Author Topic: Not in battle (Read 3323 times)

Crashfach2002 · « **on:** March 21, 2018, 12:54:30 PM »

Help me remember how cards like "Shibboleth" work.

If an Evil Character is in battle, discard all Evil Characters in opponent's territory whose brigade is not in battle.

So opponent blocks with mono-brown evil character. They have Medium in Endor (Brown/Pale Green), Lions (Brown/Crimson) & Foreign Wives (Multi) in territory.

Do they get discarded because they have colors that aren't brown?

Do they not get discarded as they do have brown?

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2018, 12:58:30 PM »

Quote from: ORCID

If an Evil Character is in battle, discard all Evil Characters in opponent's territory (except those with a brigade matching a brigade in battle).

Those ECs would all survive because they are partly brown.

Jeremystair · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2018, 01:03:16 PM »

Speaking of Shibboleth this is a card that desperately needs to be reprinted.

The Guardian · « **Reply #3 on:** March 21, 2018, 01:05:13 PM »

They do not get discarded since they do have Brown (their brigade is in battle).

If Shibboleth said "with a brigade not in battle" then they would be discarded.

Quote from: Jeremystair on March 21, 2018, 01:03:16 PM

Speaking of Shibboleth this is a card that desperately needs to be reprinted.

Out of curiosity, why do you think that?

Gabe · « **Reply #4 on:** March 21, 2018, 01:07:03 PM »

Quote from: Jeremystair on March 21, 2018, 01:03:16 PM

Speaking of Shibboleth this is a card that desperately needs to be reprinted.

Or empowered!

Jeremystair · « **Reply #5 on:** March 21, 2018, 01:15:55 PM »

I just feel like it's not that useful in type 1 2 player. Now it might still be good in type 1 multiplayer.

Josh · « **Reply #6 on:** March 21, 2018, 01:16:44 PM »

If Shibboleth was reprinted today, it would probably be worded as such for clarity:

1 - "If an Evil Character is in battle, discard all Evil Characters in opponent's territory (except those that share a brigade with an Evil Character in battle)."

However, if the card was intended to hit all ECs that have a brigade that is not in battle, it would be worded as such (as Justin mentioned):

2 - "If an Evil Character is in battle, discard all Evil Characters in opponent's territory with a brigade that is not in battle."

These abilities mean very different things; 2 is more powerful and can hit more ECs. Shibboleth's phrasing is much more similar to the 2nd ability, which could easily lead to people wondering why it is ruled as 1 and not 2. I wish it could be 2, simply because it's closer to the actual wording on the card. Plus it makes it more powerful

(Not like anyone ever uses Shibboleth anyways... Except Justin... Stupid FA/CtB combos... We were just playtesting, what did those 6 ECs of mine ever do to you...?)

The Guardian · « **Reply #7 on:** March 21, 2018, 01:28:23 PM »

"Shibboleth" -- Because 6 is better than 2...

The Schaefer · « **Reply #8 on:** March 21, 2018, 11:07:43 PM »

Funny thing is I was just talking about this combo with another player at a tournament yesterday. Seems like a reserve option for me right now. Still is great to pull off though.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #9 on:** April 05, 2018, 12:26:07 PM »

Speaking of Shibboleth:

Spoiler (hover to show)

Of course if your opponent is only running females this is an option too:

Spoiler (hover to show)

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #10 on:** April 05, 2018, 12:29:16 PM »

so wait, you get out jephthah, chose the blocker, then his ability activates? I know chose the blocker activates last, but since its his daughter that chooses the blocker does that make a difference since her ability would have to finish before jephthah's can activate?

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #11 on:** April 05, 2018, 01:05:41 PM »

No, adding Jephthah to battle includes his ability activating. So you choose the blocker after the discard (if you're running a version that discards).

Gabe · « **Reply #12 on:** April 05, 2018, 07:04:50 PM »

A new musician? Oh my!

TheJaylor · « **Reply #13 on:** April 07, 2018, 04:59:21 AM »

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this ruling. Just because the Evil Characters have the brigade in battle doesn't mean they don't have a brigade that's not in battle. So by the same logic that said they wouldn't be discarded, can't you also argue that they should be? If so, then the logic is invalid.

The REG states

Quote from: REG

If an ability excludes a brigade (except, other than, etc.), a multi-brigade card can be targeted or meet the criteria if it has a brigade that is not excluded.

Based off of that, I think they would be discarded. "Whose brigade is not in battle" is equivalent to "whose brigade is other than those in battle," right? So it should meet the criteria for having a brigade that's not in battle.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #14 on:** April 09, 2018, 04:57:14 PM »

I agree that REG section is written poorly.

"Whose brigade is not in battle," because of the singular use of "brigade," is grammatically identical to "who has a brigade which is not in battle," but is only grammatically similar to "who has among its brigades one which is in battle." An entirely proper reading of Shibboleth would render the function KoalaKing is describing. However, because the grammar is already improper for Redemption, it has to be rewritten anyway and it seems that the decided-upon clarifying text is the rewrite to "with no brigades matching any brigades in battle" rather than "which has a brigade that is not in battle."

I admit to confusion as to why this choice would be made since all other cards with similar functions work the way reading the REG quote provided would suggest they do, but it is not a totally invalid interpretation of the broken grammar.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #15 on:** April 09, 2018, 05:04:15 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 09, 2018, 04:57:14 PM

I agree that REG section is written poorly.

"Whose brigade is not in battle," because of the singular use of "brigade," is grammatically identical to "who has a brigade which is not in battle," but is only grammatically similar to "who has among its brigades one which is in battle." An entirely proper reading of Shibboleth would render the function KoalaKing is describing. However, because the grammar is already improper for Redemption, it has to be rewritten anyway and it seems that the decided-upon clarifying text is the rewrite to "with no brigades matching any brigades in battle" rather than "which has a brigade that is not in battle."

I admit to confusion as to why this choice would be made since all other cards with similar functions work the way reading the REG quote provided would suggest they do, but it is not a totally invalid interpretation of the broken grammar.

Honestly, reading this gave me a headache, and the discussion about this topic a couple years ago gave me a headache, and I'm still not sure I rule this correctly consistently. Definitely one one the harder rules to learn

YeshuaIsLord · « **Reply #16 on:** April 16, 2018, 05:19:01 PM »

Is it only me or does he look like he's in a wheelchair ^^'?

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Not in battle (Read 3323 times)

Crashfach2002

Not in battle

Kevinthedude

Re: Not in battle

Jeremystair

Re: Not in battle

The Guardian

Re: Not in battle

Gabe

Re: Not in battle

Jeremystair

Re: Not in battle

Josh

Re: Not in battle

The Guardian

Re: Not in battle

The Schaefer

Re: Not in battle

Red Dragon Thorn

Re: Not in battle

sepjazzwarrior

Re: Not in battle

RedemptionAggie

Re: Not in battle

Gabe

Re: Not in battle

TheJaylor

Re: Not in battle

Minister Polarius

Re: Not in battle

Red Dragon Thorn

Re: Not in battle

YeshuaIsLord

Re: Not in battle