Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Coat of Many Colors: "Selected Hero may use enhancement cards from any good brigade until end of current battle."

Subject (target): Hero
Verb (ability): use
Direct Object: enhancement cards from any good brigade

Arrogance: "Holder may play as many evil enhancements as desired."

Subject (the player): holder
Verb (ability): play
Direct Object (target): enhancement

Why is the Subject the target of one, but the Direct Object is the target of the other?

Aside from that, the only main difference I see in your two examples is "Hero" vs "Holder"

Both "target" enhancements. Why do you treat them differently?

Hey,

Why is the Subject the target of one, but the Direct Object is the target of the other?

Aside from that, the only main difference I see in your two examples is "Hero" vs "Holder"

Both "target" enhancements. Why do you treat them differently?

See my third post on page six of this thread.  Note in particular the bold sentences.

I posted the same argument and have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

You have gotten two answers from two reliable sources, if those don't satisfy you I don't know what will.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Somehow I think we are going in circles. Is Mike's (or Tim's) ruling official?  If so, then a REG "Play As" may be necessary.

If we are still debating in preparation for a ruling, then I agree with the dissenters. The idea of spreading out the enhancements before activating them is not a clear interpretation.

I also agree that the "draw and play next" cards would be an issue with the current ruling. The word "and" makes it a problem since that could be interpreted as a "simultaneous" action, rather than progressive (i.e. "draw then play").

Hey,

Could you explain where these two quotes came from? Like from the REG... or somewhere else?

They are quotes from earlier in this thread.  The idea of using sentence structure to identify targets is not an official idea (but I believe it is accurate in almost all cases thus making it useful despite not being official).  After taking a programing languages course in college I played around with defining a redemption "language" and this idea is something that grew out of that.  The official way of identifying what is targeted by an ability is looking it up in the REG (although much of the current REG content predates the arrival of the concept of targets in redemption theory so it might be hard to find mention of what some abilities target).  

Are you basicly saying that a player cannot be a target? If so, what is the target of False Dreams?

In the current redemption theory players cannot be targeted.  So I guess that means False Dreams doesn't have a target.  But I wouldn't be surprised if that gets changed in the near future

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

They are quotes from earlier in this thread.

Thats not what I meant... lol.

The idea of using sentence structure to identify targets is not an official idea (but I believe it is accurate in almost all cases thus making it useful despite not being official).  After taking a programing languages course in college I played around with defining a redemption "language" and this idea is something that grew out of that.  The official way of identifying what is targeted by an ability is looking it up in the REG (although much of the current REG content predates the arrival of the concept of targets in redemption theory so it might be hard to find mention of what some abilities target).

So is there any official backing in the REG or somewhere else to verify your english lessons, or are those just how you view it?

In the current redemption theory players cannot be targeted.  So I guess that means False Dreams doesn't have a target.  But I wouldn't be surprised if that gets changed in the near future

Current Redemption Theory? Is this different from the REG?

Quote from: SirNobody on February 21, 2009, 05:34:27 PM

In the current redemption theory players cannot be targeted.  So I guess that means False Dreams doesn't have a target.  But I wouldn't be surprised if that gets changed in the near future

This is not correct and it has not been correct for some time.  There are cards that target players rather than cards.

All cards that say "shuffle" would have to target the player.

Hey,

There are cards that target players rather than cards.

Cool.  I didn't realize that.  I just know that the current REG says, "In Redemption®, special abilities always target cards."  And I know that the next REG will have cards that target players.

Shuffle would target the card or deck that is being shuffled. The player just has to carry out the actions.

Exactly Right.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Somehow I think we are going in circles. Is Mike's (or Tim's) ruling official?  If so, then a REG "Play As" may be necessary.

Mike, Bryon, and I discussed the issue and Mike's post was the result of that discussion.  An REG "Play As" for Arrogance is definitely on the list of things to do.

I also agree that the "draw and play next" cards would be an issue with the current ruling. The word "and" makes it a problem since that could be interpreted as a "simultaneous" action, rather than progressive (i.e. "draw then play").

The REG says (in the glossary under Special Abilities):

"When a single card has more than one special ability (including gained abilities), and an order is not specified, perform the abilities in this order: • First, complete all special abilities in the order written on the card except those that add a character to the battle (banding abilities)."

A draw and play next card (we'll use Book of Hazzai as an example) has two abilities: draw three cards, and play the next enhancement.  The two abilities are performed in the order they appear on the card.  So the draw ability happens first and the play ability happens second.  Declaring targets is the first part of "the ability happens."  So the target for the play ability doesn't have to be declared until after the draw ability completes.

The difference between a draw and play ability and Arrogance is that Arrogance only has one ability "play x enhancements."  So with Arrogance the targets for the play ability are declared as the first part of making the ability on Arrogance happen, which in the case of Arrogance because it only has one ability is also the first part of carrying out the effect of the entire card Arrogance.

Does that help clarify things at all?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

All cards that say "shuffle" would have to target the player.

As far as I know all shuffles either target something to shuffle INTO the draw pile (which would make that card(s) the target) or is something that happens automatically as part of a search.  "Shuffle" is not an ability that needs to target a player.

"Player may not draw cards" targets the player.  So does "Player may not start a battle".  I think there are one or two others that escape me.

The reference in the REG is geared toward Dove-type rulings that suggest you can target a player to make him discard from hand, which is not the case; the card is the target, the player is simply the person who gets to choose.  This is another ruling that I know is right because I was corrected on it.  The problem is, it dates back to a time on the EZBoard that I don't think is even archived on there any longer.  But Rob stepped in and made it clear that was meant to be a default rule and not an inviolable universal rule.

The difference between a draw and play ability and Arrogance is that Arrogance only has one ability "play x enhancements."  So with Arrogance the targets for the play ability are declared as the first part of making the ability on Arrogance happen, which in the case of Arrogance because it only has one ability is also the first part of carrying out the effect of the entire card Arrogance.

Does that help clarify things at all?

No, that does not clarify things because that does not change the nature of the card.  Instantaneous cards happen... instantaneously.  ALL of a Hero's abilities activate when he enters battle, they are RESOLVED in a certain order.  Battle Resolution happens all in a single moment, and not in a time gap where other things can occur, it just RESOLVES in a certain order.  That leaves only these possibilites for draw/play:

a). Draw/Play violates the rules applied to other cards by not activating all at once and resolving in order
b). Arrogance violates the rule that Enhancements are played one at a time and resolve one at a time.
c). there is a fault in the logic that says all targets must be declared at the moment the card is played

What card is targeted by ANB's beginning a new turn?

Hey,

Instantaneous cards happen... instantaneously.

Actually I think, "Instant abilities complete before another ability can be inserted, including dominants" [REG Glossary of Terms under Instant Abilities].

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Are we ever going to get an official ruling on arrogance? I am going to have to agree with Schaef on this debate. Arrogance is a unique card that should allow you to play cards that are drawn during the same turn and not only exclusively target the cards currently in your hand at the time you play arrogance. However, there are others that feel it should be able to ONLY target cards in hand at the time arrogance is played. So can we get an official ruling from someone or is it going to be played by house rules for the time being?

Hey,

Are we ever going to get an official ruling on arrogance?

Mike's post on page 7 of this thread should be considered official.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly