Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Red Warrior on October 01, 2014, 12:47:03 PM
-
Apprehended (TEC)
Capture a human Hero and place an Evil Character from hand face down on it. During a rescue attempt of that Hero, you may add the Evil Character to battle.
I Am Holy
Upon activation, holder may discard a good card from hand to make an opponent discard an evil card from hand. If opponent has no evil cards in hand, opponent must reveal hand.
I Am Holy has a commonsense second ability that keeps the opponent accountable: if he has an evil card he must discard it, if he claims to have none he reveals his hand to show it.
Do all mandatory abilities that target hand require a player to reveal their hand if they claim to not have the targeted cards? I feel like that would be fair to both players in any situation.
-
Strictly speaking, yes, I am sure. Then, you can't be cheating, and you don't have to get anyone else to verify it.
-
I have advocated this rule for a long time, but the current rule is that you DO NOT have to reveal if you cannot perform a mandatory task. The only reason you do with IaH is because it says you do.
Sorry. I'd like it changed too ;)
-
I have advocated this rule for a long time, but the current rule is that you DO NOT have to reveal if you cannot perform a mandatory task. The only reason you do with IaH is because it says you do.
Sorry. I'd like it changed too ;)
Actually do you even have to reveal with IaH? When I brought up the ruling question on whether the second part of the ability (reveal hand if there are no evil cards) it was ruled that that was just clarifying text (a ruling I still disagree with, but I digress). If it is indeed clarifying text, shouldn't it have no effect on the actual ability of the card, and thus have IaH ruled in accordance with how the rules currently work on its type of card?
-
I have advocated this rule for a long time, but the current rule is that you DO NOT have to reveal if you cannot perform a mandatory task. The only reason you do with IaH is because it says you do.
Sorry. I'd like it changed too ;)
Actually do you even have to reveal with IaH? When I brought up the ruling question on whether the second part of the ability (reveal hand if there are no evil cards) it was ruled that that was just clarifying text (a ruling I still disagree with, but I digress). If it is indeed clarifying text, shouldn't it have no effect on the actual ability of the card, and thus have IaH ruled in accordance with how the rules currently work on its type of card?
That thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/i-am-holy-33557/msg517147/#msg517147) established that it is clarifying and therefore happens at the same time, such that you would not have to reveal AFTER discarding the evil card if no others remain.
You still have to reveal if you have no evil when it activates.
However, I still want to know how that could be clarifying text when that isn't the default rule state...
-
I have advocated this rule for a long time, but the current rule is that you DO NOT have to reveal if you cannot perform a mandatory task. The only reason you do with IaH is because it says you do.
Sorry. I'd like it changed too ;)
Actually do you even have to reveal with IaH? When I brought up the ruling question on whether the second part of the ability (reveal hand if there are no evil cards) it was ruled that that was just clarifying text (a ruling I still disagree with, but I digress). If it is indeed clarifying text, shouldn't it have no effect on the actual ability of the card, and thus have IaH ruled in accordance with how the rules currently work on its type of card?
That thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/i-am-holy-33557/msg517147/#msg517147) established that it is clarifying and therefore happens at the same time, such that you would not have to reveal AFTER discarding the evil card if no others remain.
You still have to reveal if you have no evil when it activates.
However, I still want to know how that could be clarifying text when that isn't the default rule state...
That's exactly my point. If it is clarify text, you should never have to reveal because that's not the rule. If its not clarify text, you should have to reveal if you have no evil cards after the discard. What we have now is a weird hybrid that is consistent with neither way of ruling it.
-
If it is "clarifying text", that means it is the rule. The whole point was to remove clarifying text on future cards to save space and extra words. The rule had always been that you must reveal your hand if you do not have what the SA targets. Likewise, if you search for a specific type of card, you must reveal it to prove that was the card you actually took out of your deck.
As I have mentioned before, the teacher in me will not allow for cheating to be made easy. The reveal is a quick and easy verification tool and accountability tactic. If you come to my tournaments, you must reveal or you will be disqualified. That was always the rule before and I see no reason to change it now.
-
The rule had always been that you must reveal your hand if you do not have what the SA targets.
Actually I don't think this is the rule in a general case, though it definitely should be (and its kinda really silly that its not).
-
If you come to my tournaments, you must reveal or you will be disqualified. That was always the rule before and I see no reason to change it now.
I agree with you. However, whenever I discuss this with Elders, I am informed that this is not the rule, and never has been.
I think it should definitely be changed, and bring that up each time this thread appears.
-
A player does not have to reveal with a card like Apprehended. However, an opponent may most certainly ask a judge to verify that the player does not have an EC in hand. If the judge discovers that the player is cheating, they could then disqualify that player.
-
A player does not have to reveal with a card like Apprehended. However, an opponent may most certainly ask a judge to verify that the player does not have an EC in hand. If the judge discovers that the player is cheating, they could then disqualify that player.
Which brings me back to the question of why I am Holy would be ruled inconsistently with both the rulings that it could have.
-
A player does not have to reveal with a card like Apprehended. However, an opponent may most certainly ask a judge to verify that the player does not have an EC in hand. If the judge discovers that the player is cheating, they could then disqualify that player.
So if I am judging a tournament with 30 players under the age of 18, I need to check this for every game at every instance? Surely you jest.
Why exactly are you so resistant to this proposal, Justin? Do people in Minnesota really never cheat, or are you content to just let them ("turn the other cheek" style)?
I have had people cheat at my tournaments on more than one occasion. The playgroup I am currently grooming for future tournaments include students that cheated on my Bible Quiz. They will indeed reveal their hand to their opponent, with or without a judge.
-
I do agree with YMT, I really don't see the purpose of not having this rule that is in place in just about any game that isn't explicitly about bluffing (lying about what you have). It makes perfect sense to have and doesn't change the game beyond making it cleaner and easier to judge properly.
Implementing this and allowing for failed searches are overdue to me, but I've been saying those for awhile ;)
-
So if I block with Herod the Great but don't have Herod's Temple in my deck should I have to reveal my entire deck to my opponent since Herod's search isn't optional? I would certainly hope not, and I'm not sure how that would be much different than a card from hand. I've never seen anyone in our MN playgroup cheat so I can't completely understand exactly what you've experienced as a host YMT, but I do think that the best solution is to have a judge come over to verify if you want to be sure. There really aren't a whole lot of cards that require a target from a place unknown to your opponent so checking if someone wants shouldn't be all that common and therefore not very tasking.
Obviously if you were to implement such a rule you'd have to make sure players wouldn't take offense if someone wants to have a judge check their hand or deck. And also, if you let people know that their opponent has the option to have the judge check it would likely keep them more accountable.
In conclusion, clearly people need to start utilizing Urim and Thummim more often.
-
So if I block with Herod the Great but don't have Herod's Temple in my deck should I have to reveal my entire deck to my opponent since Herod's search isn't optional?
I also said we need to make searches optional as part of that, and have said they both need to be implemented at the same time. So that isn't applicable to that proposal.
On that vein, I'm still not sure why searches can't be failed...
There really aren't a whole lot of cards that require a target from a place unknown to your opponent so checking if someone wants shouldn't be all that common and therefore not very tasking.
I Am Holy, Persistent Pestering, and other such cards are used, with IaH being a very common card nowadays. I'm not sure how this won't happen, since it does happen frequently.
Obviously if you were to implement such a rule you'd have to make sure players wouldn't take offense if someone wants to have a judge check their hand or deck. And also, if you let people know that their opponent has the option to have the judge check it would likely keep them more accountable.
Or there is no offense if you have the rule that they must reveal if they cannot complete the ability in question. You also don't have to worry about having judges available to check every instance, or people not wanting to check at the risk of offending. It is just a part of the game then.
In conclusion, clearly people need to start utilizing Urim and Thummim more often.
I don't think anyone can argue that point...
-
So if I block with Herod the Great but don't have Herod's Temple in my deck should I have to reveal my entire deck to my opponent since Herod's search isn't optional?
Failed searches have never fallen under the reveal umbrella.
In conclusion, clearly people need to start utilizing Urim and Thummim more often.
That would also require adding a High Priest and a way to get that priest out of your deck before Urim & Thummim.
-
I understand the points about Herod the Great because they was a bit of a stretch but searches that aren't optional would still allow cheaters to say they don't have something in their deck when they really do, they just don't want to have it at the time. So I guess I might agree with a ruling that made all searches optional regardless of a "may" being there.
However, I still don't like that my opponent gets to see my whole hand if I don't have two good cards in my hand for Persistent Pestering. Seeing your opponent's hand is always a significant advantage in my opinion.
In conclusion, clearly people need to start utilizing Urim and Thummim more often.
That would also require adding a High Priest and a way to get that priest out of your deck before Urim & Thummim.
Well, with Sadducees getting a boost perhaps that'll be easier now. :P
-
So if I am judging a tournament with 30 players under the age of 18, I need to check this for every game at every instance? Surely you jest.
No, only when a player requests it.
Why exactly are you so resistant to this proposal, Justin? Do people in Minnesota really never cheat, or are you content to just let them ("turn the other cheek" style)?
I'm opposed to giving cards implied abilities that they do not have. "Look at opponent's hand" is an ability that certain cards have. Cards that do not have that ability should not allow that to happen.
I have had people cheat at my tournaments on more than one occasion. The playgroup I am currently grooming for future tournaments include students that cheated on my Bible Quiz. They will indeed reveal their hand to their opponent, with or without a judge.
That's unfortunate, but why should honest players be punished because dishonest players are trying to gain an unfair advantage? I mean no disrespect, but if I were a player in your tournament, I would only reveal my hand to you (presumably the judge) and not my opponent. I would even reveal it to another player in the game next to mine (or a random person picked by my opponent) before revealing it to my opponent.
-
This rule adds to the credibility of competitive Redemption. What's not to love? Anything that reduces cheating should be added.
-
That's unfortunate, but why should honest players be punished because dishonest players are trying to gain an unfair advantage?
The chances of you having to reveal are miniscule compared to how frequently cheaters could cheat. From my tournament experience, a cheater could bring Ethiopian Treasurer out over and over again to search for SoG, NJ, AoTL, CM and whatever else they needed because there is no rule in place to verify that they actually searched for a non-SA enhancement. Whereas, your opponent would have to play a card that targets a specific card in your hand, and you would have to not have it. Based on pure probability, the cheaters have a decided advantage.
Ultimately then, your main concern is that you don't want to lose because your opponent saw your hand at one instance in the game (maybe). I, on the other hand, do not want my 12-year-old players to lose because their 20-year-old opponent is using ET to get dominants.
-
YMT, it is at least a rule that you must reveal a card searched for if the ability gives any specifics beyond just "a card" so that shouldn't be a problem.
However,
This rule adds to the credibility of competitive Redemption. What's not to love? Anything that reduces cheating should be added.
This. A lot of this. Like I said, the only games where you do not have to reveal that you are lying are those where lying ('bluffing') is part of the game. Why are we resistant to add that bit to Redemption?
-
YMT, it is at least a rule that you must reveal a card searched for if the ability gives any specifics beyond just "a card" so that shouldn't be a problem.
Justin just said that he was "opposed to giving cards implied abilities that they do not have." Search abilities do not have a reveal default listed on the card.
-
I actually agree that cards shouldn't have implied abilities. Of course I'm not saying what this rule should be, but rather that the cards that have or possibly should have implied abilities should actually have them explicitly. Cards should say, for example: "Search your deck for a good enhancement and reveal it." or "Opponent discards a good card from hand. If he or she has none they must reveal their hand."
Obviously we can't change cards that have already been printed, but it would be a good idea to continue forward with explicit text on cards, especially now that we are less strained for space. I am very much in favor of explicit abilities as opposed to ones that are implied from game rules if at all possible.
-
Cards should say, for example: "Search your deck for a good enhancement and reveal it." or "Opponent discards a good card from hand. If he or she has none they must reveal their hand."
We define plenty of abilities through the ability instead of the card. We absolutely should not spell everything out, that is too long and cumbersome. Exchange has an inherent search in it, and it is defined as such.
Using key terms is something that is beneficial to the game, and is standard practice for CCGs for good reason. Explicit text is too long, too clunky to write, and too hard to change after the fact.
-
Again, I'm going with YMT on this one. If you search for a silver card than you have to show the card you pull out. Why, the card doesn't say to do this? The rules say so. Why was the rule made? To prevent cheating. So why are we opposed to putting in a rule that follows in this very vein and is being lobbied for implementation for the very same reason the first rule was made. The first one is okay but the second is not...
-
There's a difference between showing one card that your opponent has at least some idea that you have - And revealing your entire hand.
There's a reason that cards like Vain Philosophy, Sorrow of Mary, Emperor Tiberius, Urim&Thummin, Angelic Guidance, etc are so powerful. The knowledge of exactly what your opponent can and cannot do is super important because of the way our game operates. This proposal is unlikely to find much, if any traction with the vast majority of my fellow elders and I.
-
Again, this is something that is in place in every game that doesn't involve lying, and I honestly don't get the hard-and-fast position here. "You have to X." "Oh I can't." Do I call the 'bluff' and call a judge over? That's not how this should work, you shouldn't be able to lie through that and just hope you draw before they see your hand again (which is generally going to happen) if you want to cheat, and I shouldn't have to seem like I am calling a babysitter-judge over to make sure things are on the up-and-up.
And as much as we all agree that the vast majority of players are going to play this right, cheating happens. If you don't know 'that player' in your extended tournament group or at larger tournaments who might 'fudge the truth' a bit, that doesn't mean they aren't there (I know of some).
Beyond that, it's just a common-sense rule that is very logical to implement. The cases where this matters and the hand is revealed are few, but the possible effect of 'misplaying' in those cases is greater. I would go with the logical rule that also resolves a potentially larger problem (and removes the temptation).
-
Again, this is something that is in place in every game that doesn't involve lying, and I honestly don't get the hard-and-fast position here. "You have to X." "Oh I can't." Do I call the 'bluff' and call a judge over? That's not how this should work, you shouldn't be able to lie through that and just hope you draw before they see your hand again (which is generally going to happen) if you want to cheat, and I shouldn't have to seem like I am calling a babysitter-judge over to make sure things are on the up-and-up.
And as much as we all agree that the vast majority of players are going to play this right, cheating happens. If you don't know 'that player' in your extended tournament group or at larger tournaments who might 'fudge the truth' a bit, that doesn't mean they aren't there (I know of some).
Beyond that, it's just a common-sense rule that is very logical to implement. The cases where this matters and the hand is revealed are few, but the possible effect of 'misplaying' in those cases is greater. I would go with the logical rule that also resolves a potentially larger problem (and removes the temptation).
Also, let's say I call your "bluff" and you did have X in your hand, do you get disqualified for this? I mean do we even have a rule for this situation?
-
This proposal is unlikely to find much, if any traction with the vast majority of my fellow elders and I.
It is the reason that this proposal will not find any traction that I find most disturbing. At its root, it is simply selfishness. I realize that this seems harsh and I will get my fair share of -1's (as I already have so far in this thread), but let me clarify.
The concern is about a "competitive edge" that may be gained. Normally when this is the case, the elders create counters (i.e. to weaken pre-block ignore). Yet, in spite of the success of hand-control decks at the highest levels, we still do not have very many counters that protect the hand (which would make this thread moot). This proposal instead is simply met with very strong resistance, even though there is no technical basis for it. I have already illustrated that we currently use "unwritten" defaults to prevent cheating. As stated by others, I am not the only one that sees that cheating is a problem even in Redemption, yet that is not a "competitive edge" the elders want to counter.
I also have already stated that the mathematical probability of the supposed "competitive edge" this proposal would bring is very low, since there are too many dependent variables:
1.) Your opponent would have to have a card that targets a specific card(s) in your hand.
2.) Your opponent would have to get that card out of their deck before the game was over.
3.) Your opponent would have to have the opportunity to play that card.
4.) You would have to not have the targeted card(s) in your hand at that moment.
5.) The reveal would have to change the outcome of that battle.
6.) You would have to ultimately lose the game because of that outcome.
Now, I have never actually played any of the Alstads, but I am fairly certain that any one of them could play an entire game with their hand face up on the table, and they would still win 9 out of 10 games they play. So, ultimately, we are only talking about that one game where this may make a difference.
There is a bigger picture here (cheating) that this proposal is trying to address. But the resistance is based off the low probability that certain individuals may lose that one game. To me that is selfish, but we do what we have to do.
Interestingly, ...
I mean no disrespect, but if I were a player in your tournament, I would only reveal my hand to you (presumably the judge) and not my opponent.
... I personally would allow this in lieu of the proposed rule during a tournament, if a player requested it. I actually have no problem with letting the competitive players make these types of requests, and making exceptions for them. But, as a general rule, I think we need to look at the bigger picture, and do what is best for the game, not for individuals.
-
The rule that a card must be shown after a specific search (i.e. Ethiopian Treasurer searching for a no-SA good enhancement) has long been in place and I am in no way saying it should be changed or is a bad rule.
KoalaKing brought up a good point with the deck searching example. If I use a mandatory search ability such as Herod the Great but don't have Herod's Temple in my deck, should I be required to show my opponent my entire deck? That is the logical extension of the proposal dealing with the hand.
-
The rule that a card must be shown after a specific search (i.e. Ethiopian Treasurer searching for a no-SA good enhancement) has long been in place and I am in no way saying it should be changed or is a bad rule.
I am Holy's ability has been ruled as "clarifying text." That would mean that the reveal is the default and no longer needs to be printed on the card. Perhaps it is regional, but I have always known the reveal of hand to be the existing rule.
KoalaKing brought up a good point with the deck searching example. If I use a mandatory search ability such as Herod the Great but don't have Herod's Temple in my deck, should I be required to show my opponent my entire deck? That is the logical extension of the proposal dealing with the hand.
Redoubter already stated that a "failed search" option would simultaneously be implemented, in that all searches will inherently be optional.
-
Cards should say, for example: "Search your deck for a good enhancement and reveal it." or "Opponent discards a good card from hand. If he or she has none they must reveal their hand."
We define plenty of abilities through the ability instead of the card. We absolutely should not spell everything out, that is too long and cumbersome. Exchange has an inherent search in it, and it is defined as such.
Using key terms is something that is beneficial to the game, and is standard practice for CCGs for good reason. Explicit text is too long, too clunky to write, and too hard to change after the fact.
I know all about keywords, and I'm not saying we shouldn't use them, what I'm saying that even MTG which takes significant advantage of Keywords, but still every ability that searches a deck for a specific card says "reveal it" explicitly. I'm not saying that I would complain if (and in the case of searches that) they are defined, but I do prefer things to be explicit if possible. It doesn't take long to say "reveal it" on a search card or "if you cannot, reveal your hand" but maybe I'm just dreaming.
-
but still every ability that searches a deck for a specific card says "reveal it" explicitly.
What? That's not true at all. Here's Herod the Great for example
Search deck for Herod’s Temple. Return all but one Hero in battle to territory. Prevent good banding abilities. Cannot be prevented by a Hero.
there's no reveal it in there.
-
but still every ability that searches a deck for a specific card says "reveal it" explicitly.
What? That's not true at all.
Before the part you quoted he said "in MTG." ;)
It doesn't take long to say "reveal it" on a search card or "if you cannot, reveal your hand" but maybe I'm just dreaming.
I understand and agree with you, CS. However, I think they are trying to conserve space so that SAs can include more and more with each new set. I have seen cards be more versatile, having several different abilities, so that they can be used in several different scenarios. I like the idea overall, but I certainly do not disagree that it would be nice for every card to include any unwritten defaults. In fact, it would be dreamy. ;D
What we really need is for all defaults to be included in the rules/REG. The REG was streamlined and relegated more to an expanded rulebook. It used to be very detailed and included specific scenarios of possible misunderstandings. Without that ultimate source, I fear that we are back to regions making different rulings on situations like the one we are currently debating. I want to see a "change" here, but that is the way I have always played it in the past anyway. Justin does not want a change, but that is the way he has always played it. We created an impasse that actually happened a long time ago. I am just hopeful it is not too late to reconsider. :D
-
To be honest, I thought that revealing your hand if you have the target card was a rule too before reading this thread, however, now that I know it's not, I don't think it needs to be changed that way. The way I see it, here are the benefits of each side so far:
Having to Reveal (HtR)
-Prevents cheating
Not Having to Reveal (NHtR)
-Keeps your hand unknown from your opponent
-Prevents cheating
I say that the NHtR side prevents cheating because if a player wants to he can call over a judge, or, as Justin said, ask the guy next to him, to confirm. Now, if I was one to cheat then I wouldn't either way (if my opponent got to see or my neighbors got to see) so I believe that the NHtR side is better as a whole because it would prevent cheating (possibly with a little more work on the judge's end) and it would give competitive players, such as myself, the edge they want.
Now, I have never actually played any of the Alstads, but I am fairly certain that any one of them could play an entire game with their hand face up on the table, and they would still win 9 out of 10 games they play. So, ultimately, we are only talking about that one game where this may make a difference.
Yeah, but you're leaving out the common instances where we play each other. ;)
-
I say that the NHtR side prevents cheating because if a player wants to he can call over a judge, or, as Justin said, ask the guy next to him, to confirm.
I disagree that this evens out the prospect of cheating. Most young players would not question an older player out of respect. Even older new players are not likely to question a seasoned veteran.
Besides, I was raised that good workers do not make more work for other workers. Your position makes more work for the judges, when it could more easily be managed between opponents, without third party intervention. Judges have more to take care of then just this particular situation, especially when the judge is also the host. I still have to be concerned with time keeping, score keeping, and lunch break. This is in addition to all the other ruling questions I have to answer throughout each round, which are quite frequent because I have so many young players.
So the actual tally looks more like this:
Having to Reveal (HtR)
-Prevents cheating
Not Having to Reveal (NHtR)
-Makes more work for other people
-I can win more
-
This is not exactly related to the topic of revealing your hand, but I would like to add my observations about the topic of cheating. I have only attended two local events and both times as a guest (non-player). In each of these events while I casually observing I witnessed two minor instances of a player cheating.
The Bible teaches that in cases of discipline or dispute among fellow believers when confronting the person another witness is recommended (Matthew 18:16). Therefore, using a judge or neighbor would be appropriate.
-
The Bible teaches that in cases of discipline or dispute among fellow believers when confronting the person another witness is recommended (Matthew 18:16). Therefore, using a judge or neighbor would be appropriate.
That would be true after the cheating has occurred. We are talking about a proposal that would prevent the cheating in the first place. That way when the temptation occurs, God has provided a way out (I Corinthians 10:13). ;D
-
Before the part you quoted he said "in MTG." ;)
I have zero idea how my brain skipped over that part of the sentence.+