Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Professoralstad on October 22, 2010, 04:32:46 PM
-
So IaH/CoA officially does NOT work anymore.
I not sure if it works because I don't know what combo you are referring to. But, I will make a guess at your question. I am Holy tells me to discard a Hero from hand force my opponent .... If I have Chamber active and place the Hero there instead of discarding it then I never paid the cost to force my opponent to discard a card. I am not aware that I ruled any other way. Does that answer your question?
Based on this and other comments, Rob is of the opinion that you cannot use I am Holy to put an Angel in Chamber of Angels to force a discard. I wanted to let everyone know, as I have played several people in the past few days (and years) who have used this combo. It was part of the "instead" discussion that has been going on for a few months, a few points of which are still being ironed out. But it seems reasonable to assume that costs that are insteaded will no longer be valid to receive benefits. How this applies to various situations will hopefully be ruled on in the next few days.
Hopefully this message comes to you in advance of too many tournaments with people running Job/Silver hand control decks. I am relaying this information now so that people will have time to think of alternative strategies.
One more thing: Please don't shoot the messenger. :)
-
shoots messanger then remembers it was a toy gun oh well dang it
nah ps im actually happy for this ruling even though i did play a chamber deck is the past with the addition of job and silver stuff this is a good ruling.
-
wow, there goes job/angel hand control. amazing how one hugely popular strat is shut down in the blink of an eye.
-
bummer. a hugely OP franchise is now just OP.
-
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my dex rox nowz
-
...why is that?
-
Because everyone elses deck stinks.
-
This is dumbest most unintelligent ruleing in the history of the game. Why? Instead means this:you do pay the cost because it's discarded first. BTW thanks for killing one of the most popular decks.(Sarcasm)
-
Unbelievable. This is the worst ruling to ever come out of the PTB for no good reason. If Golgotha is also neutered I will stop playing Redemption forever. So if you use Tenants Kill the Son and the Hero's owner uses HT, you have to un-draw? If more than 50% of your hand is Angels and you have Chamber out, you can't stop Sinning Hand? If *any* Angels are in your hand and you have Chamber out, you can't stop Primary Objective?
This is a very, very, very bad ruling from a logical, gameplay, and precedent standpoint.
-
I agree with the ruling, and that is how I would have ruled it anyway. I was not aware of any other ruling, since I have not had anyone use that combo in any of my tournaments. I actually used a Daniel deck with angels and had Chamber. I always assumed that "instead" meant that what I was trying to do was not being done.
I am glad that game terms like "instead" are being refined and given proper thought before they are a permanent part of the new REG.
-
Hello, good sir.
I, Rawrlolsauce!, am the candidate that was chosen to represent an influential group: The Cartel Of Managing the Boss' Opinion, you may know us as COMBO, about this situation. As you may or may not know, COMBO is a growing, yet still powerful, group that takes great care in the rulings or judgement made by the powers that be. Our group feels that this was, despite the Elder's agreement, a poor choice that should be immediately rectified.
We look forward to discussing possible alternatives with you.
Regards,
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi708.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww83%2FI_Am_Rawrlolsauce%2Ftest.jpg&hash=36756291b88ebf4df3a6745905fa5540d03974d1)
Rawrlolsauce!
Secretary of Business Affairs
-
When you say "Boss' opinion," are we talking Kingpin?
-
This is a very, very, very bad ruling from a logical...
how is it logical?
-
It's not.
-
i understand, so you're saying the alternative must be logical. im asking why so?
-
I give you a dollar to ride your merry-go-round. You don't keep the dollar, but give it to someone else. Do I not get to ride the merry-go-round because the dollar ended up somewhere else? Why do SA's check up on themselves later after they've happened? We're inserting SA's inside of other SA's before they've completed when we say that an "insteaded" cost wasn't paid.
-
why would you get to ride the merry go round if you gave the dollar away?
-
If this is the case and you use Judas' Plot on Son of God, New Jerusalem fizzles, since it says "an additional lost soul" and Soggy didn't rescue one.
On a side note, I like this whole COMBO idea.
-
i would like to submit an application for office.
-
why would you get to ride the merry go round if you gave the dollar away?
I gave the dollar to the guy riding it, then some other guy took it from him. It's a 1:1 comparison.
I Am Holy demands a Good Card to work. I give it a good card, but Chamber takes it away. I did Discard an angel for I Am Holy, but then Chamber had it go somewhere else.
-
i am holy requires a good card to be discarded as a cost (giving the dollar towards riding the merry go round) to make your opponent discard as a benefit (ride the merry go round). instead of giving the dollar (which equates to discarding) the dollar slips into a trans-dimensional wormhole and is lost in limbo (chamber). do you still get to ride your merry go round because you lost your dollar? no.
-
So, trans-dimensional wormhole is the more logical explanation?
-
as much as a merry go round is, yes.
i think the operative word here is 'instead', which is to do something rather than another. in this case, it seems 'instead' would indeed go back in time to reverse any action from a source and replace it with its own insteaded effect.
-
I understand logically even though I am sad to see it go. VIVA LA INSTEAD ABILITIES!
So any other rulings decided on that were waiting an official release?
-
ditto, it just seems very wierd after playing with it for years. this is a case where even though the ruling logically makes sense to me, it should favor precedent at this point.
-
Let's argue pointlessly with the elders everybody! ;)
-
While I'm not at all a fan of hating on elders, I have to agree with MKC. Is there some super broken combo that I'm not aware of that caused this ruling? Otherwise, it seems better to just leave it the way it is (that is, with Chamber/IaH still working).
-
i have always used chamber/IaH extensively and cant believe what im seeing on a ruling from AngelWars. and then rob saying "what? ive never allowed that...? I understand the ruling. just still in awe of it. MAN.
-
While I'm not at all a fan of hating on elders, I have to agree with MKC. Is there some super broken combo that I'm not aware of that caused this ruling? Otherwise, it seems better to just leave it the way it is (that is, with Chamber/IaH still working).
It's not a broken combo that caused it. There was a large thread about what 'instead' abilities mean, and Chamber was brought up (as a precedent for other cards), and that was where Rob's quote came in.
-
I would not assume that Rob was aware of previous rulings on this combo and then changed his mind, which is the way some people are treating this. I, like Rob, would not have ruled the combo to work in the first place. However, unless you have seen or ruled about this combo, there was never a reason to even consider it prior to now.
The point that the good Professor is trying to make is that this decision is about ruling "instead" from now on, not really about ruling the combo (or any other hidden combo). The decision about how to rule "instead" abilities is extremely important, and supercedes the peripheral effects on previously used combos.
-
i find that funny, especially considering all the 'this is the way we've always played it before, so this is the way it is' threads.
-
I think this ruling makes sense, if you want to use an example using money
I have to pay $5 to get in a tournament, if I instead spend it on some snacks I don't get to go to the tournament (unless I pay another $5)
Otherwise it makes sense that things getting insteaded away shouldn't work because it never really happened, I didn't actually discard a good card for I am Holy, or I didn't remove a demon from the game for Suicidal Swine Stamped so why should I get the benifit?
I also understand the other side saying that the instead comes after the trigger is met, but this is really a timing thing, if instead happens before triggers are checked for (like how Seven Sons of Sceva doesn't trigger angel's sword if you switch for a demon) then they shouldn't happen, if instead happens after triggers are checked then it should work, but I think it makes sense to happen before triggers check.