Doms
Edited by R.O.S.E.S.
So many cool Soul names!QuoteDoms
Edited by R.O.S.E.S.
Aw not even a name drop?
Doms
ANB
I'm interested to see no Adam+Eve. IIRC flood survivors are consisted antediluvians, so my theorycraft had them included in the flood deck.
Doms
ANB
Welp.
So many cool Soul names!QuoteDoms
Edited by R.O.S.E.S.
Aw not even a name drop?
I can’t spoil both new Doms at once... Gotta let someone else have a little fun too!
I've linked images to some of the cards being spoiled today. I'll come back later when I have time and link a few more.
Is it too late to beg for an Oxford comma on Wild Beast?
All cards that will be spoiled today have been linked in the first post. The Lost Souls, the remaining UR, Josiah's Nats winner card and the last Dominant will all be revealed at a future time. Enjoy!
Wait, does that mean Golden Calf is the last UR? Fascinating. I'm pleasantly surprised that it's not the remaining dom.
Wait, does that mean Golden Calf is the last UR? Fascinating. I'm pleasantly surprised that it's not the remaining dom.
Good guess for the last UR but incorrect. But it is accurate to say there are not UR Dominates this year.
so everything in an ability after a ":" is part of the same ability?
You can play ANB and take another turn after you've rescued a LS, right? I vaguely remember some sort of "your opponent has to be able to take a turn after a successful rescue" thing being made after the last ANB debacle but obviously that wasn't the case with the Eternal Inheritance/Christ's Triumph bidniz.
There is a rule that stops you from making 2 successful rescue attempts before each opponent has had a turn.
With eternal inheritance does the hero have to have access to the lost soul if it's in a site?
And who gets to choose which lost soul is rescued?
You're wrong. Everything after the : is part of the "if it is your turn, banish this card" clause.
The only thing you can do outside of your turn is negate protect abilities (which does have some value in certain situations).
You're wrong. Everything after the : is part of the "if it is your turn, banish this card" clause.
The only thing you can do outside of your turn is negate protect abilities (which does have some value in certain situations).
A solution to make it more clear that everything after the "banish this card" clause is a part of the : is instead of periods use semi-colons:
"Negate protect abilities. If it is your turn, banish this card: Shuffle all cards in play, set aside, and hands; each player must draw 8; begin a new turn."
This rule came about because of the first ANB for a fun trivia fact.You can play ANB and take another turn after you've rescued a LS, right? I vaguely remember some sort of "your opponent has to be able to take a turn after a successful rescue" thing being made after the last ANB debacle but obviously that wasn't the case with the Eternal Inheritance/Christ's Triumph bidniz.With the current wording of the card spoiler here you can use it to take two turns in a row each with a successful rescue, yes.
Apparently there's a rule that prevents this.
So for territory class characters with instant abilities like 'look at opponent's hand', can you do these at any time? Or just when you first put them into play?
EI resulted in a failed rescue, because no LS was rescued in battle resolution. We changed that so EI is a successful rescue.So if you rescue on your first turn then can you not make a rescue attempt on your next turn at all? Or would any attack just default to a battle challenge?
There is a rule that stops you from making 2 successful rescue attempts before each opponent has had a turn.
On the colon, unless the ability before the colon is a look or reveal, everything after the colon is dependent on that ability. Look and Reveal is at least the rest of the sentence, maybe more. Ends of the Earth stinks for defining the colon. (Not that it's the only card - it's just the first one that comes to mind.)
I'm not sure I'm the biggest fan of search and take abilities becoming the same thing but I can understand why and get behind the decision.Japeth's wife's special ability is somewhat cumbersome. Could "search" not still be employed where it's smoother?
I agree (assuming you're talking about Shem's Wife), but apparently search is being phased out entirely in favor of take, regardless of whether it ends up looking/sounding clunky or not.
Great explanation RedemptionAggie! I'm not sure if you were responding to me or the other posts... but I'd still like to throw it out there again as to what happens to old search abilities and anti search cards? Do we now just have a complicated blob of "play as" in the REG for each old card?"Search" is now more of an action as a result of an ability rather than an ability itself. Anytime you "take" a card from a searchable location (so basically anywhere but hand or play) then that is considered a search and would trigger a Music Leader, for example. It's essentially the same as with "exchange." Exchanging to deck is a search whereas exchanging in play is not.
Unless if this was changed in a previous REG update and I just missed the boat on the change then please ignore the old fossil over here ;)
Search is not it's own thing. Sometimes we can't state it (exchange) or we don't state it (discard from deck, banish from discard pile, top/underdeck from Reserve, etc.). But the search still happens.Can't you change "give it to opponents territory" to the older "put it in play?" Or have I missed "put" becoming a keyword? Are we trying to avoid unstated default language?
Prior to Fall of Man, we were down to 3 situations where we actually used the word "search" (X is a searchable location, Y is what you search for):
- "Search X for Y (and add it to hand)", which has been replaced with "Take Y from X" (which works because of a different change that allows you to take cards you do not control, not just opponent's cards)
- "Search X for Y and put it in play" or "Search X for Y and play it", which has been replaced with "Play Y from X" (Sample (http://landofredemption.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Corrupted-Temple.png))
- "Search opponent's X for Y and put it in play" (where Y is usually a Lost Soul), which is Shem's Wife. (And it is clunky, IMO.)
Basically, since we can't always state the search, we never state the search.
Great explanation RedemptionAggie! I'm not sure if you were responding to me or the other posts... but I'd still like to throw it out there again as to what happens to old search abilities and anti search cards? Do we now just have a complicated blob of "play as" in the REG for each old card?The first part (about exchange and other things from deck) was an indirect response to you - since search is already partially integrated into a lot of abilities, this just does the same with take - some takes are searches, some aren't, it just depends on where the target is. The rest was in general.
Unless if this was changed in a previous REG update and I just missed the boat on the change then please ignore the old fossil over here ;)
Once you take a card, you control it - so "put it in play" would put in your territory, and "put it in their territory" would leave the card under your control, which I don't think we want.Search is not it's own thing. Sometimes we can't state it (exchange) or we don't state it (discard from deck, banish from discard pile, top/underdeck from Reserve, etc.). But the search still happens.Can't you change "give it to opponents territory" to the older "put it in play?" Or have I missed "put" becoming a keyword? Are we trying to avoid unstated default language?
Prior to Fall of Man, we were down to 3 situations where we actually used the word "search" (X is a searchable location, Y is what you search for):
- "Search X for Y (and add it to hand)", which has been replaced with "Take Y from X" (which works because of a different change that allows you to take cards you do not control, not just opponent's cards)
- "Search X for Y and put it in play" or "Search X for Y and play it", which has been replaced with "Play Y from X" (Sample (http://landofredemption.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Corrupted-Temple.png))
- "Search opponent's X for Y and put it in play" (where Y is usually a Lost Soul), which is Shem's Wife. (And it is clunky, IMO.)
Basically, since we can't always state the search, we never state the search.
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate the effort to become precise in wording even if it makes the English minor cringe.Great explanation RedemptionAggie! I'm not sure if you were responding to me or the other posts... but I'd still like to throw it out there again as to what happens to old search abilities and anti search cards? Do we now just have a complicated blob of "play as" in the REG for each old card?The first part (about exchange and other things from deck) was an indirect response to you - since search is already partially integrated into a lot of abilities, this just does the same with take - some takes are searches, some aren't, it just depends on where the target is. The rest was in general.
Unless if this was changed in a previous REG update and I just missed the boat on the change then please ignore the old fossil over here ;)
We do have a document called the ORCID, which has Play As for all of the cards, trying to bring them to the current wording. Here's an article (http://landofredemption.com/?p=7075) about it on Land of Redemption.Once you take a card, you control it - so "put it in play" would put in your territory, and "put it in their territory" would leave the card under your control, which I don't think we want.Search is not it's own thing. Sometimes we can't state it (exchange) or we don't state it (discard from deck, banish from discard pile, top/underdeck from Reserve, etc.). But the search still happens.Can't you change "give it to opponents territory" to the older "put it in play?" Or have I missed "put" becoming a keyword? Are we trying to avoid unstated default language?
Prior to Fall of Man, we were down to 3 situations where we actually used the word "search" (X is a searchable location, Y is what you search for):
- "Search X for Y (and add it to hand)", which has been replaced with "Take Y from X" (which works because of a different change that allows you to take cards you do not control, not just opponent's cards)
- "Search X for Y and put it in play" or "Search X for Y and play it", which has been replaced with "Play Y from X" (Sample (http://landofredemption.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Corrupted-Temple.png))
- "Search opponent's X for Y and put it in play" (where Y is usually a Lost Soul), which is Shem's Wife. (And it is clunky, IMO.)
Basically, since we can't always state the search, we never state the search.
But one thing I find irritating: The usage of "give" where we used "place in ..." or "take into ..." before. So when it is constituded by the definition of control-handover I wonder how this worked so far when cards have been "placed" into anothers player's territory like hopper lost soul or when things like "convert and take it" happened where also a control-handover takes place?
For me it looks as if we introduce another keyword for topics which have been handled more or less unquestionable while not replacing any of the already existing keywords or reducing the overall amount of keywords at all!
What is the benefit in introducing this new keyword? For me it looks for now like making the entire gameplay more complex and confusing without any need (when considering the already existing control-handover scenarios where at least during the game play experiences I could paticipate there have never been considerable/reasonable questions or [mis-]interpretations)?
Regarding the Hopper Errata - I could not find it yet in forum/subfora. Where has this been published?
Lost Soul "Hopper" (II Chronicles 28:13) (Kings) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510 (http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510)
This one I found as well. But where is there the mentioned "correction" from place to give as mentioned by RedemptionAggie here:Quote from: ProfALost Soul "Hopper" (II Chronicles 28:13) (Kings) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510 (http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510)
Hopper should have been a give (and has been given errata to be a give).?
Probably the ORCID.This one I found as well. But where is there the mentioned "correction" from place to give as mentioned by RedemptionAggie here:Quote from: ProfALost Soul "Hopper" (II Chronicles 28:13) (Kings) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510 (http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510)Hopper should have been a give (and has been given errata to be a give).?
Nothing is really changing about how the old cards are played--we are simply trying to streamline the wording.
If I "place" a LS into opponent's land of bondage, I no longer control that LS (which everyone understands from years of playing that way), but since we have a rule that says placed cards are controlled by the player who placed them, that is actually inconsistent. In order to surrender control of a card to an opponent, we need a different keyword and "give" is the optimal choice since we've had "give" cards since Kings as Aggie pointed out.
EI resulted in a failed rescue, because no LS was rescued in battle resolution. We changed that so EI is a successful rescue.So if you rescue on your first turn then can you not make a rescue attempt on your next turn at all? Or would any attack just default to a battle challenge?
There is a rule that stops you from making 2 successful rescue attempts before each opponent has had a turn.
On the colon, unless the ability before the colon is a look or reveal, everything after the colon is dependent on that ability. Look and Reveal is at least the rest of the sentence, maybe more. Ends of the Earth stinks for defining the colon. (Not that it's the only card - it's just the first one that comes to mind.)
EI resulted in a failed rescue, because no LS was rescued in battle resolution. We changed that so EI is a successful rescue.So if you rescue on your first turn then can you not make a rescue attempt on your next turn at all? Or would any attack just default to a battle challenge?
There is a rule that stops you from making 2 successful rescue attempts before each opponent has had a turn.
On the colon, unless the ability before the colon is a look or reveal, everything after the colon is dependent on that ability. Look and Reveal is at least the rest of the sentence, maybe more. Ends of the Earth stinks for defining the colon. (Not that it's the only card - it's just the first one that comes to mind.)
However, once a player has made a successful rescue attempt, they may not make another rescue attempt until each other player has had a turn.
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.
What am I missing here, I thought when you added an extra dominant you had to add an extra lost soul that would put the deck at 58 cards right?
Okay cool. I didn't realize this. Are we going to get to see the Wages of sin (Fom) and the Golden calf (Fom) any time soon?
I think the backgrounds on these have to be my favorite so far. :thumbup: