Author Topic: What rules are confusing to you? (Read 9179 times)

The Guardian · « **on:** July 25, 2017, 12:08:50 PM »

Open forum with two guidelines:

--Please be specific, clear and concise. Walls of text are not needed.

--Understand that this is NOT a "What rules should we change?" forum or a place to debate rulings--this is an effort to look for things that we can better convey in updates to the rulebook and the REG.

If you agree with a previously posted answer, feel free to simply quote it and add a

.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #1 on:** July 25, 2017, 12:36:14 PM »

Rules that seen counterintuitive, or rather that you need to have a rule book open to know that they exist. I find it best when you can just read a card and know exactly how it works without having to know defaults/other rules. An example of this is David the Shepard can add the hero he searched for to play, but not to battle, which is in play, because of the default that says in play doesn't mean in battle

The Guardian · « **Reply #2 on:** July 25, 2017, 12:46:29 PM »

That's a good example though I think the bigger issue with that particular scenario is that we should have used "put in territory" instead of "play."

Keep in mind though that having default conditions allows us to keep abilities short, which can allow for more versatile abilities. Perhaps the best example of this was the change to Lost Souls being discarded from deck so that we didn't have to keep using "Put Lost Souls in play instead" every time we wanted to have a deck discard ability.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #3 on:** July 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PM »

I agree that card could have been fixed by changing the word, it was the only one that came to mind. I was considering putting the LS example you shared actually as well. I know keeping wordings short is also very important, but it makes it harder for people to pick up the game when the cards don't function they way the appear to read on the card. A balance is important

Zerutul · « **Reply #4 on:** July 25, 2017, 12:50:53 PM »

Example: Cards granting CBN are inherently CBN.
Reason: Seems illogical to have a special ability that inherently gains CBN when it states it no where on the cards that they are. Although this is easy to "understand" once you know it, it still makes no sense and is not really clear to a player of the game.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #5 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:00:25 PM »

What gets me is cards that grant CBP or CBI becoming CBN. to me if they grant CBP/CBI, they should be CBP/CBI themselves, not CBN

The Guardian · « **Reply #6 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:04:41 PM »

Quote from: Zerutul on July 25, 2017, 12:50:53 PM

Example: Cards granting CBN are inherently CBN.
Reason: Seems illogical to have a special ability that inherently gains CBN when it states it no where on the cards that they are. Although this is easy to "understand" once you know it, it still makes no sense and is not really clear to a player of the game.

An important distinction--phrases such as "Cannot be interrupted," "Cannot be prevented," and "Cannot be negated" are not actually special abilities. They are classified as "modifiers." That is something spelled out in the REG that most likely will be added to the updated rulebook.

However, because they appear right alongside special abilities it is certainly logical to think that they are special abilities. I'm not sure if there's a way to make that readily apparent on the cards themselves, but it's worth looking into.

The Guardian · « **Reply #7 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:09:36 PM »

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on July 25, 2017, 01:00:25 PM

What gets me is cards that grant CBP or CBI becoming CBN. to me if they grant CBP/CBI, they should be CBP/CBI themselves, not CBN

That's a fair point, and perhaps that is not the way it should be worded.

As I mentioned above, those "abilities" are actually modifiers so the fact that they cannot be negated is really just a function of the fact that they aren't special abilities at all, and because interrupt/prevent/negate targets abilities (not modifiers) that is why they become inherently CBN.

Would it make more sense for a "Modifiers" entry to simply say that they are not special abilities and therefore are not affected by interrupt/prevent/negate abilities?

Zerutul · « **Reply #8 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:11:14 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 25, 2017, 01:04:41 PM

Quote from: Zerutul on July 25, 2017, 12:50:53 PM
Example: Cards granting CBN are inherently CBN.
Reason: Seems illogical to have a special ability that inherently gains CBN when it states it no where on the cards that they are. Although this is easy to "understand" once you know it, it still makes no sense and is not really clear to a player of the game.

An important distinction--phrases such as "Cannot be interrupted," "Cannot be prevented," and "Cannot be negated" are not actually special abilities. They are classified as "modifiers." That is something spelled out in the REG that most likely will be added to the updated rulebook.

However, because they appear right alongside special abilities it is certainly logical to think that they are special abilities. I'm not sure if there's a way to make that readily apparent on the cards themselves, but it's worth looking into.

Correct, I agree that they need to be easily spelled out because they are literally special ability text. Maybe an icon besides those abilities? That adds to the point because making that distinction makes it easy to see that you cannot negate a card which grants CBN.

The UI/UX development side of me sees special ability text on a card and as a user I understand that everything within that text must be a special ability. An icon or perhaps making the text colored differently/different font might clarify the point to everyone.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:24:06 PM »

1. Mandatory triggers abilities persist until the end of the phase but when optional triggered abilities leave play they fizzle. What about a card leaving play assumes that you choose not to use it?

2. It was mentioned before that the trigger section's language should be cleared up and moving away from "activate". Moreover, it is not clear that triggered abilities are a type of ongoing ability, more accurately "like" an ongoing ability. From the ongoing ability section: "Ongoing abilities are abilities that have an ongoing effect on the game or specific cards." Since the triggered ability does not have an ongoing effect when it activates, but only the trigger, it follows that triggered abilities are not a type of ongoing ability.

3. You can heal any hero of poison, paralysis,..etc but not discard.

4. I think step 3 of battle resolution could be more clear, it doesn't hurt to make it painfully obvious that it follows through on the determinations in 1 and 2. In 3 it says to do relevant abilities then it could leave some people hanging ---> "All unaffected cards are treated under normal gameplay rules (such as discard,
return to territory, Land of Redemption, etc)".

5. "play" ---> "activate" in the "cannot gain Cb I/P/N" retroactively rule

NathanW · « **Reply #10 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:25:29 PM »

It would be nice if abilities and modifiers relied less on wording for distinction and more on the design of the card. like Zerutul suggested some sort of icons or divided text or something that gave more precise meaning besides trying to decipher a cards wording. perhaps even divide the ability of a card into instant/ongoing abilities etc...

Zerutul · « **Reply #11 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:29:12 PM »

Also, no one likes to read, and this is true in any game. Partially the confusion comes from having to read the REG in full to actually win the game of Redemption. (Because you are heavily at a disadvantage if you don't) No game should depend so exclusively on having to read a giant document to actually be "good" at the game with deck building. This really stinks because when you think you have a win condition and someone says "Nah, even though the card says that its not what it means" makes you not want to play the game.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:30:06 PM »

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on July 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PM

I agree that card could have been fixed by changing the word, it was the only one that came to mind. I was considering putting the LS example you shared actually as well. I know keeping wordings short is also very important, but it makes it harder for people to pick up the game when the cards don't function they way the appear to read on the card. A balance is important

I'd like to

and add: It can make for abilities to work differently then intended or just defeat the purpose like Creeping Deceiver, High Priest Ananias, ...etc and being inconsistent with what gets "may" before draw and what doesn't. I can't believe that all the mandatory draws are for balancing. Use your words lol!

Zerutul · « **Reply #13 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:31:56 PM »

To be very honest, I played MTG which is an incredibly in depth card game with tons of variety. It's taken me more time to understand the real rules of a game I played when I was 10 (redemption) then to understand a card game that has 1000's of more cards then it (MTG).

The Guardian · « **Reply #14 on:** July 25, 2017, 01:48:20 PM »

Quote

I can't believe that all the mandatory draws are for balancing. Use your words lol!

You're right that not all of them are for balancing...a lot of them were quite intentional.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #15 on:** July 25, 2017, 04:23:42 PM »

The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.

There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".

Red · « **Reply #16 on:** July 25, 2017, 04:38:03 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on July 25, 2017, 04:23:42 PM

The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.

There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on July 25, 2017, 12:49:41 PM

I agree that card could have been fixed by changing the word, it was the only one that came to mind. I was considering putting the LS example you shared actually as well. I know keeping wordings short is also very important, but it makes it harder for people to pick up the game when the cards don't function they way the appear to read on the card. A balance is important

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #17 on:** July 25, 2017, 04:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on July 25, 2017, 04:23:42 PM

The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.

There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".

And to add to that: "these characters are not considered to have entered battle this turn" or something, just to be painfully clear.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #18 on:** July 25, 2017, 04:48:54 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on July 25, 2017, 04:46:41 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on July 25, 2017, 04:23:42 PM
The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.

There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".

And to add to that: "these characters are not considered to have entered battle this turn" or something, just to be painfully clear.

If that's accurate that's yet another part of cascade negate I didn't even know existed after playing this game almost 10 years.

Jeremystair · « **Reply #19 on:** July 25, 2017, 05:20:12 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on July 25, 2017, 04:23:42 PM

The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.

There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".

jbeers285 · « **Reply #20 on:** July 25, 2017, 05:37:45 PM »

Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #21 on:** July 25, 2017, 05:39:33 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on July 25, 2017, 05:37:45 PM

Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO

I absolutely agree but I've brought up that subject before and it doesn't seem there is any chance of that happening.

I did manage to find the REG quote that is supposed to address cascade negation: "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and it keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing."

Also from a previous thread I made on this topic, I was told this will be changed in REG 5.0 to "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and any ability activated because of the negated ability. A negate ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing."

As far as I'm concerned this is an acceptable general level clarification although I think it should be redundantly added to the ability description of every ability that can be cascaded (Band, Use Any Enhancements, Search, and Draw are all that come to mind) so that it can be found when people go to that ability's entry looking for it.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #22 on:** July 25, 2017, 05:41:56 PM »

I just had a flash back to the "Cheribum to ET to Protection of Angels blocked by TFG" thread... hold me

Cnakeeyes · « **Reply #23 on:** July 25, 2017, 05:42:41 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on July 25, 2017, 05:37:45 PM

Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO

Quote from: Kevinthedude on July 25, 2017, 05:39:33 PM

Quote from: jbeers285 on July 25, 2017, 05:37:45 PM
Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO

I absolutely agree.

Ironisaac · « **Reply #24 on:** July 25, 2017, 05:52:35 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on July 25, 2017, 05:41:56 PM

I just had a flash back to the "Cheribum to ET to Protection of Angels blocked by TFG" thread... hold me

Could you give a brief synopsis of what happened in that thread?

News:

Author Topic: What rules are confusing to you? (Read 9179 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13