Author Topic: Thoughts on fixing the Liners (Read 9986 times)

Minister Polarius · « **on:** August 14, 2012, 09:51:08 AM »

At Natz, I was somewhat surprised to hear that the most commonly-reviled card was not TGT or NJ, but the Liner souls. I hadn't thought of it before, but now agree with the assessment. My solution? Rather than banning, remove its errata. Now that we have a better understanding of how rules work in general, it's fine letting Lost Souls be Negated.

If it's Negated when it's rescued the first time, it's just a normal Lost Soul. If it's rescued once, then Negated, nothing happens because the need to be rescued a second time happened on a previous phase. What say ye?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:53:34 AM »

I don't think it's broken or anything, but removing erratas is a good thing. I'm for it.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:54:52 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 14, 2012, 09:51:08 AM

If it's Negated when it's rescued the first time, it's just a normal Lost Soul. If it's rescued once, then Negated, nothing happens because the need to be rescued a second time happened on a previous phase. What say ye?

I think your first "when" was supposed to be "before."

Red · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:56:49 AM »

He only wants this cause it screwed him over a time or two at
Natz hahaha. Of course I'm all for this as well.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #4 on:** August 14, 2012, 09:58:08 AM »

Words printed over a picture should always be treated as a SA, because that just makes sense.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #5 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:00:47 AM »

So let me ask a clarifying question if this idea was enacted. Lets say I have already rescued a Liner Lost Souls card while the ability was active but then the ability is negated in the same or different phase by the Negate Lost Soul, does the Liner card transfer to my Land of Redemption at that point since it is now being negated?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #6 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:12:31 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on August 14, 2012, 11:00:47 AM

So let me ask a clarifying question if this idea was enacted. Lets say I have already rescued a Liner Lost Souls card while the ability was active but then the ability is negated in the same or different phase by the Negate Lost Soul, does the Liner card transfer to my Land of Redemption at that point since it is now being negated?

The ability that it has to be rescued twice was active a previous phase (it triggers when you first rescue it), so it's CBN once it's rescued the first time.

At least, that's the way I understand Pol's post.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #7 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:25:10 AM »

What if I rescue it then negate it on the same phase? Via some SOG silliness.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #8 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:29:11 AM »

Alright. I just wanted to make sure that is what his post was getting at. I actually like this idea but don't see how it will matter that much in Type-1. It is still able to be rescued once and then buried unless the Negate Lost Soul is out. I just see a rule like this making the Negate Lost Soul one that is in every deck.

Unless, like Sauce alluded to, there is a new SoG that negates Lost Souls abilities.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #9 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:14:34 PM »

Spoilers?

If the card said "Negate Lost Soul cards. Rescue any Lost Soul," then the negate would complete first.

Negating the card would not "undo" a rescue. If the LSs card is negated after being partially rescued in the same phase, then the card would go to the rescuer's LoR.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #10 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:18:36 PM »

I was thinking more of something like you RA and either play SOG or Primary Objectivev then band in Isaiah with Isaiah's Call. But now that I think about it, that barely matters. I mean, it'd get transferred to your LOR, but it'd only be worth one point. Right?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand instaposted by YMT's 9001st post. Also, after looking at the REG, I don't see why the liner doens't count as two souls for deck building purposes.

Proverbs 22_14 (L)

Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: This card counts as two Lost Souls. It must be rescued twice. • Errata: (Treat special ability as an identifier.) • Identifiers: This card counts as two Lost Souls. It must be rescued twice. • Verse: Proverbs 22:14 • Availability: Limited booster packs (Rare)

Bobbert · « **Reply #11 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:25:08 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on August 14, 2012, 12:18:36 PM

Also, after looking at the REG, I don't see why the liner doens't count as two souls for deck building purposes.

Because then you bury it in T1. Now only five souls in the deck, any other discard makes it impossible for the opponent to win.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #12 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:27:17 PM »

Quote from: Thomas Hunter on August 14, 2012, 12:25:08 PM

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on August 14, 2012, 12:18:36 PM
Also, after looking at the REG, I don't see why the liner doens't count as two souls for deck building purposes.

Because then you bury it in T1. Now only five souls in the deck, any other discard makes it impossible for the opponent to win.

Just because it's broken doesn't mean it isn't how it works. Sauce does hold a valid point.

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #13 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:30:53 PM »

It's in the rule book, and it's been that way forever:

http://cactusgamedesign.com/REG/Master/typeideckbuildingrules.htm

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #14 on:** August 14, 2012, 12:35:14 PM »

I forgot about that. Point retracted. Thanks.

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:35:54 PM »

I'm surprised there is not more instant negative reaction to this idea. I'm very much opposed.

The situations that this would cause are very problematic, and have been pointed out to some extent. So now, suddenly the two-liner is rescued at the start of a battle with Isaiah + Call, just because it was rescued before? A new SoG card with the suggested text couldn't actually rescue a half-rescued one, even though the whole point would be to have a SoG that could count a rescue against any soul? It also brings up a problem in that if you negate it, then there is no ability to 'trigger' by the new rules on Triggers and Conditions. I could see a very easily-confused scenario where it is ruled that it does/does not insert between the abilities on SoG and is/is not rescued by SoG. Both cases can be made by the current rules, and your initial statement that "we know the rules" makes me smile, given all the problems of late on rulings we 'know'.

So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, lead to inconsistency, and cause all sorts of problems we can't even foresee.

Drrek · « **Reply #16 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:44:14 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 10:35:54 PM

I'm surprised there is not more instant negative reaction to this idea. I'm very much opposed.

The situations that this would cause are very problematic, and have been pointed out to some extent. So now, suddenly the two-liner is rescued at the start of a battle with Isaiah + Call, just because it was rescued before? A new SoG card with the suggested text couldn't actually rescue a half-rescued one, even though the whole point would be to have a SoG that could count a rescue against any soul? It also brings up a problem in that if you negate it, then there is no ability to 'trigger' by the new rules on Triggers and Conditions. I could see a very easily-confused scenario where it is ruled that it does/does not insert between the abilities on SoG and is/is not rescued by SoG. Both cases can be made by the current rules, and your initial statement that "we know the rules" makes me smile, given all the problems of late on rulings we 'know'.

So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, lead to inconsistency, and cause all sorts of problems we can't even foresee.

Actually if I'm reading the original post right, it would not be rescued if Isaiah negated a half rescued one, and SoG could rescue a half-rescued one, because the ability that it has to be rescued twice would have been activated in a previous phase.

Redoubter · « **Reply #17 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:56:54 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on August 14, 2012, 10:44:14 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 10:35:54 PM
I'm surprised there is not more instant negative reaction to this idea. I'm very much opposed.

The situations that this would cause are very problematic, and have been pointed out to some extent. So now, suddenly the two-liner is rescued at the start of a battle with Isaiah + Call, just because it was rescued before? A new SoG card with the suggested text couldn't actually rescue a half-rescued one, even though the whole point would be to have a SoG that could count a rescue against any soul? It also brings up a problem in that if you negate it, then there is no ability to 'trigger' by the new rules on Triggers and Conditions. I could see a very easily-confused scenario where it is ruled that it does/does not insert between the abilities on SoG and is/is not rescued by SoG. Both cases can be made by the current rules, and your initial statement that "we know the rules" makes me smile, given all the problems of late on rulings we 'know'.

So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, lead to inconsistency, and cause all sorts of problems we can't even foresee.

Actually if I'm reading the original post right, it would not be rescued if Isaiah negated a half rescued one, and SoG could rescue a half-rescued one, because the ability that it has to be rescued twice would have been activated in a previous phase.

Except that's not actually how the negating of the ability would go. I asked if, for example, the Thorns LS is CBN because it is "While in play", but was told by multiple Elders that, because Souls are continuously activating, they do not follow the same rules as, say, Simon the Zealot while in play. So a Two-Liner that is negated would only need one rescue, and if that is already done, it should be rescued. There is no 'while in play' that applies here, and trying to force one to make this sort of ruling work actually hurts consistency and accessibility of the rules.

Drrek · « **Reply #18 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:00:44 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 10:56:54 PM

Quote from: Drrek on August 14, 2012, 10:44:14 PM
Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 10:35:54 PM
I'm surprised there is not more instant negative reaction to this idea. I'm very much opposed.

The situations that this would cause are very problematic, and have been pointed out to some extent. So now, suddenly the two-liner is rescued at the start of a battle with Isaiah + Call, just because it was rescued before? A new SoG card with the suggested text couldn't actually rescue a half-rescued one, even though the whole point would be to have a SoG that could count a rescue against any soul? It also brings up a problem in that if you negate it, then there is no ability to 'trigger' by the new rules on Triggers and Conditions. I could see a very easily-confused scenario where it is ruled that it does/does not insert between the abilities on SoG and is/is not rescued by SoG. Both cases can be made by the current rules, and your initial statement that "we know the rules" makes me smile, given all the problems of late on rulings we 'know'.

So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, lead to inconsistency, and cause all sorts of problems we can't even foresee.

Actually if I'm reading the original post right, it would not be rescued if Isaiah negated a half rescued one, and SoG could rescue a half-rescued one, because the ability that it has to be rescued twice would have been activated in a previous phase.

Except that's not actually how the negating of the ability would go. I asked if, for example, the Thorns LS is CBN because it is "While in play", but was told by multiple Elders that, because Souls are continuously activating, they do not follow the same rules as, say, Simon the Zealot while in play. So a Two-Liner that is negated would only need one rescue, and if that is already done, it should be rescued. There is no 'while in play' that applies here, and trying to force one to make this sort of ruling work actually hurts consistency and accessibility of the rules.

I would argue that the liners would still work the way originally proposed here, because the ability was activated and prevented the soul from being rescued and that cannot be changed after that phase, and I think that ability would stick. The ability would also still try to continuously reactivate, even if its negated later, but I'd argue the initial activation there, being not negated, would stick until the card was either reset or rescued again. Although I also think it is inconsistent to rule that thorns is not CBN after the phase when Simon is, so I probably know nothing anyway

.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:01:25 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 10:35:54 PM

So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, ...

Of the many things Redoubter and I agree on--this is by far the most heartfelt.

Drrek · « **Reply #20 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:02:57 PM »

Also I should add, that I'm neither really in favor or not in favor of this ruling change, and I think it would need extensive testing before implemented if we were to do it.

Redoubter · « **Reply #21 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:10:11 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on August 14, 2012, 11:00:44 PM

I would argue that the liners would still work the way originally proposed here, because the ability was activated and prevented the soul from being rescued and that cannot be changed after that phase, and I think that ability would stick.

It is a restrict. Restricts can be negated, and would be in this case.

And while I understand your point on Thorns (as that was my original argument), the ruling is consistent because they also ruled that if Simon enters battle again after activating previously, should he be negated there, then the protection ends (regardless of the fact that it had been previously activated and had been CBN). So since cards like Souls continuously activate, they are never CBN even with "While in Play" abilities.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on August 14, 2012, 11:01:25 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 10:35:54 PM
So no. I'm not in favor of this idea. I think it would end up awful, ...
Of the many things Redoubter and I agree on--this is by far the most heartfelt.

<3

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #22 on:** August 17, 2012, 10:12:31 PM »

If your reason for opposing this idea is that you think the negation would not work like I've described, you shouldn't be opposing it because it would work exactly like that. Just because Lost Souls are ongoing doesn't mean they can't have triggers set (a one-time thing). The liners do not work by restrict (although the 3-Liner happens to also have a restrict), and they would function the same as if you were to try to negate the Shame soul the turn after it activates.

Redoubter · « **Reply #23 on:** August 18, 2012, 12:57:30 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 17, 2012, 10:12:31 PM

If your reason for opposing this idea is that you think the negation would not work like I've described, you shouldn't be opposing it because it would work exactly like that. Just because Lost Souls are ongoing doesn't mean they can't have triggers set (a one-time thing). The liners do not work by restrict (although the 3-Liner happens to also have a restrict), and they would function the same as if you were to try to negate the Shame soul the turn after it activates.

If Lost Souls is not a restrict, what is it? A protect and restrict? Even in that case, it would be negated. And the current ruling on Lost Souls is that their abilities are not CBN even if they are "While in Play" or complete in previous phases, as they 'activate' each phase and can be therefore negated based on the reactivation. There are no abilities on Lost Souls that are triggered or conditional that would become CBN. Therefore, when negated, Lost Souls would become a 'single-rescue' soul and should be rescued immediately if it was already rescued. Either that, or the previous rescue would be as if it never happened. So now it's Schrödinger's Soul. Awesome.

Really, this kind of rule change would result in awful ruling quandaries that would have to be resolved first, or significant changes would have to be made to the current rulings.

Bryon · « **Reply #24 on:** August 18, 2012, 01:20:12 AM »

Lost Souls is my least favorite card. I told that to Rob at my first nationals. It is still my least favorite card.

Rather than remove the errata, which creates messy scenarios for new players, and rather than ban the card, which Cactus doesn't do, what about this:

Clarify the rule for deck building: Require that you include an exact number of cards with the title "Lost Soul" to be legal. "Lost Souls" doesn't have that exact title. So, Lost Souls doesn't count as a Lost Soul for deck building. It still is the Lost Soul card type, but doesn't count as one of your lost souls in deck building. It would make Lost Souls a little less popular, I would think. Maybe not a lot less popular, but if you had to cut something to include Lost Souls, you might think twice about including it every time.

News:

Author Topic: Thoughts on fixing the Liners (Read 9986 times)

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Warrior_Monk

Rawrlolsauce!