Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: STAMP on February 21, 2010, 02:41:02 PM
-
Balance
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver/Red • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: If two or more Heroes are in battle and if there are more evil cards in play than good cards, discard evil cards from play until the number of evil cards equals the number of good cards. • Identifiers: NT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Galatians 6:2
I searched the Rulings Section and could only find one instance of a Balance ruling that impacts my questions.
1) Is targeting simultaneous for the SA on Balance?
2) If simultaneous, can protection protect against an evil card being targeted when Balance is played?
3) If evil cards can be protected from targeting from Balance, what happens when I target Kingdoms of this World that contains three evil characters? Does game rule apply and the 3 EC are discarded? If discarded, do they count when doing the Balance "math" even though they weren't originally targeted?
4) What if you are unable to target enough evil cards to equal the number of good cards?
5) Finally, based on the wording (the use of "until"), does Balance simultaneously target and discard evil cards that are not protected, then checks again, and re-targets?
-
When balance is played and all the conditions are met, the first thing you do is totall up the # of Good vs. Evil Cards to determine the Number of evil cards that are to be discarded
1. Yes..after you total them up, then you target them but based on the word "until", I would guess that you target them one at a time so, depending upon the order you target them protection can change.
2. Yes, but this protection can change depending on the order you choose to target the evil cards since protection is dynamic nvm...im an idiot
3. Game rule applies and EC's follow KotW. I would say yes they count since they are evil cards, but you could probably get away with it if KOTW was the last card you d/ced since they would be "collateral damage" with the last card d/ced.
4. I dont see how this is possible since most fortresses are not protected from d/c and when y ou d/c them you can then target lots of other things.
5. see #1
-
1) Is targeting simultaneous for the SA on Balance?
Yes.
2) If simultaneous, can protection protect against an evil card being targeted when Balance is played?
This question is oddly worded.... can you rephrase?
3) If evil cards can be protected from targeting from Balance, what happens when I target Kingdoms of this World that contains three evil characters? Does game rule apply and the 3 EC are discarded? If discarded, do they count when doing the Balance "math" even though they weren't originally targeted?
I would say hitting a KotW counts as a single discard, as balance itself did not target the three ECs inside it for discard. Thus, they would become "collateral damage" as said.
4) What if you are unable to target enough evil cards to equal the number of good cards?
Do as much as you can? Although, if this was to happen, that would mean you'd have to have discarded all of your OWN evil cards.
5) Finally, based on the wording (the use of "until"), does Balance simultaneously target and discard evil cards that are not protected, then checks again, and re-targets?
Even if it DID do it one by one, discarding a fort does not negate its protection, so the characters would still be safe.
-
4. I dont see how this is possible since most fortresses are not protected from d/c and when y ou d/c them you can then target lots of other things.
Remember all cards (even discarded) are active till the end of the current phase. So just cuz you snipe the protect fort doesn't remove the protection.
Edit: Some complete nub instaposted me. SHEESH what a noob. +1 to him though.
-
So you blow up the fort and it still protects. Hmmmm, interesting!
-
You CM captian of the Host and the battle is still FBTN... this has been a rule for a long time.
Unless negated, the ability on a discarded card continues until the end of the current phase.
-
Good point. I forgot about that. so yeah, balance activates, it targets and then you do as much as you can. If cards are protected from D/c then they are protected ....then you just go to the d/c pile next turn and do it again ;D
-
Your responses are basically what I anticipated. However, it also seems by those responses that we need some official confirmation on two issues:
A) The phrase, "discard evil cards from play until the number of evil cards equals the number of good cards.", as worded does not readily translate to the game rule that you do "up to" something. The wording implies you can't go on until you reach x=y. So if you can't get to x=y, what do you do?
B) When doing the "math", even though an evil card is not targeted does it count towards calculating to check for x=y if it is discarded by a game rule? In other words, if there are y+1 evil cards can I target KotW and also discard the EC inside it, thereby causing the check to be x<y?
-
I think Balance could recieve a play as that reads
If two or more heros are in battle, Discard X evil cards. X = the number of good cards in play subtracted by the number of evil cards in play.
Also, an interesting question I just though up... What happens if I have a Philosphy stashed away in my storehouse? Its both good and evil...
-
I think Balance could recieve a play as that reads
If two or more heros are in battle, Discard X evil cards. X = the number of good cards in play subtracted by the number of evil cards in play.
Also, an interesting question I just though up... What happens if I have a Philosphy stashed away in my storehouse? Its both good and evil...
Sorry, I can't resist asking: and if you have Philosophy in your Storehouse, and it had to be played to get there, shouldn't it be either good or evil, not both? ::)
-
No, because it was playced there. :D
-
Ba-da-ching! :laugh:
(I'll have to tell MJB I can play the straight man, too. ;) )
-
(I'll have to tell MJB I can play the straight man, too. ;) )
Yeah. The only difference is that now someone will post about how STAMP is the awesomest straight man of all time. :P
P.S. If you want to find a quote about how hard it is to be a good straight man, I can give you a couple of Google searches you most definitely do NOT want to use. ;)
-
You CM captian of the Host and the battle is still FBTN... this has been a rule for a long time.
Unless negated, the ability on a discarded card continues until the end of the current phase.
FBTN is an exception so that there is not a loop. If Jacob bands to Captian and I defend with the 12 Fingered Giant. The battle is not FBTN
-
Your responses are basically what I anticipated. However, it also seems by those responses that we need some official confirmation on two issues:
A) The phrase, "discard evil cards from play until the number of evil cards equals the number of good cards.", as worded does not readily translate to the game rule that you do "up to" something. The wording implies you can't go on until you reach x=y. So if you can't get to x=y, what do you do?
B) When doing the "math", even though an evil card is not targeted does it count towards calculating to check for x=y if it is discarded by a game rule? In other words, if there are y+1 evil cards can I target KotW and also discard the EC inside it, thereby causing the check to be x<y?
I'll throw in my two cents here. Regarding (B), protect (things that can't be targeted) does not apply to counting. Protect applies to special abilities. Hence, you have to count all cards, regardless of protection. The restriction is "in play", so don't count cards "out of play" (i.e., draw pile, discard pile, hand, land of bondage, set-aside area).
Regarding (A), you discard until the condition is satisfied or you no longer have any to discard (i.e., some may be protected). You cannot discard more. Your count is by the number hitting the discard pile (the number actually discarded), not cards you directly targeted. For example, in the event cards may be "placed", if you discard the base card, you would discard the placed card with it (by game rule) and count it as two.
Mike
Balance (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/balance.htm)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver/Red • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: If two or more Heroes are in battle and if there are more evil cards in play than good cards, discard evil cards from play until the number of evil cards equals the number of good cards. • Identifiers: NT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Galatians 6:2 • Availability: Angel Wars booster packs (Ultra Rare)
-
I think Balance could recieve a play as that reads
If two or more heros are in battle, Discard X evil cards. X = the number of good cards in play subtracted by the number of evil cards in play.
Also, an interesting question I just though up... What happens if I have a Philosphy stashed away in my storehouse? Its both good and evil...
We consider Philosophy an neutral card in Type 2 deck building, so I would consider Philosophy neutral. The alternative would be both good and evil.
Mike
-
So can I discard KotW as my last evil card which may cause the discarding of extra evil cards thereby leaving less evil cards in play than good cards (an imBalance)?
-
It is my understanding that Philosophy is both a good card and an evil card at face value. It can be targeted for discard by Balance.
But since it is both types at once, it does not affect T2 deck counts in either direction (net change of zero), and it counts as one of each when counting for Balance (again, net change of zero).
-
It is my understanding that Philosophy is both a good card and an evil card at face value. It can be targeted for discard by Balance.
But since it is both types at once, it does not affect T2 deck counts in either direction (net change of zero), and it counts as one of each when counting for Balance (again, net change of zero).
I knew it could be discarded, but would it count as both a good and evil card for the good/evil ratio on Balance?
-
It is my understanding that Philosophy is both a good card and an evil card at face value. It can be targeted for discard by Balance.
But since it is both types at once, it does not affect T2 deck counts in either direction (net change of zero), and it counts as one of each when counting for Balance (again, net change of zero).
I knew it could be discarded, but would it count as both a good and evil card for the good/evil ratio on Balance?
-
Alright, I only asked again because you were talking about T2, so I wasn't sure if you intended for that to answer the second question.
Only question I have left is the one STAMP is asking, about if you can target a full KotW as your last discard, and discard MORE than you were supposed to.
-
I am not a PTB by any definition, but, I would say that targeting a bunch of EC's and Evil Forts, then hitting KoTW to dc 3 extra cards is just good strategy. Balance has been one of my favorite cards since AW was released, I just never seem to get to pull it off (stopped playing red at about the same time).
-
Agreed. Blow up the Fort last and watch the ECs get sucked into the black hole with it.
-
I'm not so sure that would be the proper action. If you CAN discard one in the fortress and avoid going over the prescribed number, I believe you SHOULD. Going over is not your only option and is not allowed by the special ability restriction. If you can find a way to meet the restriction, shouldn't that be the proper action?
Mike
-
I'm not so sure that would be the proper action. If you CAN discard one in the fortress
Well, in this case you can't, since KotW protect the ECs in it. No matter how you slice it, you still might end up with a situation where there are only 3 good cards in play (the two heroes and balance) and 5 evil cards in play (the blocking EC, KotW, and the three EC's therein). Since the only available targets are the EC in battle (as long as he's not immune or something) and KotW, then you could leave at most 2 evil cards in play (if you discard KotW first). Either way, the "balance" will be off, so it seems easier to say that you could "tip the scales" more in your favor if you so choose, by nuking KotW last.
-
Even so I think its good playing, you do balances s.a. to the best you can. If the majority of ecs are protected, then there will still be more evil cards, where as if you snipe KOTW there will be less.
-
I really think there should have been a "regardless" in this SA. :-\
-
either that or rewrite it as I suggested earlier, where you just instantly target X cards, and boom. None of this "discard until..." stuff.
Just count up the good cards, count up the evil cards, subtract the two to find X, and off you go. Thats how I see it being played. Doesn't matter how many go in the discard pile, you just target X.
-
I don't see what is the difference. If there is an EC and a Kingdoms holding three, the total is five. If there are three good cards in play, I can target two. Target the EC, target Kingdoms. Exact same result.
-
Thats how I see it too, but the "until" causes some people to interpret it differently.
-
How? If you select them all together or individually, it's the exact same. All the discards happen together anyway, and you can't do anything else or trigger anything else until Balance is completed, which is until you hit the balance.
So what's the other interpretation?
-
How? If you select them all together or individually, it's the exact same. All the discards happen together anyway, and you can't do anything else or trigger anything else until Balance is completed, which is until you hit the balance.
So what's the other interpretation?
Mike seems to think you're limited by the number of cards that hit the discard pile, rather than how many you simply target.
Regarding (A), you discard until the condition is satisfied or you no longer have any to discard (i.e., some may be protected). You cannot discard more. Your count is by the number hitting the discard pile (the number actually discarded), not cards you directly targeted. For example, in the event cards may be "placed", if you discard the base card, you would discard the placed card with it (by game rule) and count it as two.
I'm not so sure that would be the proper action. If you CAN discard one in the fortress and avoid going over the prescribed number, I believe you SHOULD. Going over is not your only option and is not allowed by the special ability restriction. If you can find a way to meet the restriction, shouldn't that be the proper action?
Mike
-
He is also opining that you can target protected cards, something I don't buy. He is not arguing that "until" means something different, only that a discard that takes you over the limit should not be allowed. That would be the same whether you select your targets all at once or one at a time.
I get what he's saying about if the count was seven to three and I discarded Kingdoms plus its contents, that would bring it down to three. But you have to select from among valid targets, so I don't see any way around allowing the bigger discard.
-
I'm under the impression that its the "until" that helped him form that opinion. Im not speaking for him, but it seems that way.
Still, it wouldn't hurt to give it a play as that says "discard X" would it? Only reason I'm suggesting it is because I know the current SA was confusing to me at one point as well.
-
Using my argument of counting cards being discarded, you would have to stop short of the total prescribed, i.e., number discarded <= number allowed (never >).
It seems to be an interpretation problem. I think Schaef is saying the count is number of evil cards targeted for discard (counting before the discard), and I am saying that it could also be the number of evil cards discarded (after the discard). I think it is valid either way and ambiguous in the card special ability. If so, we simply need to decide which way to go and insert a "play as". Agree?
Mike
-
I agree it needs a play as to avoid this confusion, but I disagree that it should limit the number of discards. :P
-
I'm just not sure you can separate the targeting aspect from the discarding aspect. That's the big problem I see with counting protected cards among the discarded.
-
Well, the card is named, "Balance", and it does state, "...until the number of evil cards equals the number of good cards." I would vote for an errata that includes a "Regardless of protection,...". But that's just me.
-
So, I still don't see why giving it the play as that states the following wouldn't work.
"If two or more Heroes are in battle and if there are more evil cards in play than good cards, discard X evil cards. X = Number of evil cards in play minus the number of good cards in play."
-
Since I am in my "learn more about triggered abilities" phase, can someone tell me whether the "If two or more Heroes are in battle and if there are more evil cards in play than good cards" trigger is evaluated once at the start of the SA or continually as the discarding takes effect. I think it's the latter, but on the other hand once the trigger is tripped wouldn't the then clause have to continue until it's portion of the SA completes?
-
Heres how I see the entire card, done more like TI BASIC program code:
Balance()
If (# of number of heroes)>2 and (# of number of evil cards)>(# of number of good cards) <---- Instant one-time check.
Then
Target (# of evil cards - # of good cards) evil cards for discard. <---- Instant targeting.
EndIf
EndBalance()
BASICly, it says "Ok, are there two heroes in battle? Yep. Are there more evil cards in play than good cards? Yep. Now I target X evil cards to be discarded!"
-
You might like to re-write the card, but using your Basic language, I would say that the special ability should be done the way it is written on the card:
Balance()
If (# of heroes in battle)>2 and (# of evil cards in play)>(#of good cards in play) <---- Instant one-time check.
Then
Do Until ( # of evil cards in play <= # of good cards in play And discardable evil cards in play exist )
Discard( 1 evil card in play that is discardable )
End Do
EndIf
End Balance()
The do until statement needs to be written that way to avoid an infinite loop and avoid discarding evil cards if the # of evil gets less than the number of good due to game rules.
It's certainly not broke. There's no good reason that it should discard cards that are protected from discard. And there's no good reason that cards that were placed on a card that is discarded shouldn't be discarded the way they always are. Because of the "until", I would say that you can keep selecting a card to discard in any order you choose until balance is reached and if a game rule then causes some other cards to be discarded as well, that's just the way Redemption works. Any enhancement in Redemption that discards cards can effectively discard more than it targeted because of game rules that cause others to also be discarded.
Mike
-
See, herein lies the problem.
That is how I tried to play Arrogance. However, it was ruled that arrogance targets all of enhancements you wish to play at one time, rather than being a "continuous" ability. This means that you cant play Dream during arrogance, and THEN play a card you just drew with dream (ignoring the play next on Dream), because that card was not part of the original targeting.
Why is Balance different? How come it gets to use "one at a time" targeting, rather than "all at once" targeting?
Cards that target multiple cards almost always decide ALL of their targets at once.
*EDIT*
I agree with the fact that its not allowed to target protected cards, but it would be allowed to target KotW and bring three EC's along as collateral damage. (I see that as ONE discard for Balance btw)
-
Okay so if the argument is # d/c'd evil cards, vs # targetted, what happens with a loaded dorkness? Two evil cards WILL hit the d/c pile and one of them wasn't included in the check....
-
Why is Balance different? How come it gets to use "one at a time" targeting, rather than "all at once" targeting?
I would suggest that it is because of the word until that implies the test and the discard are done over and over until... If all the cards were targeted at once, there would have been no need for the word until. (By the way, I'm on your side in the Arrogance question. I think the Arrogance sa specifies a number of enhancements you may play not targeting specific enhancements that are in play (the number is any number that you desire, like 100. You are then allowed to do as much as you can -- maybe ony four, but including one that you drew with Dream)).
Okay so if the argument is # d/c'd evil cards, vs # targetted, what happens with a loaded dorkness? Two evil cards WILL hit the d/c pile and one of them wasn't included in the check....
It would be standard Redemption targeting. You would only target The Darkness as one of the cards you are discarding with Balance. The face down evil card goes along for the ride, by game rule, even though it wasn't targeted. Any good player would do that all the time.
Mike
-
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I wanted to take "until" out of the SA... because its a rather vauge term that can easily be interpreted two totally different ways. The idea of an instant ability (discarding) being more of a "continuous" ability does seem to go against the nature of instant abilities.
Also, another fun situation.... what happens if you discard a raiders camp full of heroes? According to how I see this, you'd still discard X, with X being based on the good/evil ratio BEFORE you started to discard.
-
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I wanted to take "until" out of the SA... because its a rather vauge term that can easily be interpreted two totally different ways. The idea of an instant ability (discarding) being more of a "continuous" ability does seem to go against the nature of instant abilities.
Also, another fun situation.... what happens if you discard a raiders camp full of heroes? According to how I see this, you'd still discard X, with X being based on the good/evil ratio BEFORE you started to discard.
Just because the individual discards might be instant abilities doesn't mean the whole sa should be instant to make it easy. It's a very nice dynamic card, let it stay that way.
As for Raider's Camp, again a very smart move would be to discard it last. Discarding the heroes with it by game rule takes you out of balance and let's you discard more evil cards. Nice move. I love stuff like this.
Mike
-
Im not saying it wouldnt be fun as a dynamic card, I just try to make sure stuff is consistant with the other rules. It seems to be sort of an oddball only because it says "until."
I cant think of any other instant abilities with multiple targets that work on a one-by-one basis.
Besides, the card is still a blast to use regardless of which way this ruling goes. :D I even have a combo offense based on it.
-
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I wanted to take "until" out of the SA... because its a rather vauge term that can easily be interpreted two totally different ways.
It could be but you highlighted the exact problem in your response to Mike. Whenever multiple cards are targeted, the effect hits them all at once. Arrogance plays its cards all at once, not one at a time. You choose the order of activating abilities on a group of banded Heroes, but they are all banded in as a group, not one at a time.
The precedent has been set, and IMO it was on abilities that make much better arguments for ungrouped targeting. Also, in the past we have made new rulings and reversed old rulings that have given the priority to consistent play among cards, over parsing abilities to death and trying to keep everything intact. Helmet of Salvation springs to mind, and Split Altar is a very recent example.
"Until" has no special meaning in Redemption, and I hesitate to assign any to it just for the sake of one card. Just my opinion, though.
-
You might like to re-write the card, but using your Basic language, I would say that the special ability should be done the way it is written on the card:
Balance()
If (# of heroes in battle)>2 and (# of evil cards in play)>(#of good cards in play) <---- Instant one-time check.
Then
Do Until ( # of evil cards in play <= # of good cards in play And discardable evil cards in play exist )
Discard( 1 evil card in play that is discardable )
End Do
EndIf
End Balance()
The do until statement needs to be written that way to avoid an infinite loop and avoid discarding evil cards if the # of evil gets less than the number of good due to game rules.
Except (as you note by your avoid condition) that is not what is written on the card. The only part of the SA that prevents discarding evil cards when # evil < # good is the trigger. The card explicitly states that the until should be
Do Until (# of evil cards in play == # of good cards in play)
This comes back to my question about the trigger. If the trigger is only evaluated once, then given the wording on the card (barring an errata) once the number of evil cards is less than the number of good cards, you will keep discarding evil as long as there is an evil card that can be discarded. If, on the other hand, the trigger is continually evaluated, then this issue is moot.
-
If the trigger is only evaluated once, then given the wording on the card (barring an errata) once the number of evil cards is less than the number of good cards, you will keep discarding evil as long as there is an evil card that can be discarded.
Wha?
-
He's suggesting that because the number of cards is never truly equal, you just keep discarding forever.
-
Right.
Let's say you discard KotW or something that makes it so you would end up with 5 evil cards in play and 6 good cards. Balance states "discard evil cards from play until the number of evil cards equals the number of good cards." Is 5 equal to 6? No it is not, so given the SA as written I have to discard an evil card. Now I have 4 evil cards. Rinse and repeat.
If you treat the "until" as dynamic the only way to avoid this problem is to re-evaluate the trigger on each discard. If "until" implies instantaneous targeting, as you suggest, this problem does not arise.
-
Ahh, I see what you mean now. It would basicly skip the point of equality, but not realize it.
Even more reason to just make it completely instant. :D
-
Quote from: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on Today at 02:00:48 AM
Okay so if the argument is # d/c'd evil cards, vs # targetted, what happens with a loaded dorkness? Two evil cards WILL hit the d/c pile and one of them wasn't included in the check....
It would be standard Redemption targeting. You would only target The Darkness as one of the cards you are discarding with Balance. The face down evil card goes along for the ride, by game rule, even though it wasn't targeted. Any good player would do that all the time.
Precisely. If its the # of evil cards d/c'd being counted and they are being counted 1 at a time dorkness would waste 2 evil kills rather than the 1 it should (since the ec was OOP)
-
Even more reason to just make it completely instant. :D
I agree. I would have made that argument initially, if I had trusted my understanding of when/how triggers get evaluated.
-
Considering all of the in-game scenarios mentioned I really think we'll hardly ever see Balance bring balance to the table when it is played. Unfortunate. :-\
-
Also, another fun situation.... what happens if you discard a raiders camp full of heroes? According to how I see this, you'd still discard X, with X being based on the good/evil ratio BEFORE you started to discard.
Do heroes (or EC's) in RC even count for Balance? I thought they were treated as "captured characters" and, like Lost Souls, are neutral. Do they retain their "good" or "evil" status after being captured? If so, I should be able to discard a captured hero from my Raider's Camp when an opponent uses an effect that makes me discard a good card from territory. That doesn't seem right to me, though many current rulings don't :P
-
I Am Redemption: "Return your captured Heroes to your territory. Cannot be negated by an evil card."
Just based on that card, I'd say captured heroes in RC are considered good cards. Also, people in RC/ Demonic Stronghold arent treated like Lost Souls either.
-
I Am Redemption: "Return your captured Heroes to your territory. Cannot be negated by an evil card."
Just based on that card, I'd say captured heroes in RC are considered good cards. Also, people in RC/ Demonic Stronghold arent treated like Lost Souls either.
What about that phrase makes you think they are good? Captured characters in land of bondage are certainly not good, and I am Redemption still targets them. I would assume that captured Heroes and EC's are neutral no matter where they are.
-
Captured cards retain their identifiers, and brigade is an identifier. That means we know what is evil and what is good.
Mike
-
What about that phrase makes you think they are good?
Perhaps the word "heroes?" ;D
Considering all of the in-game scenarios mentioned I really think we'll hardly ever see Balance bring balance to the table when it is played. Unfortunate. :-\
STAMP is correct. ;D
Too bad Redemption is not like Star Wars. Anakin was supposed to bring balance and he did - two Jedi and two Sith.
-
Well, ultimately, what he brought was one Jedi and no Sith.
-
But he balanced the last sith over his head. At that point, Anakin was neutral (or both).
-
Tough to balance someone over one's head with one hand and one mechanical stump.
-
That's why he was the Chosen One.
-
What about that phrase makes you think they are good?
Perhaps the word "heroes?" ;D
Well, a captured hero in my land of bondage is also returned via IaR...but since it is treated as a Lost Soul, I assumed it was neutral. Are we really saying that I could use the discarder lost soul to discard a captured EC and make you discard a good card?
Captured cards retain their identifiers, and brigade is an identifier. That means we know what is evil and what is good.
Mike
Also, I thought this myth was dispelled when someone tried to use Arioch to discard a male, human (both identifiers) from territory that happened to be a captured character to put an LS under deck. If this has changed, then Arioch may have just replaced Nebuchadnezzar as "the best EC in the game".
-
Captured cards retain their identifiers, and brigade is an identifier. That means we know what is evil and what is good.
Mike
Also, I thought this myth was dispelled when someone tried to use Arioch to discard a male, human (both identifiers) from territory that happened to be a captured character to put an LS under deck.
Actually this claim was reinforced when Arioch looked around and was prevented from doing anything at all because the other guy had a captured prophet (an identifier) sitting in his land of bondage.
It's not the identifiers that were the issue in the Arioch case. Bryon made a distinction between targeting a card in the LoB and noticing a card in the LoB, and claimed this was important. (To this day I see nothing but inconsistency in ruling the two differently.) Anywhoo... the ruling most definitely did not deal with identifiers somehow being lost on capture.
-
Actually this claim was reinforced when Arioch looked around and was prevented from doing anything at all because the other guy had a captured prophet (an identifier) sitting in his land of bondage.
It's not the identifiers that were the issue in the Arioch case. Bryon made a distinction between targeting a card in the LoB and noticing a card in the LoB, and claimed this was important. (To this day see nothing but inconsistency in ruling the two differently.) Anywhoo... the ruling most definitely did not deal with identifiers somehow being lost on capture.
Oh. Well that's silly.
-
Well, ultimately, what he brought was one Jedi and no Sith.
More like one wanna be Jedi. You can't force choke a guard and be lightside.
-
read the leagacy of the jedi series there will be alot of dark momets like luke almost killing his nephew.
-
read the leagacy of the jedi series there will be alot of dark momets like luke almost killing his nephew.
Yeah but I'm talking strictly movies.
-
ok. note anakin turned to the dark
-
More like one wanna be Jedi. You can't force choke a guard and be lightside.
Pig-guards don't count.
Besides, how many bug-guards did Anakin carve up in Episode II and was still considered lightside?
And Yoda and Obi-Wan were taking down clone troopers who are "programmed" to follow orders, and whom they were commanding just days before.
Basically, if you're standing in a Jedi's way and you don't have a name in the credits, you're expendable. But choke or lightsaber another Jedi, or Known Bad Guy(tm) and you have the Emperor cackling.
-
This thread recommended for lockage.
-
Instead of lockage, can we get an official statement on if balance targets instantaneously, or if it is continuous?
-
Well, ultimately, what he brought was one Jedi and no Sith.
Actually 2 Jedi...don't forget Leah.
-
Well, ultimately, what he brought was one Jedi and no Sith.
Actually 2 Jedi...don't forget Leah.
Having the force-potential of being a Jedi does not make you a Jedi, just as being a Captured Hero does not make you a hero. ;)
-
Actually 2 Jedi...don't forget Leah.
She never became a Jedi. The Force is strong with her but she never underwent the training.
-
actually, she did eventually become a jedi knight.
-
once again read the miumlm falcon or leacly of the jedi.
-
I was told the EU is not applying to this discussion. Either it is or it is not, but don't get on my case for playing by other people's rules.
-
why does nobody accpt the EU?lucas said it is canon.
-
Because the large majority of it ruined Star Wars and make Twilight look like good literature.
-
how?i read some it's pretty good.
-
The Zahn Trilogy, mostly.
-
There was a movie about that right? Star Wars IX: The Wrath of Zahn, starring Ricardo Montalban.
-
So was the question ever answered? Or am I going to have to use the Force on this one? :D
-
The Zahn Trilogy, mostly.
There was a movie about that right? Star Wars IX: The Wrath of Zahn, starring Ricardo Montalban.
Wasn't Saving Silverman, Daddy Day Care, and Sahara the original Wrath of Zahn?
-
:bump:
Any decision yet on the original issue?
-
It's hasn't been forgotten or overlooked, it simply hasn't been resolved yet. Stay tuned.
Mike
-
Balance
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Silver/Red • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: None • Special Ability: If two or more Heroes are in battle and if there are more evil cards in play than good cards, discard evil cards from play until the number of evil cards equals the number of good cards. • Play As: If two or more Heroes are in battle and if there are more evil cards in play than good cards, discard evil cards from play until the number of evil cards is less than or equal to the number of good cards. • Identifiers: NT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Galatians 6:2 • Availability: Angel Wars booster packs (Ultra Rare)
This "play as" uses language that should be easier to understand and interpret. Remember that you have to count all evil cards that are in play - even if they are placed. You also have to consider or "count" placed cards when you are targeting evil cards for discard. "Discard" is the operative word, so you do so until the condition is met. It may be possible that your last discard may put your count over the limit, and that is now more clearly stated.
Mike
-
Im not sure if that play as answers the main question...
Are the targets of balance decided instantly, or one at a time?
-
Until is used in the context of something that is ongoing. For example, Faith as Children "Your Heroes gain 4/4 until end of turn." If until is used to describe something ongoing, then I think you have to check the balance as you are discarding.
Mike
-
And it still doesn't address when the condition cannot be met, i.e. number of evil cards > good cards.
-
Until is used in the context of something that is ongoing. For example, Faith as Children "Your Heroes gain 4/4 until end of turn." If until is used to describe something ongoing, then I think you have to check the balance as you are discarding.
Thats not ongoing targeting though. Thats an ongoing ability that selects all of its targets instantly.
I still have yet to see a card that has an ongoing TARGET process.
And it still doesn't address when the condition cannot be met, i.e. number of evil cards > good cards.
Based on the play as, and if it was to be continuous...
If Evil > Good, you discard cards.
If Evil = Good, you stop.
If Evil < Good, you stop.
-
So was there ever an answer for dealing with protection?
-
That wouldnt change regardless. Discarding a card without negating it does not cancel the ability until that phase ends.
So, you can snipe a protection fort, but its protection would stop you from killing the evil characters either way.
-
That wouldnt change regardless. Discarding a card without negating it does not cancel the ability until that phase ends.
So, you can snipe a protection fort, but its protection would stop you from killing the evil characters either way.
Right! So the whole issue is that you can't discard protected cards which could make it where you could not get rid of enough evil cards for the card to "quit trying to discard" for lack of better terms.
-
Ahh, I see what you mean now. As said before, I'd assume its a do-as-much-as-possible type of ability. If you legally cannot discard enough evil cards to bring balance, then (A) you played the card at the wrong time, and (B) you'd just discard as much as you can.
-
There is a card in the next set which currently has this as part of its ability:
"Each opponent with fewer than 6 cards in hand may draw until he has 6."
This is the exact same type of ability. There is only one draw ability, and it acts like this:
If you don't have 6, draw 1, check, draw 1, check, draw 1, check, etc. until you have 6.
Balance is the same way: discard 1, check, discard 1, check, discard 1, check, etc. until E cards is < or = G cards.
-
So, would an ability like that constantly trigger Abom, since the drawing is not done all at once?
-
You only draw cards one time, but the mechanism by which you draw them is partitioned. At least, that's how I read it. If not, and the Special Ability he's talking about is on the same character (or at least Brigade) that I put it in...wow. I don't think the PTB would make a card that powerful.
-
Right. It is one draw action. Rather than the usual count, you get a cap.
-
So an ability like that would or would not allow me to use Abom multiple times?
-
Right. It is one draw action. Rather than the usual count, you get a cap.
That's not how you portrayed it, though.
draw 1, check, draw 1, check, draw 1, check, etc. until you have 6.
-
I can see how that would be misunderstood. Let me calrify:
When I use a card that says draw 3, I draw 1, draw 1, draw 1. I pick up three cards individually, replacing lost souls that I draw with yet another draw 1. That does not make it three separate draw abilities or three separate game actions.
It is the same thing here: draw 1, check, draw 1, check, etc.
Just as drawing a replacement for a Lost Soul does not count as a separate draw action, neither does drawing after checking a hand count.
-
Or when I draw three, I could pick up three at the same time. I would not be allowed to do that with the other card.
-
When I use a card that says draw 3, I draw 1, draw 1, draw 1.
I'm not sure anybody else understands abilities to read as "select one target and apply the effect one time, over and over until a certain condition is met". This is the first time I have ever heard that logic used to explain "draw three".
-
I thought all "draw card" abilities were one at a time. You're not supposed to draw three cards all at once, are you? Hypothetically, what if there was a Lost Soul card that started, "If there is no other Lost Soul in play...?" If you drew all three cards first and you had two Lost Soul cards, one of which was this Lost Soul, couldn't you then decide which one to put down first (depending on whether you wanted the trigger to activate)? On the other hand, if cards are drawn one at a time, if the other Lost Soul was drawn first, it would have to be put down first, thus not triggering this one. That's a big difference IMO.
-
Do you also get to discard a group of cards (for example, "all Heroes") one at a time, and by discarding one that might have a protection on it, allow you to target other cards after that in the same group, even though they were previously protected? That also is a big difference.
-
I don't see "draw" and "discard" as having to follow the same rules. If we are seriously going to lump the Draw Phase into the idea of "targetting" cards in my deck then I have nothing more to say that won't sound abusive.
-
I don't see "draw" and "discard" as having to follow the same rules.
This is a ruling on Balance, a card that discards cards from a territory. The other example card was a "draw until" that was used to draw parallels with "discard until".
If you don't see the two abilities as following the same rules, then I am not the one with whom you disagree. Well, it's half and half really, just that your disagreement with which rule is to be applied consistently doesn't lie within my logic.
-
Right now I just want to know if players at my tournament tomorrow are supposed to draw one card at a time or all three at once? With kids, drawing all at once tends to be a problem since they grab too many and then see their next card or two. Drawing one at a time is safer and would alleviate other ruling considerations.
-
Drawing three does not require you to grab a group of three all at once.
Obviously there are still some issues here to resolve about the logistical nature of how many cards are drawn at a time, or how many of anything is done at a time, for the purposes of sorting out these special abilities.
But in terms of the physical act of taking the card from the deck and putting it into hand, I don't see any reason you couldn't tell them to draw in any way you think is best (e.g. one card at a time) without it having any effect on gameplay.
If the rule is draw 1, draw 1, draw 1, they could still take a group of three as long as they put the souls down in the same order they were drawn. And if the rule is draw a group of three, they could still draw one at a time and then put down the souls in any order they want. That is only a semantic discussion. For practical purposes, it can be entirely at your discretion.
-
Regardless of this whole drawing discussion, I still have never seen a card that selects its targets one by one.
If this were possible, I would say we should revisit the arrogance ruling, because there it was said that targets are always decided instantaneously.
-
I play Reach. I draw 3 (one at a time or 3 at once). One is a lost soul. I put it down. I draw another card.
Is the "draw a replacement" a separate draw action, or all the same draw action? It is all the same draw action, even though it had a "put the lost soul in play" in the middle of it.
It is the same with Balance and the 2010 card: It is all one action, even though it has a "check" in the middle of it.
-
How should the hypothetical Lost Soul situation that I presented be resolved then? If I choose to draw all three cards at once, would I get to choose which Lost Soul to put down first? If so, and that would be a different outcome than drawing one at a time, is that just an "Oh well?"
-
Is the "draw a replacement" a separate draw action, or all the same draw action? It is all the same draw action, even though it had a "put the lost soul in play" in the middle of it.
So a game rule and a special ability are the same action to you?
And does this mean that other abilities with multiple targets have these same checks, allowing me to discard previously-protected cards by discarding them in a certain order?
-
Or, can I use arrogance, play Dream, draw three cards, and then use arrogance to play all three of those cards? It was ruled I could not, due to arrogance targeting all the enhancements it would play instantly, rather than continuously.
-
Is the "draw a replacement" a separate draw action, or all the same draw action? It is all the same draw action, even though it had a "put the lost soul in play" in the middle of it.
So a game rule and a special ability are the same action to you?
According to the rule for Abomination of Desolation, yes. Otherwise, A-bom is alot better than I thought. :)
And does this mean that other abilities with multiple targets have these same checks, allowing me to discard previously-protected cards by discarding them in a certain order?
Only if those "other abilities with multiple discards" also say "until somethingorother is true." A "discard until X = Y" effect has multiple checks. A "discard X cards" effect has no checks. That's kinda the point of "until."
-
According to the rule for Abomination of Desolation, yes. Otherwise, A-bom is alot better than I thought.
So why are these treated as the same action here but separate actions everywhere else?
A "discard until X = Y" effect has multiple checks. A "discard X cards" effect has no checks. That's kinda the point of "until."
No, you specifically said that these cards were treated the same. Applying the Lost Soul rule to each individual card drawn means every card draw - even a single - is followed by a check. So you are doing "draw one" action "x" times, with a Lost Soul "check", "until" you have reached a total of three cards drawn. You are "discarding one Hero" "x" times "until" all have been discarded.
By defining "until" and comparing it to cards that draw a set amount, you have turned every card into an "until". You just are picking and choosing which "checks" to use and which ones to ignore, and which ones are part of the same action, and which ones are not.
-
How should the hypothetical Lost Soul situation that I presented be resolved then? If I choose to draw all three cards at once, would I get to choose which Lost Soul to put down first? If so, and that would be a different outcome than drawing one at a time, is that just an "Oh well?"
The outcome should still be the same, right? I always figured players drew cards one at a time, put lost souls down as they drew them, and continued to draw until they had drawn 3. The fact that some players count 3 cards off the top of their deck and then look at them simultaneously seems like it wouldn't matter, since the entire draw action has to be completed before any responses can happen.
The point is, the "check and draw replacement for lost souls" part of a draw action is like the "check for E = G" that happens as a part of Balance, and "check for H = 6" that happens for the top secret 2010 enhancement.
-
The outcome should still be the same, right?...The fact that some players count 3 cards off the top of their deck and then look at them simultaneously seems like it wouldn't matter, since the entire draw action has to be completed before any responses can happen.
No.
Hypothetically, what if there was a Lost Soul card that started, "If there is no other Lost Soul in play...?" If you drew all three cards first and you had two Lost Soul cards, one of which was this Lost Soul, couldn't you then decide which one to put down first (depending on whether you wanted the trigger to activate)? On the other hand, if cards are drawn one at a time, if the other Lost Soul was drawn first, it would have to be put down first, thus not triggering this one. That's a big difference IMO.
-
treated the same
I am sorry for that poor choice of words. I did not mean that they WERE the same, I was trying to point out a similarity. I need to be more careful what I say, so that I don't confuse people (and to avoid getting my words picked apart, apparently).
By defining "until" and comparing it to cards that draw a set amount, you have turned every card into an "until".
It was not a perfect comparison, obviously. I have not turned anything into anything. A better comparison is drawing a replacement card for a lost soul.
-
Sorry to sound like a broken record but this still hasnt been answered...
Arrogance - Holder may play as many evil enhancements as desired. Initiative passes when holder is done playing enhancements.
"When holder is done", doesnt that have a similar connotation as "until"? If the ability was instant, that clause would not be needed.
So again I ask, if Balance can turn an instant ability into a continuously targeting one, why cant arrogance work the same way, and target cards to play as it goes?
I dug up a quote from Maly on the arrogance discussion, key line enlarged by me:
Hey,
You can only play enhancements that are in your hand when you play Arrogance which significantly limits the one sided options, although I expect the concern over one-sided play would keep a card like Arrogance from being printed if it wasn't already printed.
Not if you include cards like Dream (as mentioned earlier) that allow you to draw more cards.
You can only play enhancements that are in your hand when you play Arrogance
Say what?
Abilities with multiple targets declare all targets before the effect is carried out on any of them.
This is why I started out with the Babel analogy in the beginning. I play Babel I choose to band in Rabshakeh with Two Thousand Horses, Red Dragon, Goliath, and Emperor Nero. I bring them into battle and activate their abilities. If I draw an evil character with Two Thousand Horses can I choose to band that character into battle too? No. You're done declaring targets since you started bring in the characters and activating their abilities, you can't add any more targets.
Arrogance is the same way. You choose (target) all of the enhancements you are going to play with the ability and then you put them into play and carry out their abilities. If the first enhancement you play with Arrogance's ability is Dream and you draw Great Image and Set Fire you can't decide to play them with Arrogance's ability too for the same reason you can't band the character in with Babel that you drew with Two Thousand Horses, when you draw the card, you're past the declaring targets part of the ability so it is too late to decide to target that card too. (Albeit Dream itself allows you to play an enhancement so you could play one of the cards you draw with Dream as part of Dream's ability. You can also play your chain of Dreams before you play Arrogance since they give you the "play next" ability.)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Balance has multiple targets, why are they not all targeted instantly before any discards happen?
-
The outcome should still be the same, right?...The fact that some players count 3 cards off the top of their deck and then look at them simultaneously seems like it wouldn't matter, since the entire draw action has to be completed before any responses can happen.
No.
Hypothetically, what if there was a Lost Soul card that started, "If there is no other Lost Soul in play...?" If you drew all three cards first and you had two Lost Soul cards, one of which was this Lost Soul, couldn't you then decide which one to put down first (depending on whether you wanted the trigger to activate)? On the other hand, if cards are drawn one at a time, if the other Lost Soul was drawn first, it would have to be put down first, thus not triggering this one. That's a big difference IMO.
So it doesn't matter, unless we want to argue? I'll pass.
-
Balance has multiple targets, why are they not all targeted instantly before any discards happen?
Because Rob said so. "Until" has checks. End it.
-
Balance has multiple targets, why are they not all targeted instantly before any discards happen?
Because Rob said so. "Until" has checks. End it.
End it? ???
-
Not to sound mean....but quote please? (Just to fully end this argument)
RR's s.a. activate! Comic for everything! Go!
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi22.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb317%2FRedemption_rocks%2FCitationneeded.png&hash=e3d386d66af7b6d014a04091f6abd6671dbba683)
-
If that is what Rob said, then it is indeed time to end this discussion. The answer has been given for rulings on cards that say "until." I trust Bryon, and I am not a trusting person.
-
...(and to avoid getting my words picked apart, apparently).
I am sorry that a questioning of the logic behind this ruling has been reduced to this. It certainly was never my intent. I happen to think my questions are relevant, but apparently you don't agree.
It was not a perfect comparison, obviously. I have not turned anything into anything. A better comparison is drawing a replacement card for a lost soul.
That comparison is exactly what makes a regular draw an "until" draw. You are checking after every single drawn card, whether you are drawing one or six or "until six" or anything.
So it doesn't matter, unless we want to argue? I'll pass.
It doesn't matter, unless having a group of cards that you can play in any order is different from having one card at a time that must be played in the specific order they come up. YMT thinks that is a significant difference. I agree. I am sorry that you do not.
Because Rob said so. "Until" has checks. End it.
But you have also pointed out that non-until cards also have checks. There is still confusion on exactly how this is supposed to work, and whether this works on all abilities, and if not, the reason why so that we can tell the difference. I don't think any of those are throw-away questions.
-
I know you guys are trying to nail some logic down right now, but I just needed to add something. Are these all equal in how they are performed now?
Discard x
Discard up to x
Discard until x
-
I would say yes because of Maly's quote I posted above.
They all have multiple targets, so they should ALL deterimine their targets as soon as the card is played.
-
I know you guys are trying to nail some logic down right now, but I just needed to add something. Are these all equal in how they are performed now?
Discard x
Discard up to x
Discard until x
The only thing I can tell you for certain is that there is one key difference between "up to" and the others, in that you can select any number you choose between 0 and X, whereas the others must be carried out in full.
-
I know you guys are trying to nail some logic down right now, but I just needed to add something. Are these all equal in how they are performed now?
Discard x
Discard up to x
Discard until x
The only thing I can tell you for certain is that there is one key difference between "up to" and the others, in that you can select any number you choose between 0 and X, whereas the others must be carried out in full.
Okay, thought as much. So #1 and #3 have the same caveat: do as many as you can?
-
Unless rob really did say until = checking, in which case you would discard and check until the condition is met... though that totally goes against previous rulings...
-
Balance has multiple targets, why are they not all targeted instantly before any discards happen?
Because Rob said so. "Until" has checks. End it.
End it? ???
I'm sorry, that "End it" was definately not directed at you personally. That came off WAY rude and was not my intended tone. I meant it like "The end." or "Let's end it." I was talking to the thread, not to you. I'm very sorry about that.
-
I had a feeling thats not how you meant it. Regardless, that still kinda surprised me, as I havent seen you give many " because X said so" answers to end a discussion.
I do think we should try and reach a more solid conclusion, because there is still confusion and some stuff is contradicting other rulings.
Also, I'm curious to hear what Rob said about the whole situation other than just "until has checks."
-
Here was my suggested play as, which would require a one-time targeting of cards:
"If two or more Heroes are in battle and if there are more evil cards in play than good cards, discard X evil cards." (X = # of evil cards minus # of good cards).
Here is Justin's counter-proposal:
If two or more Heroes are in battle and if there are more evil cards in play than good cards, discard evil cards from play until the number of evil cards is less than or equal to the number of good cards.
If we went with Bryon's option, if X = 3 then a player could discard an EC holding a weapon, an EC with a placed card (Herod's Treachery for ex.) and Kingdoms of the World (potentially holding 3 ECs) and thereby discard a total of 8 evil cards. 3 of them were discarded by Balance and 5 of them were discarded by game rule.
Here's my response after more discussion, stamped by Rob:
Quote from: Bryon on March 05, 2010, 12:14:40 AM
Yes, your play as addresses it nicely, and actually is closer to the original wording than my suggestion. So, I vote for your suggestion.
Me too.
As you can see, I originally suggested the "one-time targeting of cards" option. So, I can definately see where some of the dissenters are coming from. However, I could also see the point that Justin made and originally saw it was an equally valid option. After a little more interaction, I was convinced Justin's idea was actually better than mine, primarily because it acts closest to the original wording. So, I voted for Justin's suggestion. Rob agreed.
Once Rob agrees to a play as, that ends it for the playtest team.
-
I will agree that the justins play as makes more sense based on the idea of the card, but it seems to go against what we know about targeting.
So its a matter of should the ruling be based on rulings prior to remain conistant (which I think it should), or should it be based on what the card should be?
If it's the latter, can we revisit Split Altar and make that what it should have been as well? ;D
*EDIT*
Also, where were those posts from, the playtester boards? Another reason the said-so post was so surprising to me is that there had been no mention of Rob saying anything about this ruling until then.
-
I do think we should try and reach a more solid conclusion, because there is still confusion and some stuff is contradicting other rulings.
Unfortunately, most of the confusion here seems to stem from my initial poor comparison, which some took to mean I was lumping those together as exactly the same. I've been tripping over my words all day today. :(
Just consider "draw until H = 6" or "discard evil cards until E = G" to be treated as one action that continually checks, just as any draw action has a built in check for Lost Soul cards.
"Until" is the operative word. If a card tells you to do an action "until" some condition is met, then cards are targeted one at a time. Otherwise, effects with multiple targets target once.
We can settle the "How many cards at a time I am supposed to physically lift off the top of the deck when I draw 3 cards?" question in another thread.
-
Yeah... I didn't quite mean to start that drawing argument with my comment. :D
Still, just going off of previous rules, the continous targeting of balance would confuse a lot of people. One one hand, you have balance trying to work with a one-by-one target system, when on the other hand you have had it ruled that all cards with multiple targets select their targets before doing anything.
I guess if Until clauses are added into the rules I'd be ok with it all, but as it stands, it doesn't make much sense based on the current rulings we know of.
-
Just consider "draw until H = 6" or "discard evil cards until E = G" to be treated as one action that continually checks, just as any draw action has a built in check for Lost Soul cards.
"Until" is the operative word. If a card tells you to do an action "until" some condition is met, then cards are targeted one at a time. Otherwise, effects with multiple targets target once.
I also don't think you're quite grasping how these two paragraphs directly contradict each other.
-
"Draw" is special, as it has a built-in rule associated with it. As a result, every draw action has checks throughout. Likewise, every "until" action has checks throughout.
Otherwise, effects with multiple targets target once.
Schaef, I do appreciate that you want the rule cleaned up nicely, but rather than picking apart my words, feel free to put 2 and 2 together for yourself and actually be helpful in clearing up the rule as Rob wants it.
-
Schaef, I do appreciate that you want the rule cleaned up nicely, but rather than picking apart my words, feel free to put 2 and 2 together for yourself and actually be helpful in clearing up the rule as Rob wants it.
If that's your opinion of my efforts, feel free to proceed without any more of my counter-productivity.
-
Ok so, I found a good situation to differentiate the two arguments.
Blindness: While an evil card is on a Hero, your demons are immune to that Hero.
I make a rescue attempt with a hero that has a card placed on it (non important SA). Balance could be played two completely different ways here.
If we rule that it targets every card at once, then balance could not target any of the opponents demons, even if I discard the enhancement on my hero. This is because during the targeting, the card is still on my hero, which Blindness uses to say "You cannot target these demons"
If we rule it so balance targets one at a time, I could very well bypass Blindness. On my first targeting, Blindness is protecting the demons, because the condition on that card is being met, my hero has an evil card placed on it. Balance then discards the placed enhancement and targets again. The condition on blindness now has been changed, and no longer protects any demons. Balance did not negate blindness, but rather changed the field of play and then gets to target again.
Am I correct in the difference between these two situations?
-
Yes, you are correct about the difference.
A card that says "discard 2 evil cards" would not be able to discard Blindness and then a demon, since the targetting happens all at once.
A card that says "discard evil cards until there are 5 evil cards in play" would allow you to discard Blindness, then discard a demon, since the targetting of each card is separated by a check.
-
Soooo, if Rob approves the until = check rule, can we revisit Arrogance and apply the same type of rule to that? That ruling got based on the only rule multiple targets have. If there is more than one way to target multiple cards, then we should find any cards that might be impacted by this.
-
Soooo, if Rob approves the until = check rule, can we revisit Arrogance and apply the same type of rule to that? That ruling got based on the only rule multiple targets have. If there is more than one way to target multiple cards, then we should find any cards that might be impacted by this.
I agree. I've always thought that this explanation was the most intuitive reading of Arrogance, and I would be thrilled to see it work like this.
-
I was unaware of the ruling about Arrogance. I agree that that ruling should be revisited.