Author Topic: Balance questions (Read 16553 times)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #125 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:08:54 PM »

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:

Quote from: SirNobody on February 15, 2009, 11:06:06 PM

Hey,

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 15, 2009, 10:15:01 PM
Quote from: SirNobody on February 15, 2009, 10:03:26 PM
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.

Quote from: Archangel withabunchofnumbersontheend on February 15, 2009, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: SirNobody on February 15, 2009, 10:03:26 PM
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?

Bryon · « **Reply #126 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:09:19 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on March 07, 2010, 08:02:54 PM

Quote from: Bryon on March 07, 2010, 08:00:26 PM
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.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 07, 2010, 01:40:05 PM
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.

Bryon · « **Reply #127 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:11:06 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on March 07, 2010, 08:08:54 PM

Balance has multiple targets, why are they not all targeted instantly before any discards happen?

Because Rob said so. "Until" has checks. End it.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #128 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:12:14 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 07, 2010, 08:11:06 PM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on March 07, 2010, 08:08:54 PM
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?

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #129 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:12:23 PM »

Not to sound mean....but quote please? (Just to fully end this argument)

RR's s.a. activate! Comic for everything! Go!

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #130 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:17:50 PM »

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #131 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:20:40 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 07, 2010, 08:07:35 PM

...(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.

Quote from: The Schaef on March 07, 2010, 07:57:50 PM

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.

Quote from: Bryon on March 07, 2010, 08:09:19 PM

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.

Quote from: Bryon on March 07, 2010, 08:11:06 PM

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #132 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:36:14 PM »

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

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #133 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:37:45 PM »

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #134 on:** March 07, 2010, 08:40:15 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on March 07, 2010, 08:36:14 PM

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #135 on:** March 07, 2010, 09:02:11 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on March 07, 2010, 08:40:15 PM

Quote from: STAMP on March 07, 2010, 08:36:14 PM
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?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #136 on:** March 07, 2010, 09:04:25 PM »

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...

Bryon · « **Reply #137 on:** March 07, 2010, 11:47:20 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on March 07, 2010, 08:12:14 PM

Quote from: Bryon on March 07, 2010, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on March 07, 2010, 08:08:54 PM
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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #138 on:** March 07, 2010, 11:50:42 PM »

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."

Bryon · « **Reply #139 on:** March 07, 2010, 11:54:43 PM »

Here was my suggested play as, which would require a one-time targeting of cards:

Quote

"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:

Quote

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

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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #140 on:** March 08, 2010, 12:13:43 AM »

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?

*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.

Bryon · « **Reply #141 on:** March 08, 2010, 12:17:19 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on March 07, 2010, 11:50:42 PM

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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #142 on:** March 08, 2010, 12:46:16 AM »

Yeah... I didn't quite mean to start that drawing argument with my comment.

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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #143 on:** March 08, 2010, 12:47:51 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 08, 2010, 12:17:19 AM

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.

Bryon · « **Reply #144 on:** March 08, 2010, 10:11:53 AM »

"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.

The Schaef · « **Reply #145 on:** March 08, 2010, 10:25:56 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 08, 2010, 10:11:53 AM

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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #146 on:** March 08, 2010, 01:25:50 PM »

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?

Bryon · « **Reply #147 on:** March 08, 2010, 10:22:15 PM »

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.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #148 on:** March 08, 2010, 10:38:31 PM »

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #149 on:** March 09, 2010, 12:47:58 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on March 08, 2010, 10:38:31 PM

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.

News:

Author Topic: Balance questions (Read 16553 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo