Cactus Game Design Message Boards

is it going to be officially ruled that anything written in the identifier line cannot be affected by other cards?

Definately not.  I could see a Greek enhancement that makes another character lose all national identifiers and gain a "Greek" identifier, for example.

But, I think it is wise to make identifiers and special functions "CBN."

Gabriel IS a prophet.
Red Dragon IS a beast.
* IS the number of ECs in play.
X IS the number of Babylonian ECs in play.
Magic Charms IS a "May be activated on a Magician"?  Clearly not. 

I think this is a not a fair presentation of the position.
Magic Charms IS an artifact that may be activated on a magician.  That makes it a different kind of artifact than the regular variety which may only be activated in the artifact pile.  Therefore, it does identify what kind of artifact it is.  I don't have strong feelings on this issue, but I do hope that you can see the other perspective more clearly than you indicate above.

Quote from: Bryon on February 19, 2010, 05:58:45 PM

Gabriel IS a prophet.
Red Dragon IS a beast.
* IS the number of ECs in play.
X IS the number of Babylonian ECs in play.
Magic Charms IS a "May be activated on a Magician"?  Clearly not.  

I think this is a not a fair presentation of the position.
Magic Charms IS an artifact that may be activated on a magician.  That makes it a different kind of artifact than the regular variety which may only be activated in the artifact pile.  Therefore, it does identify what kind of artifact it is.

And Moses IS a hero that negates all other special abilities in battle.  And Mary Magdalene IS a hero that is immune to demons.  And ... you get the idea.  

In your example, "artifact" is the only thing it IS.  Everything after the word "that" is something special that it can do or some special action that can be done with it.

If a card has an active ability (it does something), or a passive ability (it is immune to something, or is protected from something or can be placed on something, or cannot be somethinged) then those are still special abilities or functions.  If we put that on the identifier line, it does not suddenly make it an identifier.  Rather, it makes it an ability or special function that cannot be negated.

If you have played Lord of the Rings or other games, you will know the difference between a loaded keyword and an unloaded keyword.  In Lord of the Rings, "Fierce" is a loaded keyword, because it directs a character to attack twice.  "Archer" is a loaded keyword, since it allows a character to give a wound during the archery phase.  "Ranger" is an UNloaded keyword.  It does nothing on its own.  In Redemption, we call unloaded keywords "Identifiers."  Loaded keywords are special abilities.

"Draw" is a loaded keyword.  It directs you (or allows you) to do something.  "Activate" is a loaded keyword.  It directs you (ar allows you) to do something.

"Philistine" is an unloaded keyword.  That is, there is no special action or rule in the rulebook that is directed or allowed by that keyword alone.  Its ONLY purpose is to tell you what something IS.  It allows no special actions on its own.  So, it is an identifier.
"Prophet" is an unloaded keyword, too.  Its ONLY purpose is to tell you what a something IS.  It allows no special actions on its own.  Likewise, an identifier.
"X = # of Babylonians" identifies the value of the variable.  Its ONLY purpose is to tell you what something IS.  It allows no special actions on its own.  So, identifier.

"May be activated on..." is a loaded phrase.  It allows an action or special function, unlike an identifier.  

However, it seems the playtesters are in favor of making all things on the identifier line CBN.  SO, even if a player does not know the difference between a special function and a label/identifier/unloaded keyword, they can know that the "stuff below the picture can't be negated."

even if a player does not know the difference between a special function and a label/identifier/unloaded keyword, they can know that the "stuff below the picture can't be negated."

That would be me.  I've never played LotR CCG and had no idea about the loaded/unloaded language.  That was a really good explanation though of how your perspective differentiates an ability from an identifier.  I think I understand now.  If you decide to make all the stuff under the picture CBN, great.  If you decide to only make identifiers CBN, now I have a way to explain how my players can tell them apart.  A description that doesn't DO anything and has no rules associated with it.  Cool.

I would be intrested in the answer as well, or at least an answer to why it hasn't been changed so that it works like it was intended to.

Same reason as Split Altar: They don't rerule cards to make them the way they were intended; they only do so to power them down.

Basically, Split Altar was a card that was meant to shuffle opponent's artifact pile into his deck. However, the way it was worded, it only shuffled the active artifacts, and the PTB did nothing to change it, and there was no rejoicing.

I care much less about the special functions being CBN, what I care about is special functions of Characters being active at all times (even in deck), as the "does not count as a LS" portion of Hopper's SA (which would be printed as a special function today) would.

Actually, now that I think of it, do abilifiers work this way now? It seems like the only possible way to get Hopper to work, yes?

Identifiers are still working in deck.  Human, Temple Artifact, etc. are all used to identify a card that you seach your deck to find.

"May be activated on a magician" however, does not work while in deck.  That is, it doesn't pull itself out of the deck and put itself on the magician.

These kinds of "loaded identifiers" or "identifiers with inherent actions attached" or "special functions" (or whatever they are called) only work when the card is face up on the table, right?

special identifiers would only work face up.

Holds only works when face up on the table.
 
Does "May be activated on a magician" work while it is in your hand?

Does "Goliath may retain as a weapon" work while it is in your hand?

dang it. you're right. first instinct says no, but that'd suck for Goliath's Armor. this could be remedied by printing a better Goliath...