Author Topic: Abrahams Descendant (Read 3720 times)

Cnakeeyes · « **on:** June 30, 2019, 08:38:16 PM »

If there's a legal target for AD to bottom deck in a discard pile can I elect to fail to find? AD is not a may ability so I would think you could.

Abrahams Descendant - Interupt a curse or evil enhancement in play and add it to your hand. Search each discard pile for a good enhancement and place it beneath owners decks.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #1 on:** June 30, 2019, 09:35:24 PM »

I think you can fail to find all of the targets, but you can't pick and choose which piles to choose to fail in. Kind of like Shame LS has to set aside a Hero from each territory with one, or none at all.

Cnakeeyes · « **Reply #2 on:** June 30, 2019, 10:00:56 PM »

How its worded it should be a forced if its there to find you have too. It's part of the draw back of playing it sometimes. You gain a card in hand but could have to give an opponent a good card back.

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 01, 2019, 09:55:21 AM »

You do everything you can when it’s not a may. So I would say if there is a target you have to use it in both discard piles if both targets have a legal target.

Kor · « **Reply #4 on:** July 01, 2019, 10:32:03 AM »

While I agree with you Cnakeeyes and Mr.Hiatus that is how the card reads (and how I’ve always played it), Aggie appears to be correct according to the REG:

Quote

● Regardless of whether a search is mandatory or optional, a player has the choice to fail any search they control, and is not required to select a valid target, even if one exists. However, if a search of deck is mandatory, or an optional search of deck is performed, the player is considered to have “used” a search effect and the deck must still be shuffled.

As no distinction is made for being not able to fail while searching a discard pile or while searching for an opponent’s card, I see no rules justification for not being able to fail the search on Abraham’s Descendanr.

Cnakeeyes · « **Reply #5 on:** July 01, 2019, 11:09:40 AM »

Ok. Thank you kor. I will rule it that way for our tournaments.

However it makes no sense when compared to other ruling on cards with "may" and without. For example my opponent has rbd up and I attack with a hero that just says "draw a card" im forced to draw/discard.

There should also be a distinction between searches of locations that are common knowledge. If I play a card that says discard and animal and I have the only animal in play I'm forced to discard it. Discard is common knowledge now so we know what may get underdecked before its played.

Kor · « **Reply #6 on:** July 01, 2019, 11:54:39 AM »

Quote from: Cnakeeyes on July 01, 2019, 11:09:40 AM

Ok. Thank you kor. I will rule it that way for our tournaments.

However it makes no sense when compared to other ruling on cards with "may" and without. For example my opponent has rbd up and I attack with a hero that just says "draw a card" im forced to draw/discard.

There should also be a distinction between searches of locations that are common knowledge. If I play a card that says discard and animal and I have the only animal in play I'm forced to discard it. Discard is common knowledge now so we know what may get underdecked before its played.

That would be my preference as well.

Watchman · « **Reply #7 on:** July 01, 2019, 11:56:20 AM »

Yet another unintuitive Redemption rule. Why even make something mandatory then if you have the option to do it or not? I can understand that if the player knows there isn’t a good enh in one or both dc piles (such as there’s nothing in the dc pile, or only one evil card, etc) then the search and targets can be failed. I believe that’s the point of that optional fail rule. But if there is a mandatory ability directing a player to underdeck a good enh, and there’s a valid target in the dc pile, then it would need to be done.

I hope this rule can be revisited so as to make a mandatory ability just that—mandatory.

Josh · « **Reply #8 on:** July 01, 2019, 12:27:27 PM »

Quote from: Cnakeeyes on July 01, 2019, 11:09:40 AM

However it makes no sense when compared to other ruling on cards with "may" and without. For example my opponent has rbd up and I attack with a hero that just says "draw a card" im forced to draw/discard.

Quote from: Watchman on July 01, 2019, 11:56:20 AM

Why even make something mandatory then if you have the option to do it or not?

I wasn't involved in the creation of the ruling that allows failing of searches. My guess is, it's for those cases where there is no legal target in a deck or Reserve for the search. If searches could not be failed, then to maintain the integrity of the game state, a player should be forced to reveal his deck/Reserve to prove that there was no legal target.

If there's a rule that simply allows players to fail searches, then there's no need to prove that a failed search had no legal targets.

*****

My concern is with the ruling that if you fail one Abe's Descendant search, you have to fail them all. Each search of a discard pile is clearly a separate search. The Shame LS is a poor example because the Shame LS is not a search, and search is the only ability with a unique "fail to find" exemption.

The only "apples to apples" comparison between Abe's Descendant and Shame LS is that if you choose to search w/ Abe's Descendant, you have to search all 4. I see no reason why you can't choose to fail whichever of those searches that you want to fail.

Cnakeeyes · « **Reply #9 on:** July 01, 2019, 12:43:10 PM »

Quote from: Josh on July 01, 2019, 12:27:27 PM

Quote from: Cnakeeyes on July 01, 2019, 11:09:40 AM
However it makes no sense when compared to other ruling on cards with "may" and without. For example my opponent has rbd up and I attack with a hero that just says "draw a card" im forced to draw/discard.

Quote from: Watchman on July 01, 2019, 11:56:20 AM
Why even make something mandatory then if you have the option to do it or not?

I wasn't involved in the creation of the ruling that allows failing of searches. My guess is, it's for those cases where there is no legal target in a deck or Reserve for the search. If searches could not be failed, then to maintain the integrity of the game state, a player should be forced to reveal his deck/Reserve to prove that there was no legal target.

If there's a rule that simply allows players to fail searches, then there's no need to prove that a failed search had no legal targets.

*****

My concern is with the ruling that if you fail one Abe's Descendant search, you have to fail them all. Each search of a discard pile is clearly a separate search. The Shame LS is a poor example because the Shame LS is not a search, and search is the only ability with a unique "fail to find" exemption.

The only "apples to apples" comparison between Abe's Descendant and Shame LS is that if you choose to search w/ Abe's Descendant, you have to search all 4. I see no reason why you can't choose to fail whichever of those searches that you want to fail.

Because its a mandatory search of a common knowledge location.

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 01, 2019, 12:46:28 PM »

I agree with the Watchmen on this. It’s a forced search but you can “fail” to search even though there’s a valid target? But draws are forced because drawing and searching are two different things but this one makes no sense. For other cards you do up to what you can, but this you do up to what you can if you want to. I really think this one needs to be reviewed because now rules contradict and allows the gray area, and confusion, of choosing to “fail” certain targets or abilities that are a must.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #11 on:** July 01, 2019, 03:21:44 PM »

Quote from: Josh on July 01, 2019, 12:27:27 PM

Quote from: Cnakeeyes on July 01, 2019, 11:09:40 AM
However it makes no sense when compared to other ruling on cards with "may" and without. For example my opponent has rbd up and I attack with a hero that just says "draw a card" im forced to draw/discard.

Quote from: Watchman on July 01, 2019, 11:56:20 AM
Why even make something mandatory then if you have the option to do it or not?

I wasn't involved in the creation of the ruling that allows failing of searches. My guess is, it's for those cases where there is no legal target in a deck or Reserve for the search. If searches could not be failed, then to maintain the integrity of the game state, a player should be forced to reveal his deck/Reserve to prove that there was no legal target.

If there's a rule that simply allows players to fail searches, then there's no need to prove that a failed search had no legal targets.

Based on what I can find, this is correct. I think the primary concern was deck searches, but it was written broadly and preceded common knowledge discard piles (most likely incorrectly included) and the Reserve (most likely correctly included).

Kor · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2019, 11:53:20 AM »

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on June 30, 2019, 09:35:24 PM

I think you can fail to find all of the targets, but you can't pick and choose which piles to choose to fail in. Kind of like Shame LS has to set aside a Hero from each territory with one, or none at all.

I apologize for resurrecting this, but I have been thinking about it lately and have a follow up question.

Is there a difference between choosing to 'fail to find' and actually just failing to find a target? For example, if one player has an enhancement in discard pile and the other does not. Do you have the option of placing that enhancement beneath draw pile with Abraham's Descendant?

TheJaylor · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2019, 11:33:05 PM »

Quote from: Kor on August 21, 2019, 11:53:20 AM

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on June 30, 2019, 09:35:24 PM
I think you can fail to find all of the targets, but you can't pick and choose which piles to choose to fail in. Kind of like Shame LS has to set aside a Hero from each territory with one, or none at all.

I apologize for resurrecting this, but I have been thinking about it lately and have a follow up question.

Is there a difference between choosing to 'fail to find' and actually just failing to find a target? For example, if one player has an enhancement in discard pile and the other does not. Do you have the option of placing that enhancement beneath draw pile with Abraham's Descendant?

Yes, that falls under the "do as much as you can" part of things.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2019, 01:09:20 AM »

I agree with TheJaylor.

This is on the list of things to update in the REG, because something like the Ezekiel New Covenant (Art side) isn't supposed to be able to fail the resurrect search, which wouldn't be subject to "fail one, fail all".

Kor · « **Reply #15 on:** August 23, 2019, 08:11:24 PM »

Okay, thanks!

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Abrahams Descendant (Read 3720 times)

Cnakeeyes

Abrahams Descendant

RedemptionAggie

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Cnakeeyes

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Mr.Hiatus

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Kor

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Cnakeeyes

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Kor

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Watchman

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Josh

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Cnakeeyes

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Mr.Hiatus

Re: Abrahams Descendant

RedemptionAggie

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Kor

Re: Abrahams Descendant

TheJaylor

Re: Abrahams Descendant

RedemptionAggie

Re: Abrahams Descendant

Kor

Re: Abrahams Descendant