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search opponent's discard pile for all Lost Soul and put into his territory. Abilities on good gold brigade cards cannot be negated if opponent has less than ten cards in deck. • Attributes: Samaritan • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Samaria • Verse: Luke 17:15-16 • Availability: Rock of Ages (Set 12)
does this mean only numbers cannot be negated, or does it include special abilities as well?
-
REG:
"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."
A literal reading of the card says that TTL only preserves the numbers.
-
Can you negate a character's abilities in the first place? Aside from decreasers, the whole idea of negating numbers is nonexistent.
-
exactly. this card makes no sense at all.
-
You can't negate character abilities, but you can negate enhancement abilities (effect = numbers + SA).
-
abilities = numbers
special abilities = text printed in art box
the thankful leper says abilities.
-
Discard abilities is short for discard special abilities.
Capture abilities is short for capture special abilities.
Abilities can be short for special abilities.
-
As written, you could negate the SA of a good gold card, but not its numbers. Some negate cards allow you to negate "the last card played" or some such. In those cases, the SA wouldn't work, but the numbers would stay in play.
At least, I think that's how it would work.
-
Abilities can be short for special abilities.
I can accept that, but I doubt that some on these boards will. It "can" be short, but "is" it? (Or does it depends what you mean by "is"? :D )
-
from the REG:
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.
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 (*/*).
'abilities' on thankful leper does not follow another game term. as written, only numbers cannot be negated.
-
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.
-
I think "ability" (singular) is normally (always?) sort for special ability, since numbers is defined as "abilities". (DoN, Gathering of Angels)
The definition of ability could use a little clarification, since there are some cards that modify ability after it rather than before it. (Wasting Disease)
"Abilities" on The Thankful Leper isn't modified anywhere, so as currently worded, it should only stop negation of the numbers.
-
...which cant be negated anyways. :)
unless, its meant to mean that when hes in battle, your opponent CAN negate numbers until you have 10 cards or less left in your deck. :D
-
You can negate numbers (on enhancements) if you negate the entire card (negate the effect or negate the card). So your opponent could negate the SA of Battle Prayer with Unsuccessful, but the numbers would remain.
-
That stinks. Is this how it was meant to be played?
I have another question: Does Thankful Leper have an unwritten ability to check how many cards are in opponent's deck, or is that something you can just do anytime anyway?
-
i believe hand size and deck size are common knowledge.
-
Well then next time someone won't tell me how many cards are in their deck, I'll just count 'em up. :)
-
I'm with Bryon on this one. I think it's obvious what the card was meant to do. I'm gonna say this nicely before Schaef gives the real deal. 8)
Or when my opponent attacks with abiathar I'm gonna start playing Christian Martyr.
-
The abilities on a card include all types of abilities:
1) number abilities
AND
2) special abilities
Destruction of Nehushtan negates the "ability" on the artifact. Artifacts don't have number abilities. What if the artifact has two special abilities, or three? Does it only negate one? It means "abilities" and includes the special abilities.
Clearly, Ability/Abilities is used on some cards as an abbreviation for "number abilities and special abilities."
We know what The Thankful Leper is supposed to do, and we know what Destruction is supposed to do, and we all know that "abilities" is short for "special abilities" in many cases. So, let's all agree that it applies to all unless speecified otherwise. It is simple to clarify one definition in a REG.
-
I'm with Bryon on this one. I think it's obvious what the card was meant to do. I'm gonna say this nicely before Schaef gives the real deal. 8)
theres a difference between what a card was 'meant to do' and what it says. see: split altar, goshen.
Or when my opponent attacks with abiathar I'm gonna start playing Christian Martyr.
the card clearly says discard abilities...in which 'abilities' does follow immediately after a game mechanic, and as per the REG means 'discard special abilities'.
-
We know what The Thankful Leper is supposed to do, and we know what Destruction is supposed to do, and we all know that "abilities" is short for "special abilities" in many cases. So, let's all agree that it applies to all unless speecified otherwise. It is simple to clarify one definition in a REG.
I agree. This is a more logical approach that will be easier to teach new players.
Now let the scavengers scour through every old card and see if this will break anything. ;)
-
Now let the scavengers scour through every old card and see if this will break anything. ;)
I don't know, would giving all your heroes CBN special abilities break anything?
I Am Sustainer -- Protect holder's Heroes from having their abilities reduced. Restore all of holder's Heroes to full abilities.
Under any standard definition removing something completely (negating it) is a form of reducing it.
-
We know what The Thankful Leper is supposed to do, and we know what Destruction is supposed to do, and we all know that "abilities" is short for "special abilities" in many cases. So, let's all agree that it applies to all unless speecified otherwise. It is simple to clarify one definition in a REG.
I agree. This is a more logical approach that will be easier to teach new players.
Now let the scavengers scour through every old card and see if this will break anything. ;)
actually, the more logical approach would be to stay consistent to the rules and REG. 'abilities' by itself has ALWAYS referred to just the numbers...for years.
-
Really? So you've NEVER negated the special ability on an artifact with Destruction?
-
Now let the scavengers scour through every old card and see if this will break anything. ;)
I don't know, would giving all your heroes CBN special abilities break anything?
I Am Sustainer -- Protect holder's Heroes from having their abilities reduced. Restore all of holder's Heroes to full abilities.
Under any standard definition removing something completely (negating it) is a form of reducing it.
Is "Reduced" defined in Redemption? "Reduce" is a special ability that lowers the number abilities of a character, right?
-
Really? So you've NEVER negated the special ability on an artifact with Destruction?
well if we want to nitpick, i can very well bring up a valid argument that don cannot negate an artifacts ability, since artifacts technically have no 'ability' as per REG definition. but we still give it the benefit of the doubt.
ttl is different as 'ability' can very well apply to a character or enhancements numbers. don, obviously, cannot.
also fwiw, 'reduced' is not currently defined in redemption. i am sustainer ftw.
-
Reduced=decreased. There, it's defined. :P
-
So then, I Am Sustainer doesn't do anything, since "reduced" is not defined?
*EDIT* Justin, I like your definition.
We know what these cards do. Let them do those things.
We should add and modify definitions as needed.
No one has given me a reason that "abilities" can't apply to both numerical and special abilities, given that we define "reduce" as I did above.
Are there any other cards that would cause concern?
-
Under any standard definition removing something completely (negating it) is a form of reducing it.
Is "Reduced" defined in Redemption?
No, "reduced" is not defined in Redemption. By this I mean it is not listed as a definition in the REG. Nor does the word "reduce" appear in the section on Increase or Decrease Abilties cards, where it is made clear that the discussion is centered on numeric abilities solely.
"Reduce" is a special ability that lowers the number abilities of a character, right?
That's the working definition I always used, but that was back when the word "abilities" standing by itself meant numeric abilities only. Now that it was made clear that "abilities" means numeric + special abilities, my original working definition would appear to be incorrect.
So then, I Am Sustainer doesn't do anything, since "reduced" is not defined?
Given that the default was always that words that don't have a special Redemption definition were assumed to use the standard English definition, I am not sure what this claim is supposed to mean.
No one has given me a reason that "abilities" can't apply to both numerical and special abilities, given that we define "reduce" as I did above.
Are there any other cards that would cause concern?
I thought the big push for the past few years has been to get away from issuing rulings on a card-by-card basis. Are we really pushing to go back to that?
-
We know what these cards do. Let them do those things.
its refreshing to know these cards only 'do things' for the people that 'know'. while the rest of the redemption community has to resort to the rules and definitions clearly defined in the REG.
We should add and modify definitions as needed.
sounds like a plan.
No one has given me a reason that "abilities" can't apply to both numerical and special abilities, given that we define "reduce" as I did above.
well i suppose self and fallen warrior just got a whole lot more powerful, seeing as how 'abilities' now blankets 'special abilities' as well. i guess those parenthesis arent really there for a reason.
-
well i suppose self and fallen warrior just got a whole lot more powerful, seeing as how 'abilities' now blankets 'special abilities' as well. i guess those parenthesis arent really there for a reason.
I thought about Fallen Warrior before I posted I Am Sustainer. I don't think he is a very good example, however, because the parenthetical aside (*/*) makes is clear what "abilities" are referring too. Although if Fallen Warrior was reinterpreted in this way, we we would never have to hear the black is weak, ever again. :)
Parmenas should be able to draw three cards if The Branch was placed on him ahead of time, however.
-
The Branch? Wow, where'd you pull that one from?
-
and thats what i came across almost every time in the card list: either 'abilities' referring strictly to numbers, or 'abilties (*/*)'.
if 'abilities' = (*/*), then the parenthetical text is redundant and irrelevant, leaving just 'abilities'. and now, if abilities = special abilities as well, then fallen warrior and self just became more useable. or wait, that probably wasn't as 'intended'. or 'designed'. or these cards only do what the people that 'know' they do.
whatever. be consistent. either change the REG or errata ttl, thats all im saying.
-
I thought the big push for the past few years has been to get away from issuing rulings on a card-by-card basis. Are we really pushing to go back to that?
That is true, but let's figure out just how much of an impact that would have before we start pulling our hair out...
-
The Branch? Wow, where'd you pull that one from?
I'm probably not supposed to let the cat out of the bag--but what the heck...
The Branch played a major role in The Guardians's T2 Strength in Weakness deck. 8)
-
so what do we do if the branch is placed on a hero that creates a decimal number in the special ability, like ethiopian treasurer or elders of the city? does the card round up or down?
-
David Easterling's Redemption Guide said that they remained decimal numbers (5/4 + 2.5/2 = 7.5/6).
-
so i can place 1.5 evil characters into my opponents lob with elders?
-
I'm probably not supposed to let the cat out of the bag--but what the heck...
The Branch played a major role in The Guardians's T2 Strength in Weakness deck. 8)
Can't believe you betrayed my trust like that... :(
-
I'm probably not supposed to let the cat out of the bag--but what the heck...
The Branch played a major role in The Guardians's T2 Strength in Weakness deck. 8)
Can't believe you betrayed my trust like that... :(
He didn't mentioned the buck..err..nvm. :doh: