Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Another Natz has come and gone, and it's a perfect time to once again bring up Redemption's Most Wanted rule. Some of the rulings we have aren't perfect, but this is the only one that literally doesn't work. For a long time, "add to battle" was ruled as a banding ability when it applied to characters, under the archaic language clause. However, this retroactive SA definition stopped working as soon as Evil Spawn was printed. Can we finally either get a ruling that accounts for the times when an ability could be a band or not-band only after the fact of itself, or (better yet!) have "band" and "add to battle" as completely separate abilities that never become one or the other? All it would take is a simple inversion of a rule:

"A banding ability allows one or more extra characters to enter battle."

Rather than saying an extra character entering battle is banding, we say "banding" is a specific type of ability that allows an extra character into battle (along with add to battle). This will probably also make it less likely that new kids would think Discarding the bander would kick whomever he banded to out of battle for some reason (since it's being treated more as a way to get another character into battle than going into battle "with" another character). Please?

Well, since Redoubter agrees with me I feel compelled to proactively address the arguments against the split

There will be a lot of cards that have been banding cards for years that will suddenly not be banding without changing in function. Not such a big deal because they'll still do the same thing.

The more valid argument is that every counter to banding ever made will now not work against said cards. However, I don't think it's such a big issue because all the best banding cards use the actual "band" language, and it'd simply further encourage use of older cards (Sound the Alarm to get around HHI, for example).

Finally, there's the inertia argument where people don't want to make huge rule changes unless there's a good reason to. Honestly, there doesn't seem to be a huge reason to from an applicative standpoint (as Evil Spawn and the cards like him are infrequently-used and even more infrequently run into the cards that create the paradox). However, this year we're getting a new rulebook, and it's the last shot we have to fix an enormous hole in Redemption's rules in time to get it into the new definitive ruling document (as I'm sure banding will be defined in said rulebook).

I believe those are the main objections to the change, and I think I've represented them fairly while obviously not agreeing with them.

I'm not an elder, but I support this.

I'm certain the only reason it may seem confusing to you is that you're already used to it working the other way. To a rules lawyer it's beyond confusing the way it is now (to the point where it's literally a black hole of a ruling that has no possible answer), and to a newer player it's currently a bit confusing (since we have game mechanic that describes what an ability does, rather than an ability that modifies the game mechanics like literally every single other ability).

I hadn't thought of that before, and I think it's important so I'll put it in its own paragraph:

The reason banding is so broken is because it's a game mechanic that describes what an ability does. For every other kind of ability in existence it's a description of how the ability modifies the game's mechanics. All other abilities work by describing what the ability does, while banding works by having a game rule/mechanic that describes what the ability does.

I think the easiest way to define "banding" and "add to battle" while keeping them mutually exclusive is as such:

Banding - any ability that adds, and can only add, extra character(s) to battle

Add to battle - any ability that adds extra card(s) to battle, which may include non-character card(s)

I believe my wording keeps them mutually exclusive.

No it doesn't, actually. If the card says "add to battle" then that should be a whole separate ability than a card that says "band," and one should never become the other under any circumstances.

In my definition, "add to battle" is never a "banding" ability.  Let's take Egyptian Magicians as an example.  It reveals and evil card, which you are allowed to add to battle.  It does not matter if the card is a character or not - because EM's ability allows you to add a non-character to battle, it is defined as "add to battle" and not "band". 

King Manasseh would be a "banding" ability because he adds an extra demon/magician to battle, and all legal targets are characters for this ability.

My definition looks at what an ability CAN do, regardless of what it ACTUALLY does.  Like I said, I defined it that way because I think that is the only way to have mutually exclusive definitions for two actions, one of which is technically in the subset of the other.

I think the best way to do it would be thus:

"Add to battle" is an ability that can be similar to one of five distinct abilities: Band, Play, Present, Exchange, and Choose Opponent. Each of these abilities allow you to add cards to battle with certain definitions/restrictions. However, if a card has an add to battle ability that is not specifically one of the three listed abilities, then it is not considered to be that ability for any purpose.

Band: A "band" ability allows you to add characters to your side of the battle to join the character(s) currently in battle.

Play: A "play" ability allows you to play an enhancement regardless of initiative or the current state of the battle.

Present: A "present" ability allows a player (most often your opponent) to add a character to battle after the initial attack/block if there are no characters remaining on that player's side of the battle (most often due to a withdraw ability).

Exchange: An "exchange" ability allows you to switch the locations of two cards. If one of the cards is in battle, the other card is added to battle.

Choose opponent: A "choose opponent" (Choose the rescuer/choose the blocker) ability allows you to replace all opposing characters in battle with a character of the same alignment as those characters, or if the ability is used before a blocker is presented, it allows you to decide who your opponent will block with; your opponent must use that character to block instead of getting to decide as normal.

Add to battle: An "add to battle" ability allows you to add cards to battle, and may function similar to one of the above abilities, but it is not considered that ability for any purpose. If you use an add to battle ability to add a character to battle, the ability is not considered a band ability, though it functions identically. If you use an add to battle ability to add an enhancement to battle, the ability is not considered a play ability, though it functions identically. If you use an add to battle ability to replace a character currently in battle with a character you add to battle, the ability is not considered an exchange ability, though it functions identically.  If you use an add to battle ability to add a character to your side of the battle or to force your opponent to add a character to his side of the battle, when no other characters are on the side of the battle the character is added to, the ability is not considered a present ability, though it functions identically. If you use an add to battle ability to add a character to your opponent's side of the battle, the ability is not considered a choose opponent ability, though it functions identically.

Now, before you say that having two abilities that function identically but are not the same thing is bad, we already crossed that bridge when we made "protect from X" functionally identical to "immune to X" but also ruled that "protect from X" is not an immune ability, nor is "immune to X" a protect ability. Both situations are somewhat confusing in one way, but more simple in another; that is, it is nice that we don't have to remember what cards should say rather than what they do say.

I think that about covers my position (and I presume Pol's position as well). 

Goliath isn't a CtB/CtR card, since you don't get to choose who your opponent brings back in. His ability is a "present" ability (which I'm not sure if it has been defined yet...it's pretty obvious what it is, and it is rarely used except for Goliath, but I know we recently had a discussion on it...in fact it should probably be posted on the forums...I'm going to do that after this post). "Present" would also be another "add-to-battle" type ability, in addition to exchange.

FWIW I love this idea, it will make things simpler.

The rule is that you can't add cards to your opponent's side of the battle unless a card specifically allows that, similar to how you can't discard a Hero in set-aside with Christian Martyr. Gates of Hell doesn't specifically allow that, so it wouldn't work.

I'm not certain if there are cards that allow you to choose opponent/exchange/present but use "add to battle", but I wanted to be thorough. If this change were to happen, then my post would probably be cleaned up a bit to avoid any confusion, so thanks for pointing out things that may be confusing.

It's more a matter of approach. The way he wrote it was very specific about what things aren't, but I always prefer positive rules. Here is how I would write the section:

Here are the different abilities that can add cards to battle. None of these abilities overlap or are subsets of one another. You can determine which ability a card has by looking at the specific language on the card:

-Add to Battle: This ability plays a specified type of card into battle.

-Banding: This ability allows one or more character into battle.

-Exchange: This ability switches the location and permanent control of two cards. *(Permanent and temporary control still need to be defined even though we all know what they mean, and should coincide with a change on "your")

-Present: This ability allows a player to play one or more characters into battle. No matter which player is playing the characters, the player controlling the present ability is the one adding the characters. *(There would need to be a separate clarification for cards with archaic language, similar to how "Ignore" and "Prevent" and "Protect" were clarified)

-Choose Opponent: This ability allows a player to choose a new character to oppose him in battle, then causes all currently opposing characters to withdraw and adds the chosen character to battle. If completed prior to an initial blocker being presented, defending player cannot present another blocker.

-Play: A play ability allows you to play a card from hand.

---

A few specific notes: Banding abilities can sometimes bring characters into the opposing side of battle (i.e. Siege) and would have fallen between the cracks of the other definitions. Play abilities allow for playing of more than Enhancements (i.e. King Omri). Present abilities can still work even with characters remaining (i.e. Goliath facing a Giantslayer).

I may have missed one or two points because it's early (for me in Florida) but that's the general framework for how I would do the section.

Perhaps "play" could be revisited now that we're getting rid of overlapping abilities? Just as abilities used to not convert if they could target a Hero, but now always convert unless they specifically target a Hero, could we not change "Play" to playing a card from hand, deck or Discard since Banding abilities only could play a card from hand and would be kept rigid under the new ability guidelines?