Author Topic: ORCID Feedback/Corrections Scavenger Hunt (Read 13255 times)

Professoralstad · « **on:** September 12, 2017, 01:38:48 PM »

Hello all! Hopefully by now everyone who is reading this has had a chance to look into the ORCID...if not, head on over to Land of Redemption when you get a chance, read my article, and download the files. My hope is that it will be an awesome resource for players and hosts. However, I know (and as several people have already shown) the documents are not perfect. So that's where you come in:

Between now (or really between when it was released, so as to include those who have already submitted feedback) and the release of ORCID V1-1 (with a date that is TBD, but is planned to coincide with the release of REG 5.0), every error you discover (or feedback you submit with a suggestion that I use) will be one entry into a drawing for a prize that will include 1 pack from every non-starter deck set (including Warriors, and Women if I can find one). RoA/FoOF will just be a random tin set (not the whole tin). So that would be 1 pack each of:

Original
Prophets
Women (TBD)
Warriors
Apostles
Patriarchs
Kings
Angel Wars
Priests
Faith of our Fathers
Rock of Ages
Thesaurus Ex Preteritus
Disciples
The Early Church
The Persecuted Church
Cloud of Witnesses
Revelation of John

Here are the rules:

1. Only one error per page/line on the ORCID. So if you see a misspelled identifier and an incorrect letter on the same page/line, that will only be considered one error. My reasoning is that if I go back and fix a page, I will look over the rest of the page for errors and fix them.
2. Any type of error is accepted (bad formatting, bad wording, typos) however, I have sole discretion to determine what constitutes an error. "The picture is fuzzy," while good feedback, is not necessarily an error, it mostly means that I simply couldn't find a better picture at this time (for example, the Red Dragon normal border that I asked about awhile ago).
3. All feedback/suggestions are welcome, but only those that are used for ORCID V1-1 will be considered entries for the drawing.
4. Errors/suggestions that have already been pointed out will be counted toward their respective discoverers, unless they do not want to participate (in which case they do not count for anyone...but all it costs is time, which they have already spent, so my hope is that they will enter).
5. If you find errors that I acknowledge, and then later find more, please create a new post (in lieu of modifying the original), so that I don't have to look through older posts for new content. Even if it is the next post in the thread (i.e. doubleposting is ok...as long as a sufficient amount of time has passed).
6. For the randomization of the drawing, I will create paper cutouts that represent each entry, set them up on a table, and spin an Angry Mob (at least 2 full rotations)...ok, I won't do that, I'll probably just use an RNG online somewhere. But there is no limit on the number of entries, so if you see something, say something.

Happy hunting!

Professoralstad · « **Reply #1 on:** September 12, 2017, 01:39:06 PM »

Quote from: Crashfach2002 on September 11, 2017, 09:31:19 AM

Going through I did find one error. Under the C Deck (2nd) section the pictured for Bow & Arrow (Red) and Burning Censor are switched.

Acknowledged! Thanks Crashfach! Additionally, I noticed that Burning Censor is spelled wrong based on how the card is titled. So that will be updated as well.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on September 11, 2017, 11:19:57 AM

I was looking through ORCID and saw that the Resurrection soul from I has a play as of "resurrect a Hero" when the original wording was "search discard pile for a Hero". This changes the function of the card since the original wording would have allowed you to put the searched for Hero in hand while resurrect forces you to put it in play. The play as needs to be corrected or changed to errata.

Edit: Question about David's Harp. The original wording looks like the Hero never hits discard. The play as definitely involves the Hero hitting discard. This means David's Harp has a search ability now, correct? - Correct. "About to be discarded" is old wording, that has been updated to "is or was discarded", with is or was depending on the context. Since David's Harp occurs following a RA, it has to be "was". So it would in fact be a search ability.

Edit2: Spear of Joshua should specify human to be consistent with the other cards changed from "fought earthly battle". - Correct! That is an error. Thanks!

Edit3: This is is more of a question since it seems intentional but maybe it is a correction. Why does Might of Angels has the play as "Discard all ECs with a N.T. reference on card" instead of just "Discard all N.T. ECs"? Even though the cards with no reference on the card (Saul/Paul, several of the older promos) now have errata to give them references, they still do not have references on the card. So if someone used Might of Angels (Wa) against Saul, it wouldn't work. If we were to update it, it would need errata. Which could be done, but I don't necessarily see a need for it.

Edit4: All cards that Banish an opponent's discard pile (or most of it) currently say "banish -cards- from a discard pile" when they should say "banish -cards- in a discard pile". I know this is pretty semantical but it should be consistent with similar abilities and the current wording really only makes sense if you're thinking of the English word banish instead of the ability banish. Cards don't say "banish a Hero from battle" for example. So the framework I used for "in" vs. "from" is as follows: if the ability is moving something from a visible (to everyone) location, the card is "in" that location (in battle, in play, in territory, in Land of Bondage, etc). If the original location is not visible to everyone, then cards are moved "from"
that location (from hand, from deck, from discard pile). There may be instances where I do not follow this framework (in which case those would be errors) but for the most part it seemed logical.

Edit5: Shouldn't Leprosy utilize a colon?
Currently: "Place on a Hero to disease that Hero with leprosy. While Leprosy is in play, if it discards a Hero, place it on a Hero in the same territory to disease that Hero with leprosy. Each upkeep, decrease the Hero with leprosy 0/2."
Suggested: "Place on a Hero: Disease Hero. If leprosy discards Hero, repeat its ability. Each upkeep, decrease Hero 0/2."
If "repeat its ability" isn't something a card can do, just have it say "Place on a Hero: Disease Hero. Each upkeep, decrease Hero 0/2. If leprosy discards Hero, place on Hero: Disease Hero. Each upkeep, decrease Hero 0/2." It really should...but I couldn't come up with a way to do what it says under the current rules. Since the colon means "while this remains true" the first colon would only apply while the first Hero lived. The repear its ability may work, but I will have to discuss with the playtest team if that is a direction we want to go. If so, then this would definitely count!

Edit6: To protect against the possibly future where Daves Harp can be made CBI, the "Negate David's Harp" part of 30 Pieces of Silver should be put before the other ability. This suggestion is kinda iffy but I think it actually does something. Agreed! That will be fixed.

Edit7: Per a recent ruling question, Redemption should only be able to target cards that are only a Hero at face value to prevent unintended interactions with DACs. Agreed! That will be fixed

Professoralstad · « **Reply #2 on:** September 12, 2017, 01:39:25 PM »

Quote

Edit8: If the leprosy suggestion is good, Sowing the Seed should be changed the same way. agree that if we fix leprosy, this could also be fixed similarly

Edit9: I'm unsure of an easy fix but New Togues either lets the Hero rescue the Female Only through soul protection like Fire Foxes or would not let it rescue the Female Only if the Female Only is the only soul opponent has, depending on the interpretation of "if a Lost Soul would be rescued by a Hero". There were a few cards that I wanted to simply wish out of existence, for the simple reason that there is no good way in the current ruleset to get them to work. I agree that it still probably doesn't work, and may just need errata.
Edit10: To avoid ambiguity, Herod the Great should probably say "Withdraw all Heroes that were targeted by band abilities this turn". I believe you are correct, as they wouldn't necessarily reset if they banded last turn. Good catch!

Edit11: Flogging should specify if odd strength and toughness values are rounded up or down when halved. SubEdit: Also Betrayal. As far as I know, it has always been ruled that cards like this and The Branch don't actually get rounded. I remember one of my first BD having a 10.5/6 Ezekiel (ftw!). I don't believe that has changed, but if it has (or will) then I would update them accordingly

Edit12: Either I misunderstand Lacking Sleep or it's functionality has been majorly changed by the play as. Should it not be "If Hero is blocked, the blocking player may play an enhancement. Limit once per battle. (Limit so you don't potentially get to play more than the first enhancement)" instead of "If that Hero is in battle, the blocking player may play an Enhancement". SubEdit: Also Without Food. We discussed these cards, and based on the REG rule that "The phrase “play the first enhancement” indicates a play an enhancement ability that takes effect as a response
to the initial blocker(s) being presented (once all blocker abilities, and effects caused by those abilities, have
resolved)" - From the "Play (Play an Enhancement)" page this works as intended. It would only allow playing multiple "first enhancements" if there were multiple Lacking/Without in battle (which if a player attacks with 2 or more such Heroes, he deserves to get that type of response).

Edit13: Desertion should be "restrict players from playing good cards with banding abilities this turn". As is the play as stops evil banding cards as well as good ones while the original card only stops good banding. Correct again! Thanks a bunch!

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #3 on:** September 12, 2017, 01:45:11 PM »

Would you like us to post corrections as replies to this thread, separate threads, or pms to you?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #4 on:** September 12, 2017, 01:46:24 PM »

Quote from: Kevinthedude on September 12, 2017, 01:45:11 PM

Would you like us to post corrections as replies to this thread, separate threads, or pms to you?

Replies to this thread would be great! Just so everything is in one place.

Note I am going through your earlier post and will provide feedback as needed.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #5 on:** September 12, 2017, 01:49:18 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on September 12, 2017, 01:46:24 PM

Quote from: Kevinthedude on September 12, 2017, 01:45:11 PM
Would you like us to post corrections as replies to this thread, separate threads, or pms to you?

Replies to this thread would be great! Just so everything is in one place.

Note I am going through your earlier post and will provide feedback as needed.

Thanks! Also, sorry for the inconsistent formatting on those, they're pretty much just notes I jotted down and several of them are more questions than actual change suggestions.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #6 on:** September 12, 2017, 02:38:54 PM »

In response to your clarification of Lacking Sleep: That makes since that my suggestion doesn't need the limit clause but I still don't see how the current play as does anything similar to the original card.

Ability: "Hero decreases 1/1 each turn until */1. While hero is Lacking Sleep, player must allow the opponent to play the first enhancement in battle. Treat as a disease."

Play As: "Disease a Hero: If that Hero is in battle, the blocking player may play an enhancement. Each upkeep, decrease Hero 1/1 unless the Hero's toughness is 1."

The only thing the play as seems to do is like the blocker play an enhancement right after they disease a Hero in battle with it. I don't see how it lets the blocker play the first in future battles as the ability is supposed to do. Shouldn't it be something such as:

"Disease a Hero: If that Hero is in battle, the blocking player may play the first enhancement. Each upkeep, decrease Hero 1/1 unless the Hero's toughness is 1."

Professoralstad · « **Reply #7 on:** September 12, 2017, 02:43:14 PM »

Replacing the colon would result in this:

"Disease a Hero. While that Hero is diseased, if that Hero is in battle, the blocking player may play an Enhancement." Which should do as intended. Hopefully that is clearer?

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #8 on:** September 12, 2017, 03:36:17 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on September 12, 2017, 02:43:14 PM

Replacing the colon would result in this:

"Disease a Hero. While that Hero is diseased, if that Hero is in battle, the blocking player may play an Enhancement." Which should do as intended. Hopefully that is clearer?

My uncertainty lies more in the function of the wording than not understanding what the colon represents. I've been thinking how to voice exactly what I find off in the current play as and I believe it's that the current wording does not include a time for the enhancement to be played. As is it just gives the blocking player infinite initiative.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #9 on:** September 12, 2017, 06:16:49 PM »

Leprosy and Sowing have 2 separate place abilities - any hero, and a hero in the same territory. "Repeat abilities" is used on Heavy Taxes but doesn't really apply here.

Increase/decrease not rounding is still in the REG.

Bobbert · « **Reply #10 on:** September 14, 2017, 10:54:47 PM »

This is actually a ruling question that may be a correction depending on the answer.

The Play-As on Destruction of Nehushtan reads "Discard and negate an Artifact." Given the ruling that inactive artifacts are in play, would this allow DoN to target an inactive artifact (especially if the user knew specifically what it was)? The card text itself specifies active.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2017, 09:31:41 AM »

Quote from: Bobbert on September 14, 2017, 10:54:47 PM

This is actually a ruling question that may be a correction depending on the answer.

The Play-As on Destruction of Nehushtan reads "Discard and negate an Artifact." Given the ruling that inactive artifacts are in play, would this allow DoN to target an inactive artifact (especially if the user knew specifically what it was)? The card text itself specifies active.

It would need to specific that it can target facedown cards and/or inactive artifacts.

Quote from: REG

Face down cards are only targetable by abilities that specify they can target face down cards or inactive artifacts, or cards that can target any or all cardsin a location.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #12 on:** September 16, 2017, 02:19:32 PM »

Next shipment is in. I'll likely split future posts up by set so I don't have to spam replies but still do them in sections. This post is all Patriarchs.

Joseph's Silver Cup: I don't think protection from deactivation stops artifacts from being manually deactivated by their owner in prep phase. Protect stops cards restrict stops players. There should be a line restricting opponents from deactivating their artifacts.

Wool Fleece (P): Personally I would have thought "Protect ECs from banding" is a better interpretation of "No ECs may band" than "Prevent band abilities that target ECs" but I assume someone thought of that already and this version is what the elders agreed on. Similar cards that say things like "No Hero may be ____ while such-and-such is in play" have play as to be protect abilities.

Ehud: This may be a stretch but "has no effect" is already defined as ignore. Ehud's "ignore WoP" was meant to function as a negate but since the wording it uses is strictly defined as something else, would giving it the ability to negate instead of ignore (albeit a useless ignore) be errata instead of just a play as?

Hosts of Heaven: Why the extra "select a Hero" wording? Wording consistent with similar abilities would be: "Protect a human Hero from harm this turn while it is in a territory or a set-aside area". Two whole less words

Messenger Angel: Ability lets it target prophets in set-aside, play as does not. Should be: "Increase a good human prophet in play or a set-aside area 1/1."

Watcher: A tab ambiguous, I would add "...all ECs that were set aside this game"

Enoch: As this is errata it technically is fine as is but was removing his ability to return to territory an oversight or intentional? I assume it was interpreted to be clarifying text regarding his protection from discard but it would be nice if he could have "After battle, return Enoch to territory".

Jethro's Wisdom: Should be worded as an X for consistency with similar cards. Abilities: 2/X Identifier: "X = Combined toughness of all O.T. male human Heroes in territory."

Helping Pharaoh's Daughter: Shouldn't have to be specifically used by Jochebed or Miriam. Should be: "If Jochebed or Miriam is in battle, that Hero may band to Pharaoh's Daughter."

Manna: The granted ability needs to be territory class otherwise it won't work unless each of those Heroes individually enters battle to activate it for the first time. If territory class can't be granted I'm unsure how to fix this but the current form definitely doesn't work as intended.

Protection of Jerusalem: Again, is the select part actually needed? Is there any difference between the current play as and the following: "Set aside 2 silver Heroes: Protect a Fortress from discard."

Moses and Elders: Covenants are both good and artifacts at face value. The original ability of the card cannot search for covenants while the play as can. I believe that qualifies it as errata or the play as needs to be corrected.

Bera, King of Sodom: Original card can capture if any player has an unoccupied Sodom. Play as version can only capture if you specifically have an unoccupied Sodom.

Pharaoh's Magicians: Either the reveal is redundant with a game rule or the underdeck portion is missing a reveal. Any time a card exits an unrevealed location and then someone happens to it depending on its attributes, it is supposed to get revealed.

Striking the Rock: "each" is unnecessary.

Brothers' Envy: Is "cards" not redundant?

Gib Trick (And others): Play as doesn't affect wording for the purposes of Coliseum, correct?

Amorite Invasion: Doesn't specify "human".

Complaint of Moses: Not a correction but just a note that "reset" should get defined in the REG at some point if that's not already in the plays for 5.0

Smashing Tablets: Unnecessary word: "cards". This has come up a couple times now so it may be intentional. If so, why is it needed?

Water Shaft: Same deal as blue Ehud regarding "has no effect"

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #13 on:** September 16, 2017, 05:14:32 PM »

Here's the Kings cards.

Asherah Pole: I don't recall Asherah Pole working for the opponent (Since it says when blocking instead of when an evil character is blocking, it has an implied 'you') but the play as is definitely symmetrical.

Saint of Virtue: It doesn't seem right to say it "activates" the strength and toughness. I believe this ability functions and would be cleaner: "If SoV plays an Ephesians 6 Enhancement, you may place it on SoV: If SoV enters the battle, play the Enhancement. Limit one of those enhancements on SoV". Playing the enhancement from off his ability would retrigger the ability so it can stay on it infinitely.

King Amaziah: See blue Ehud

Woman of Wisdom: Protection from discard doesn't protect from discard by game rule as a result of being defeated anymore so the current play as doesn't work. Possibly "After a rescue attempt, if more than one Hero is being discarded, withdraw all discarded Heroes (except one of blocking player's choice) instead." would work.

Helmet of Brass: Either "at any time" means in between other abilities completing or Helmet of Brass didn't ever work. I'm pretty sure the current play as would be errata.

Sling: I believe "...to any point values that sum to 4" is shorter and as the same function as "...to any point values such that they sum to 4".

Solomon Dedicates Temple: Other similar cards have play as worded like "play ___ from deck" or "put ___ in play from deck". For the sake of consistency, shouldn't SDT be "Play Solomon's Temple from deck" instead of "Search deck for Solomon's Temple and put it in play"?

Eleazar's Sword: Missing a word. Should be: "Protect your Heroes from evil male Philistines".

Faith of David: "all" is unnecessary. It doesn't say "Protect all Heroes from all evil giants and all warrior class ECs" so it should be "Protect Heroes from evil giants and warrior class ECs".

Coat of Mail: See Helmet of Brass.

Struck with Blindness: I'm not 100% sure on this one but I believe "blocking" is redundant.

Abishai's Spear: "all" is unnecessary.

Goods Recovered: Wording is ambiguous at best, incorrect at worst. Should be: "Shuffle a card from your discard pile that was discarded from deck by opponent".

Flaming Sword: Play as changes function. Original card cannot negate a card in main battle if played in a side battle, play as version can. Actually, as I typed this I remembered something about "in battle" having an played "this" which would make my correction unnecessary. Is this a thing or does the play as need to be changed?

Hailstones: Cards that say "Do something to a Hero: Something happens to Hero" are worded as so, not as "Do something to a Hero: Something happens to character". Hailstones should say: "Poison a warrior class Evil Character: Each upkeep, decrease Evil Character 0/4".

King Jehu: Should use X for consistency. Abilities: X/6 Identifier: X = Evil Characters in play

Archers of Kedar and Egyptian Archers: They have almost identical abilities yet one has play as while the other has errata. If these are intended to be different in this way, why?

King Shishak: See blue Ehud.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #14 on:** September 16, 2017, 05:15:03 PM »

Turns out splitting them up by set isn't enough to avoid the dreaded character limit. Here's the rest of Kings.

Devourer: This card is worded functionally the same as several others (now in battle vs. currently in battle) but does not have play as consistent with the others.

Goliath's Spear: With the current play as, the increase to 8/10 is permanent even if it later becomes equipped by a non-giant. I recall passing over some other similarly worded cards but just now realized the issue. If I'm correct about this card there's some others in Patriarchs for sure and possibly older than need to be updated accordingly.

Satan Released: "your" in "resurrect your demon" is redundant with the definition of resurrect and for consistency should be "resurrect a demon".

Land Purchase: Current play as doesn't put the site in play, original ability does.

Ishbibenob's Spear: See Goliath's Spear.

Political Brides: It works as is but in other games similar abilities are worded this way and IMO it is a bit better: "On each opponent's next turn, they may skip their draw phase. If they do not, restrict them from making a rescue attempt that turn".

Rejected Advice: Since enhancements are never "active", only artifacts are, this ability can be shortened to: "Negate and discard an active Covenant".

Strength Revealed: Simply missing "Cannot be negated". Looks like someone was working on ORCID too late one night

Lahmi's Spear: See Goliath's Spear.

Troops Discharged: See blue Ehud. At this point there have been so many of these I'm sure it's intentional but it would be nice to have an explanation why it doesn't need to be errata.

Bearing Bad News: I have always interpreted "discarded as a result of this battle" to mean discarded by battle resolution specifically, not simply discarded at any point during the battle. The current play as does the latter.

Dart: Redemption is very inconsistent about what a cards name means in its rules text. If a card says "Discard David" everyone knows it means discard any card named David but then there are cards like this that say "discard Dart" but obviously are intended to refer only to themselves. If the rule supposedly holding this together is that if a card refers to it's own name it means itself and only itself, I think that should be done away with and change the play as of all cards similar to Dart to say "discard this card" instead of "discard 'its own name'".

Momentum Charge: "If EC loses in battle" should be "If EC is defeated".

Climb the Walls: See blue Ehud.

Disuading Speech: For consistency, should read: "You may choose the Hero opponent uses to attack".

Glittering Spear: See Goliath's Spear.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #15 on:** September 16, 2017, 05:48:27 PM »

Jordan can explain it better, but "X abilities" is pretty consistently what's used throughout the ORCID, to use the name of the ability as opposed to the noun-form.

Where are you getting "owner's territory" being redundant with the definition of release? Release says permanent control, which isn't necessarily the owner with a taken or given character.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #16 on:** September 16, 2017, 05:52:45 PM »

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on September 16, 2017, 05:48:27 PM

Jordan can explain it better, but "X abilities" is pretty consistently what's used throughout the ORCID, to use the name of the ability as opposed to the noun-form.

As I encountered more and more of them I figured that might be the case. Does that mean cards that say "protected from discard" should be changed to "protected from discard abilities"?

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on September 16, 2017, 05:48:27 PM

Where are you getting "owner's territory" being redundant with the definition of release? Release says permanent control, which isn't necessarily the owner with a taken or given character.

That's a mistake on my part, I was thinking permanent control referred to owner. I see that they're different.

Edit: Removed "corrections" from above posts that referred only to these two assumed errors.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #17 on:** September 16, 2017, 06:08:54 PM »

I think discard is the one exception to that because it can happen by game rule as opposed to just by abilities, but not sure. Capture isn't usually followed by abilities, so that's wrong or Banish being followed by abilities is wrong. It's really for convert/conversion, protect/protection, etc.

Permanent control is owner 99% of the time, probably. But with the potential of more Take/Give cards, the distinction will become more important and more common.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #18 on:** September 16, 2017, 06:14:25 PM »

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on September 16, 2017, 06:08:54 PM

I think discard is the one exception to that because it can happen by game rule as opposed to just by abilities, but not sure.

As of August last year, "Protected from discard" functions literally as "Protected from discard abilities" regardless of how it's worded, nothing protects from discard by game rule as a result of being defeated. Unless it's planned to revert to how it used to be prior to that in 5.0 (Which I would be 100% in support of), all play as for cards that say "protected from discard" should have "abilities" tacked on. It's a simple matter of me doing ctrl+f "from discard" although before I do that for the whole list it would be nice to have confirmation from Jordan which types of protection should be followed by "abilities" and which should not.

Question for Jordan: If including "abilities" is the norm, are there any kinds of protection that specifically should not have "abilities" tacked on? It seems at least capture isn't supposed to have it but I'm curious as to why this is. Since they are all functionally identical should they not all be verbally identical for the sake of consistency?

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #19 on:** September 16, 2017, 07:07:58 PM »

I'm not sure if this has been said yet, but Flee from Enemies (a Black Curse from Priests) has a play as that belongs on Babylonian Forces.

Also Oblivious (A Crimson Enhancement from Angel Wars) lost its Cannot Be Negated in its Play As.

Queen Taphenes (Rock of Ages Gold Evil Character) stats are 2/5 but the ORCID text says 2/6.
.
Gibeonite Curse (Black Curse from Rock of Ages) stats are 2/4 but the ORCID text says 1/5.

Kevinthedude · « **Reply #20 on:** September 18, 2017, 04:41:40 PM »

Time for Angel Wars.

I Am Healing: I believe "in play" is redundant since abilities default to play.

Ears to Hear: Cards that refer to other cards by name don't use quotation marks.

Praise the Moon: A location followed by a colon and an ability makes the ability apply to cards in that location by definition. "from that hand" is thus redundant.

Spiritual Warfare: Missing the word "evil".

Equipped for Mission: "reveal the number of cards" feels like it should be "reveal a number of cards". I don't know if one of these is objectively more correct than the other. Added note: Morg uses "a number" so one of these cards needs to change for consistency.

Not Alone: For consistency with similar abilities shouldn't this be: "Protect Heroes in battle from an evil brigade"?

Refined by Fire: I believe "Discard all evil cards that Hero" is missing the word "on". The word "all" may be unnecessary also.

Spiritual Beings: Currently has no Play As. Should be: "Protect Hero from evil humans. Cannot be prevented by an evil card."

Weapon of Light: Should use X for consistency. Abilities: 2/X Identifier: X = number of ECs in one opponent's territory."

The Darkness: Putting "face down" before "Evil Character" means the EC would need to be face down while in hand. "face down" should go after "Evil Character" so it properly describes what to do with the EC instead of states a requirement of the EC.

The Pit: Unless hold identifiers don't actually work, can't I just hold any demon I want here?

Shadow (Both versions): For consistency, "search draw pile for The Darkness or Demonic Stronghold and put it in play" should be: "play The Darkness or Demonic Stronghold from deck".

Lurking: Most other cards don't refer to card name with quotation marks.

Torment: The original ability uses discarded as a limit to targets, not to limit the effect of heal. The Play As limits both the targets AND the effects of the healing.

Evil Arises: Play As doesn't include banding in a demon from The Pit.

Retreat: I just noticed that many interrupt the battle abilities are consistently worded. Some are split into "Interrupt the battle. Do something else." while others are kept as "Interrupt the battle and do something else". Why is this? Is there a reason they shouldn't all my worded the same for consistency?

Weakness: Unless I'm missing something this gives the blocking player infinite initiative, not just the first play.

Wounded: The word "that" should be removed

Dejected: The word "the" in "the Lost Soul" should be removed.

Oblivious: For consistency with other place abilities, "it" should be changed to "Lost Soul".

Seeds of Doubt: The word "that" should be removed.

Partner Abandoned: "(except one)" has an extra space.

Stealing: "an" is unnecessary.

Subject Deserted: "it" should become "Lost Soul" and "the" in "the Lost Soul" should be removed.

Evil Advice: See Subject Deserted.

Unaware: This has come up several times and I may be missing something but just in case I'll keep listing this kind of thing. Even if the select part is there for a reason, there are a couple other errors in wording. Should be: "Protect demons from a Hero this turn".

Angry Travelers: See Subject Deserted.

Consumed by Doubt: Both instances of the word "that" should be removed.

Fear of Danger: The word "that" should be removed.

Possessed: The word "that" should be removed, as should the word "the" from "the Lost Soul".

Professoralstad · « **Reply #21 on:** September 20, 2017, 04:12:36 PM »

Kevin, thanks a bunch for all the feedback! I haven't had a lot of time to sort through it all yet, but this is great so far. I will hopefully have some time this weekend to respond to all issues/questions here. Great work, keep em coming!

Professoralstad · « **Reply #22 on:** September 23, 2017, 12:21:48 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on September 16, 2017, 07:07:58 PM

I'm not sure if this has been said yet, but Flee from Enemies (a Black Curse from Priests) has a play as that belongs on Babylonian Forces.

Also Oblivious (A Crimson Enhancement from Angel Wars) lost its Cannot Be Negated in its Play As.

Queen Taphenes (Rock of Ages Gold Evil Character) stats are 2/5 but the ORCID text says 2/6.
.
Gibeonite Curse (Black Curse from Rock of Ages) stats are 2/4 but the ORCID text says 1/5.

All of those will be updated, thanks CS!

Professoralstad · « **Reply #23 on:** September 23, 2017, 01:54:10 PM »

In order to avoid going over text limits, I am deleting your questions, and only giving my responses here.

Joseph's Silver Cup: I believe you are correct based on the new "protect from discard" only protecting from SAs ruling (which you mention later). The restrict will be expanded to the deactivation portion, and the protect will be removed.
Wool Fleece (P): A long-standing ruling is that "No X may be" = Protect, while "No X may" = Prevent.
Ehud: This topic is up for discussion. Either the REG definition will change to accommodate these, or affected cards will get errata.
Hosts of Heaven: The idea is to keep the While phrase consistent with other similar phrases, that is, the while should be the beginning of the ability. So it should be "While a selected human Hero is in a territory or a set-aside area this turn, protect it from harm." I agree we shouldn't use "Select" wording unless necessary.
Messenger Angel: Agreed.
Watcher: If a character was set aside but then was reset, it would not get shuffled by Watcher. The ruling is the same for Persian Presidents. So adding this game would go against that ruling.
Enoch: You are correct that the return to territory portion was determined to be clarifying text.
Jethro's Wisdom: I did not add X to cards with the * as a rule, but since they all got errata, then maybe that could be done. I don't think it really matters either way, but I will get feedback from the team.
Helping Pharaoh's Daughter: I agree, and actually it doesn't have to specify that they are in battle, as that is the only way they can band.
Manna: Agreed...I don't think errata to add TC is a good precedent, I think it should just be "Your Heroes ignore Hunger and Without Food for remainder of the game."
Protection of Jerusalem: There may have been a reason I thought select was needed, but I'm not sure what it is. It will be removed per your suggestion.
Moses and Elders: I think there may be another way of interpreting it, similar to how Rome's (except orange) doesn't stop the emperors from playing Romans Destroy Jerusalem, if a card is an Artifact and something else, then it could still be targeted. Note that when the card was printed (15 years ago), the alignments of Covenants and Artifacts was not as well defined as they are now, so I assumed the Artifact restriction was simply to clarify that even Artifacts that do good things, like Holy Grail or Chariot, didn't qualify. However, I certainly see your point, and will discuss with the team.
Bera, King of Sodom: I guess I'm not sure why you interpret it that way. "Capture a red Hero to an unoccupied Sodom" should allow it to go to anyone's Sodom.
Pharaoh's Magicians: Agreed, reveal part will be removed.
Striking the Rock: Agreed
Brothers' Envy: It's probably not needed, it just sounds odd to say "all Coat of Many Colors", and "all Coats of Many Colors" certainly isn't correct. It affects relatively few cards, so I will probably leave it that way for now.
Gib Trick (And others): Nope. Only Errata actually changes the wording. So Gib Trick, Haman's Plot, AoCP, etc. all still get through Coliseum.
Amorite Invasion: Corrected
Complaint of Moses: I will check to see if this is/can be added
Smashing Tablets: See Brothers' Envy
Water Shaft: See Ehud

Professoralstad · « **Reply #24 on:** September 23, 2017, 03:12:26 PM »

Asherah Pole: It has been ruled to work for all players for as long as I can remember, but I see what you are saying, and I'm not sure if that is actually how it should be. Might be worth a discussion.
Saint of Virtue: I think that makes sense; I think the idea is that it should behave like a weapon class Enhancement, which your suggestion should accomplish.
King Amaziah: Made a note on Ehud
Woman of Wisdom: Agreed, will be updated.
Helmet of Brass: It may need discussion, but I think it still works as written. I would say that "at any time" in this case allows it to be triggered off of a discard.
Sling: Agreed, will be updated.
Solomon Dedicates Temple: Cards like Pride of Simon and Imitating Evil say "play from discard pile" because a play ability is really shorthand for "play an Enhancement". While you do play Solomon's Temple in this case, put in play is used to signify that it is not a play ability (so if you played it off of Samuel, it would still work). Put in play should be consistently used for all other card types except Enhancements, but if you have other examples, I should update those.
Eleazar's Sword: Will be updated.
Faith of David: Agreed, will be updated.
Coat of Mail: See Helmet of Brass.
Struck with Blindness: Agreed, will be updated.
Abishai's Spear: Agreed, will be updated.
Goods Recovered: Agreed, will be updated.
Flaming Sword: In battle = in this battle. So this works as intended.
Hailstones: In general, Evil Character is typically only used when absolutely necessary. Hero is used in the other situations because Hero is shorter than character, which is used in these situations because it is shorter than Evil Character. Since the poison ability will stop if the condition before the colon changes (i.e. if the EC is converted to a Hero) then it shouldn't have any impact.
King Jehu: Same as note for Jethro's Wisdom
Archers of Kedar and Egyptian Archers: Archers of Kedar needs errata, otherwise it would never discard itself...rather it would discard a non-existent card called Archer of Kedar...

Egyptian Archer uses the correct title, so it only needs a Play As.
King Shishak: Noted above.