Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheHobbit13 on December 19, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
-
It says,"Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked..." Now all I am wondering is what does this exactly mean for the holder? Is the card restricting all rescue attempts straight up or is it saying that anything that would normally be a rescue attempt cannot be made. Basically I am wondering if you can battle challenge an opponent even if they have lost souls.
-
since it is targeting the player, it is a restrict ability.
-
It says,"Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked..." Now all I am wondering is what does this exactly mean for the holder? Is the card restricting all rescue attempts straight up or is it saying that anything that would normally be a rescue attempt cannot be made. Basically I am wondering if you can battle challenge an opponent even if they have lost souls.
If you have access to those lost souls, then you cannot attack.
-
Okay thanks.
-
My Understanding is that u can't Battle at all, Rescue Attemps or Battle Challenges. At least that's how I understood it, and that's what I heard from my tourney, I could be wrong though.
-
To show how rulings are different we have always played if it is a battle challenge then you may attack.
-
To show how rulings are different we have always played if it is a battle challenge then you may attack.
I have always played this way as well. A literal reading of the card lead me to this conclusion.
-
Burial Shroud (Ap)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked. May be used twice. • Play As: Restrict holder from making a rescue attempt. Restrict opponent from attacking holder. May be used twice. • Identifiers: None • Verse: John 20:4-5
Okay, restrict is new. So now let's revisit what can and cannot happen when a battle challenge ensues:
1. If site access is all that is needed to gain access, does the restrict carryover and restrict the attacker from adding an access site to battle?
2. If the blocker draws a lost soul, is the blocker restricted from putting the lost soul in LoB?
3. If the blocker must discard cards from deck and one is a lost soul, is the lost soul discarded overriding game rule?
Keep in mind that Burial Shroud's "play-as" is restricting the holder. Does that mean the blocker can change a battle challenge to a rescue attempt?
-
1.) Almost certainly yes
2.) It's put there, but I'd rule it couldn't be rescued. Don't take my word on this one though.
3.) There's no game rule that LS discarded from deck are put in LoB
-
The questions are mostly hypothetical, but I think we can rule quite easily regarding any direct action that the attacker makes cannot be performed if it causes the BC to change to an RA, e.g. add ing site to battle for site access or playing Harvest Time.
It's the two options of whether the attacker can cause it indirectly or the blocker can cause it, directly or indirectly.
I can almost be agreeable that the restrict will work for the former.
It's the latter that's the ultimate pickle.
-
I play it as 'No player may make a Rescue Attempt or Battle Challenge'
Does anyone know if when this card came out (Apostles) could u make a Battle Challenge?
-
I play it as 'No player may make a Rescue Attempt or Battle Challenge'
Does anyone know if when this card came out (Apostles) could u make a Battle Challenge?
As far as I know, BC's have been around since the beginning. Also, the way you play does not reflect what the card actually says.
-
Battle Challenges were allowed, but I always ruled this card as a "regardless." You may begin a BC, but it will remain a BC regardless of circumstantial changes during the BC.
-
I'm asking because if it wasn't that would have an effect on the Card.
-
I'm asking because if it wasn't that would have an effect on the Card.
Actually, no. Since it specifically says "Rescue attempt," battle challenges are allowed, no matter when the PTB created them.
-
I'm asking because if it wasn't that would have an effect on the Card.
Actually, no. Since it specifically says "Rescue attempt," battle challenges are allowed, no matter when the PTB created them.
Actually...It says "Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked." This would mean that while the Holder could initiate a BC that could never become a RA, his opponent(s) cannot do either. A Battle Challenge counts as an attack after all.
-
I'm asking because if it wasn't that would have an effect on the Card.
Actually, no. Since it specifically says "Rescue attempt," battle challenges are allowed, no matter when the PTB created them.
Actually...It says "Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked." This would mean that while the Holder could initiate a BC that could never become a RA, his opponent(s) cannot do either. A Battle Challenge counts as an attack after all.
Exactly. The card does give the holder an advantage, especially during a soul drought.
-
I'm asking because if it wasn't that would have an effect on the Card.
Actually, no. Since it specifically says "Rescue attempt," battle challenges are allowed, no matter when the PTB created them.
Actually...It says "Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked." This would mean that while the Holder could initiate a BC that could never become a RA, his opponent(s) cannot do either. A Battle Challenge counts as an attack after all.
That's exactly what I'm saying...? MML was trying to argue that the holder of the card couldn't make a BC either.
-
Actually...It says "Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked." This would mean that while the Holder could initiate a BC that could never become a RA, his opponent(s) cannot do either. A Battle Challenge counts as an attack after all.
That's exactly what I'm saying...? MML was trying to argue that the holder of the card couldn't make a BC either.
I understood what you meant, but the way you phrased it, it did sound like you thought nobody could make a battle challenge.
-
Rescue Attempt
A rescue attempt is the effort to recover a Lost Soul from the Land of Bondage by battle. A rescue attempt battle is initiated when a Hero is placed in the Field of Battle. The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle. A player is allowed one rescue attempt per turn unless a card states otherwise.
...If the blocker draws a lost soul, is the blocker restricted from putting the lost soul in LoB?...
...It's put there, but I'd rule it couldn't be rescued. Don't take my word on this one though....
To throw my two cents in, I would tend to restrict the act of rescuing the soul (battle resolution) not actions leading to that rescue (i.e. return hero to territory/keep lost soul from being placed in LOB).
I'm usually the very last person to complain about anything... but there has been a strange habit the last month of important pending questions not coming to a conclusion. Can somebody tell me if this is at least under consideration?
-
To throw my two cents in, I would tend to restrict the act of rescuing the soul (battle resolution) not actions leading to that rescue (i.e. return hero to territory/keep lost soul from being placed in LOB).
This is how it has been ruled, at least in Florida and Connecticut.
-
If that's the case then you should be able to attack, even with a Hero that has Soul access.
-
If that's the case then you should be able to attack, even with a Hero that has Soul access.
I both agree and disagree with this statement, since I can see it going either way. Burial Shroud does say make a rescue attempt, and I'm not sure what the implications of that are if the BC turns into an RA during battle. I'm not suggesting that the soul should be rescuable, rather, I could see this logic being used to say that the battle would continue as a battle challenge, and instead of the Heroes being restricted from being in the rescue attempt at this point, the heroes are simply restricted from rescuing a lost soul. On the other hand, I could see the restrict just kicking the heroes out of battle right away if it turned into a rescue attempt. I'm inclined to go with the latter.
-
I'm glad this is coming out now. There's been a wire loose in BS's wording for a long time and just now are we picking up on it. What is the mechanism by which players are restricted from making a RA? That's a super-tricky question.
-
Isn't "Restrict" old wording for protect? Can't we reasonably conclude that Burial Shroud protects lost souls from rescue by heroes?
-
Isn't "Restrict" old wording for protect? Can't we reasonably conclude that Burial Shroud protects lost souls from rescue by heroes?
Restrict is it's own ability now, with it's own ramifications, implications, friends, enemies, and Myspace.
-
Isn't "Restrict" old wording for protect? Can't we reasonably conclude that Burial Shroud protects lost souls from rescue by heroes?
Restrict is it's own ability now, with it's own ramifications, implications, friends, enemies, and Myspace.
This explains everything....
-
That still leaves the question unanswered. Is a player who is restricted from making a RA unable to attack at all? Does every attack he initiates become a BC regardless of Soul Availability, and if so is it because during the rescue step of battle resolution, no soul is rescued or because no Hero he uses has access to any Soul? Is he able to attack only with a Hero that would cause a normal battle-challenge situation, and if so, what happens if conditions change into what would normally become a Rescue Attempt?
-
I would appreciate some critical think-tanking on the potential problems if we used this understanding of Shroud:
Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder gains access to a lost soul, holder's heroes are restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution.
As Pol mentioned, under this understanding even Site Access heroes can initiate a battle challenge, but the player would be restricted from rescuing a soul. I inserted the "during battle resolution" to try to avoid potential problems with Primary Objective.
-
The problem with that is that Heroes can't be restricted, only players.
-
I added "heroes" at the last minute (thus the "edited by" note) in case this would create issues with a player being restricted from playing SoG/NJ. I shoulda' left it alone, lol.
Also fixed: the holder does not ever gain access to the soul :( Stone Cut Without Hands anybody? ;)
Version 1.2:
Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder's hero gains access to a lost soul, holder is restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution.
-
Rescue Attempt
A rescue attempt is the effort to recover a Lost Soul from the Land of Bondage by battle. A rescue attempt battle is initiated when a Hero is placed in the Field of Battle. The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle. A player is allowed one rescue attempt per turn unless a card states otherwise.
See also Battle Phase.
--
Restrict:
Gen. Descr.
A restrict ability keeps a player from performing an action that they would normally be allowed to perform.
How to Play
A restrict ability reduces the number of game action choices available to a player.
All restrict abilities are ongoing. A restrict ability targets the player that becomes restricted.
--
As per the reg, if the hero has access, it is a rescue attempt. BS restricts the holder from making RA's (ongoing) so if at any point the hero gains access to the LS (Thus making it a RA), the restrict kicks in.
Combine the 2 definitions and it would appear the battle cannot continue. Period. It ends because the restrict is ongoing and the player is restricted from making RA's.
I agree there is a bit of a hole there, but in reality, YMT's interpretation would be the most logical. A RA cannot be made becuase the battle is restricted to BC's only. IMO, there is no hole just a question of what happens next: Does the battle end as is, or does it continue to resolution as a BC (As CT and FL have ruled)?
-
Lawman,
All the things you've said are what we've been processing... yet we arrive at the same issue:
We need to interpret Burial Shroud in such a way that we understand the implications and applications of a battle-challenge-gone-rescue-attempt.
Version 1.2:
Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder's hero gains access to a lost soul, holder is restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution.
If we use this approach, rather than trying to build in some kind of "game-rule-repel" against heroes, we simply acknowledge that the player is restricted from rescuing a soul at resolution. Forcing a character out of battle by game rule isn't unprecedented (conversion), just not preferred.
-
Lawman,
All the things you've said are what we've been processing... yet we arrive at the same issue:
We need to interpret Burial Shroud in such a way that we understand the implications and applications of a battle-challenge-gone-rescue-attempt.
Version 1.2:
Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder's hero gains access to a lost soul, holder is restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution.
If we use this approach, rather than trying to build in some kind of "game-rule-repel" against heroes, we simply acknowledge that the player is restricted from rescuing a soul at resolution. Forcing a character out of battle by game rule isn't unprecedented (conversion), just not preferred.
I understand. From reading the definitions, I would say the battle ends as is with no rescue; however, I would deem this as unfair for the opponent who could potentially lose the battle due to the restrict becoming valid. Also, I took the liberty of explicitly stating in one post exactly how the situation stands so my post was clarifying feedback to ensure everyone is on the same page (while inserting my own opinion).
There isn't much to process as it's quite clear that either A. BS needs an errata to restrict Battle Challenges, or B. Keep it as is and clarify how to play the restrict in this case. A. Was formerly the standard answer while B. Seems to be the new, more up to date answer.
-
I actually agree with Lawman on this one. There's absolutely no precedence to allow a battle to continue if a Battle Challenge turns into a Rescue Attempt while Burial Shroud is active. The holder is restricted from being in a rescue attempt, period, and as such, I think that all heroes would be kicked out of battle as soon as the last ability that needs to complete does (for instance, if somebody drew Hopper off of Reach of Desperation, they'd finish drawing and play an enhancement, then, if the enhancement didn't negate Shroud, they'd get kicked out). Red Warrior, your proposed wording would actually allow the user to play Primary Objective to still potentially win a soul.
-
So let's throw out some more hypotheticals. In Type 2, I have access to lost souls and activate Burial Shroud. I declare that I am not choosing a lost soul and issue a battle challenge.
Yay or nay?
Rescuer’s Choice
Before a player begins a rescue attempt, he must announce which Lost Soul he is trying to rescue. That is the only Lost Soul he is eligible to rescue. If that particular Lost Soul is taken out of play prior to the end of the battle (by Burial, Son of God, or New Jerusalem), then the rescuer will not rescue a Lost Soul even if his forces win the battle.
NOTE: Type II Tournament Rules are always played under the Rescuer’s Choice rule.
-
Before a player begins a rescue attempt, he must announce which Lost Soul he is trying to rescue.
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.
These two quotes lead me to believe that you don't have the ability to not select a soul if you have access to one in T2.
-
Before a player begins a rescue attempt, he must announce which Lost Soul he is trying to rescue.
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.
These two quotes lead me to believe that you don't have the ability to not select a soul if you have access to one in T2.
But I'm not beginning a rescue attempt. I'm declaring a battle challenge. Remember, it's already been ruled that I can choose a lost soul that I don't initially have access to, which is essentially declaring a rescue attempt when it starts as a battle challenge.
-
Red Warrior, your proposed wording would actually allow the user to play Primary Objective to still potentially win a soul.
Chronic
Would this wording fix it?:
Version 1.3:
Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder's hero gains access to a lost soul, holder is restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution. Battle is considered a battle challenge regardless of access.
-
Before a player begins a rescue attempt, he must announce which Lost Soul he is trying to rescue.
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.
These two quotes lead me to believe that you don't have the ability to not select a soul if you have access to one in T2.
But I'm not beginning a rescue attempt. I'm declaring a battle challenge. Remember, it's already been ruled that I can choose a lost soul that I don't initially have access to, which is essentially declaring a rescue attempt when it starts as a battle challenge.
You still cannot choose to not select a soul if one is available. Choosing one you don't have access too and not choosing are different.
-
Before a player begins a rescue attempt, he must announce which Lost Soul he is trying to rescue.
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.
These two quotes lead me to believe that you don't have the ability to not select a soul if you have access to one in T2.
But I'm not beginning a rescue attempt. I'm declaring a battle challenge. Remember, it's already been ruled that I can choose a lost soul that I don't initially have access to, which is essentially declaring a rescue attempt when it starts as a battle challenge.
You still cannot choose to not select a soul if one is available. Choosing one you don't have access too and not choosing are different.
If there are none available, I'm not choosing a lost soul. And I can declare a battle challenge. Just because one is there doesn't infer that I choose one. Based on the definition in the rulebook, I only choose if I wish to make a rescue attempt. For that matter, if I choose to NOT do a rescue attempt, I simply choose nothing. The reverse is also true: if I fail to choose a lost soul I cannot start a rescue attempt and therefore it would be a battle challenge.
-
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.
This quote still has merit, however. Special abilities can change game rules (for instance, Primary Objective changing this rule), however my argument is that in Type II, if a Lost Soul is available at the beginning of a battle, that battle must be a rescue attempt, as per that quote from the REG.
-
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.
This quote still has merit, however. Special abilities can change game rules (for instance, Primary Objective changing this rule), however my argument is that in Type II, if a Lost Soul is available at the beginning of a battle, that battle must be a rescue attempt, as per that quote from the REG.
Not for Type 2. I may have access to a generic lost soul not in a site but choose a lost soul in a site in which I don't initially have access. It's a battle challenge until I get access.
-
I'm just going to throw this question out there: How long does it's effect last? Since it can only be used twice, wouldn't I wait to use when my opponent wants to attack me, during HIS turn? So the question begs, how long is this effect in place? Till the beginning of his next turn or what? Cause otherwise, the "Holder may not make a rescue attempt" part is worthless.
-
The effect starts upon activation (Your prep phase) and lasts for an entire round.
-
The effect starts upon activation (Your prep phase) and lasts for an entire round.
So wait, at the beginning of my next turn, do I have to flip it face down if I don't want it to take effect? Also, what about cards like Unholy writ? Wouldn't the same logic state that I would have to use it's effect immediately upon activation?
-
The effect starts upon activation (Your prep phase) and lasts for an entire round.
So wait, at the beginning of my next turn, do I have to flip it face down if I don't want it to take effect? Yes Also, what about cards like Unholy writ? Wouldn't the same logic state that I would have to use it's effect immediately upon activation? No, as UW's ability is a "may" ability. (I.E. it is optional, so you chose when to use it. See Holy Grail/Charms.)
-
BS is a "may" ability too
-
BS is a "may" ability too
No, it's a "May not" ability.
-
"Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked. May be used twice"
-
That doesn't count as a may ability, that's just to note how many times it can be used.
-
"Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked. May be used twice"
That phrase only tells the number of times it can be used. You keep bringing up old wording in your questions about cards, which is good to clarify. Optional use abilities must say "may" before the ability you want to use.
-
"Old Wording"? Make me feel more out of the loop than i already do will ya ;-)
So essentially you are saying, This effect HAS to take place for 2 turns once you activate it?
-
"Old Wording"? Make me feel more out of the loop than i already do will ya ;-)
The cards have old wording, not you. ;)
So essentially you are saying, This effect HAS to take place for 2 turns once you activate it?
No. You can use it once, then deactivate it, then reactivate it on another turn.
-
"Old Wording"? Make me feel more out of the loop than i already do will ya ;-)
So essentially you are saying, This effect HAS to take place for 2 turns once you activate it?
No, you can choose to deactivate it after one turn, then activate it later if you so choose.
-
Well okay then. So to clarify:
- I activate BS at the beginning of my turn
- I may only B/C this turn
- My opponents upcoming turn, he cannot enter battle at all.
- My next turn, BS is deactivated, and I can chose to either re-activate it, or leave it alone, allowing me to RA that turn.
Is that correct?
-
Well okay then. So to clarify:
- I activate BS at the beginning of my turn
- I may only B/C this turn
- My opponents upcoming turn, he cannot enter battle at all.
- My next turn, BS is deactivated, and I can chose to either re-activate it, or leave it alone, allowing me to RA that turn.
Is that correct?
Yup, that's the sum of it.
-
So let's throw out some more hypotheticals. In Type 2, I have access to lost souls and activate Burial Shroud. I declare that I am not choosing a lost soul and issue a battle challenge.
Yay or nay?
Rescuer’s Choice
Before a player begins a rescue attempt, he must announce which Lost Soul he is trying to rescue. That is the only Lost Soul he is eligible to rescue. If that particular Lost Soul is taken out of play prior to the end of the battle (by Burial, Son of God, or New Jerusalem), then the rescuer will not rescue a Lost Soul even if his forces win the battle.
NOTE: Type II Tournament Rules are always played under the Rescuer’s Choice rule.
This does not apply as Rescuer's Choice only applies to Rescue Attempts which BS restricts.
Battle Challenge
A battle challenge may be given when there is no Lost Soul available for a Hero to rescue. A Hero is placed onto the Field of Battle, and the Evil Character is invited to fight. The battle challenge does not have to be accepted.
This implies that you can only issue a Battle Challenge if no lost soul is available for a Hero to rescue. If one IS available, you cannot issue a Battle Challenge. (See definition of Rescue Attempt).
In short, you cannot use Rescuer's Choice in T1 or T2 to turn a Rescue Attempt into a Battle Challenge while Burial Shroud is active because you are restricted from making a Rescue Attempt in the first place.
-
So let's throw out some more hypotheticals. In Type 2, I have access to lost souls and activate Burial Shroud. I declare that I am not choosing a lost soul and issue a battle challenge.
Yay or nay?
Rescuer’s Choice
Before a player begins a rescue attempt, he must announce which Lost Soul he is trying to rescue. That is the only Lost Soul he is eligible to rescue. If that particular Lost Soul is taken out of play prior to the end of the battle (by Burial, Son of God, or New Jerusalem), then the rescuer will not rescue a Lost Soul even if his forces win the battle.
NOTE: Type II Tournament Rules are always played under the Rescuer’s Choice rule.
This does not apply as Rescuer's Choice only applies to Rescue Attempts which BS restricts.
Battle Challenge
A battle challenge may be given when there is no Lost Soul available for a Hero to rescue. A Hero is placed onto the Field of Battle, and the Evil Character is invited to fight. The battle challenge does not have to be accepted.
This implies that you can only issue a Battle Challenge if no lost soul is available for a Hero to rescue. If one IS available, you cannot issue a Battle Challenge. (See definition of Rescue Attempt).
In short, you cannot use Rescuer's Choice in T1 or T2 to turn a Rescue Attempt into a Battle Challenge while Burial Shroud is active because you are restricted from making a Rescue Attempt in the first place.
In Type 2, by not choosing a lost soul to rescue, it becomes a battle challenge because I do not have access to a lost soul. Simple as that.
-
So let's throw out some more hypotheticals. In Type 2, I have access to lost souls and activate Burial Shroud. I declare that I am not choosing a lost soul and issue a battle challenge.
Yay or nay?
Rescuer’s Choice
Before a player begins a rescue attempt, he must announce which Lost Soul he is trying to rescue. That is the only Lost Soul he is eligible to rescue. If that particular Lost Soul is taken out of play prior to the end of the battle (by Burial, Son of God, or New Jerusalem), then the rescuer will not rescue a Lost Soul even if his forces win the battle.
NOTE: Type II Tournament Rules are always played under the Rescuer’s Choice rule.
This does not apply as Rescuer's Choice only applies to Rescue Attempts which BS restricts.
Battle Challenge
A battle challenge may be given when there is no Lost Soul available for a Hero to rescue. A Hero is placed onto the Field of Battle, and the Evil Character is invited to fight. The battle challenge does not have to be accepted.
This implies that you can only issue a Battle Challenge if no lost soul is available for a Hero to rescue. If one IS available, you cannot issue a Battle Challenge. (See definition of Rescue Attempt).
In short, you cannot use Rescuer's Choice in T1 or T2 to turn a Rescue Attempt into a Battle Challenge while Burial Shroud is active because you are restricted from making a Rescue Attempt in the first place.
In Type 2, by not choosing a lost soul to rescue, it becomes a battle challenge because I do not have access to a lost soul. Simple as that.
I understand and it makes sense, but if you read the rules as written vs. Burial Shroud's special ability, you can't do that. In order to choose/not choose a lost soul it would have to begin as a rescue attempt because a lost soul is available; which BS restricts you from doing. I agree with you that in T2 that would be an easy option, but the rules don't accurately support that game action. You can only apply Rescuer's Choice to a Rescue Attempt and since BS requires that a battle begin as a battle challenge, you cannot fulfill the the requirements needed to do Rescuer's Choice.
-
You apply rescuers choice anytime there is a lost soul in an opponent's LoB, whether you have access to it or not. And when there is a lost soul to choose you have to choose it.
-
In order to choose/not choose a lost soul it would have to begin as a rescue attempt because a lost soul is available; which BS restricts you from doing.
You have the cart before the horse. You begin by choosing a lost soul you will attempt to rescue, which you may or may not initially have access to, followed by placing your hero in battle, complete all abilities, and then you find out if it really starts out as a battle challenge or rescue attempt.
-
I don't agree that you can, but I see your point I guess; although you cannot make a rescue attempt, thus you cannot rescue a soul, thus you have no basis for "choosing" a lost soul to "rescue" via rescuer's choice (Because you are not a rescuer and you must choose before making a... wait for it... rescue attempt). For a battle challenge, you do not choose a lost soul to "rescue" so, according to the rules, it simply doesn't work. Irregardless of how it has been played, the rules do not make your suggestion valid the way they are worded. My basis is that it does not say before making a rescue attempt or battle challenge. It implies that after your choice, a rescue attempt follows.
I'm not trying to be annoying or argumentative, just pointing out how the wording in the definition doesn't support your suggestion (logically).
-
Regardless of how it has been played, the rules do not make your suggestion valid the way they are worded. My basis is that it does not say before making a rescue attempt or battle challenge. It implies that after your choice, a rescue attempt follows.
FTFY
I haven't played T2 much, but for what my opinion is worth I agree with the people disagreeing with STAMP. I see nothing in the T2 rules that lets you just choose "nothing" if souls are in play when you declare your desire to begin a battle.
-
...but for what my opinion is worth I agree with the people disagreeing with STAMP.
That cruise ship has sailed. ;)
But seriously, I'm just trying to be consistent here:
Scenario 1: Lost souls in LoB I don't initially have access to. I choose a lost soul I don't have access to.
Scenario 2: No lost souls in LoB to choose. I choose none of them which is basically choosing a lost soul I don't have access to.
Scenario 3: Lost souls in LoB, all of which I have access to. I choose none of them which is basically choosing a lost soul I don't have access to.
Scenarios 1 & 2 follow the rules and are how Type 2 have been played for eons. Scenario 3 is a valid scenario but the rules are little waffling on it. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be valid. It's Rescuer's Choice after all. I should have the choice of not making a choice.
-
Eh, I understand R's Choice may be played that way and has been played that way for some time, but that doesn't mean it's supported by the rules... Maybe it was a forgotten addition to the Regs?
Regardless, I don't mean to be so against you STAMP. I will acknowledge that I could be wrong and that I'm looking way too far into this. I guess I've made my opinion quite clear, so I will refrain from diverting the topic any longer. :)
-
Eh, I understand R's Choice may be played that way and has been played that way for some time, but that doesn't mean it's supported by the rules... Maybe it was a forgotten addition to the Regs?
Regardless, I don't mean to be so against you STAMP. I will acknowledge that I could be wrong and that I'm looking way too far into this. I guess I've made my opinion quite clear, so I will refrain from diverting the topic any longer. :)
No problemo, Lawman. :) It's just an empty spot in the REG because it never came up before. Discussions of rulings can somtimes reveal some of these empty spots. Then we just let the Elders decide what to do about it.
-
I decided to take a break from this post for a while so I could focus on other Type II headaches... ;) still no results?
So the issues at hand (for any Elders, ehem ehem, who would like to weigh in)...
1) What happens to attacking hero(s) when a special ability causes a BC to become a RA? 'Repelled' out or 'No soul' at the end?
2) How does Burial Shroud affect the overall structure of the Rescuers Choice rule?
-
Restrict is never a battle winner (currently), so for #1 I'm 99.9% sure that the battle would continue (i.e.: the heroes wouldn't be kicked out).
-
:scratch: Bumpity bump bump! :scratch:
-
I don't know what my two cents are worth on the scenario STAMP is describing as I rarely play T2, I would think that as it's called Rescuer's Choice, you would have to choose a LS you can rescue.
-
The sad reality is Rescuer's Choice, as has been pointed out, has a lot of gray area.
Not to knock the Type II question, but in our soul-generation... uh... generation, there are countless ways that Burial Shroud can become confusing, even among normal decks (well, somewhat normal... can't be too normal with Shroud in them ;))
Shroud is up. Asahel/Warrior's Spear makes a BC. Spear activates and causes a Lost Soul to come into play. Now Asahel's CtB ability activates - does he get to activate it?
Under my proposal he would, and would engage in battle AS a battle challenge with the chosen EC. At Battle resolution, however, the player is restricted from rescue and would receive no Redeemed Soul. Under the "repel" understanding of Shroud we would have to explain why Asahel's CtB ability is restricted by a card that restricts from Rescue...
-
The sad reality is Rescuer's Choice, as has been pointed out, has a lot of gray area.
Not to knock the Type II question, but in our soul-generation... uh... generation, there are countless ways that Burial Shroud can become confusing, even among normal decks (well, somewhat normal... can't be too normal with Shroud in them ;))
Shroud is up. Asahel/Warrior's Spear makes a BC. Spear activates and causes a Lost Soul to come into play. Now Asahel's CtB ability activates - does he get to activate it?
Under my proposal he would, and would engage in battle AS a battle challenge with the chosen EC. At Battle resolution, however, the player is restricted from rescue and would receive no Redeemed Soul. Under the "repel" understanding of Shroud we would have to explain why Asahel's CtB ability is restricted by a card that restricts from Rescue...
I couldn't help but imagine you standing behind a podium speaking to congress when I read this ;D
-
I couldn't help but imagine you standing behind a podium speaking to congress when I read this ;D
lol, my opponent has been accused of accepting bribes, and clubs baby seals. Can I count on your vote? ;)
Bonus example of "repel" problems.
Turtle Deck vs. Syrian Deck.
Turtle activates Shroud. Turtle makes a BC to get a hero back from Raiders Camp. Syrian blocks with Sabbath Breaker to draw 3 (hoping for a soul) and indeed draws one. The soul goes in play and Sabbath Breaker instantly wins the battle-challenge-gone-rescue because Shroud became a battle winner.
-
Again, Shroud definitely does NOT kick anyone out of battle if the controlling player has/gains access to a Soul(s). Nothing is repelled, that's a completely different special ability. As far as I know, Shroud simply restricts the controlling player from accepting a Lost Soul from an opponent and putting it in their Land of Redemption due to a successful battle resolution during the turn(s) that Shroud is active.
To reiterate, Shroud is not a battle winner.
The only thing that isn't resolved in this thread is how Shroud and T2 interact, and I'm not qualified to comment on that since I've only played T2 a handful of times.
-
There's quite a bit not resolved, actually. If the mechanism for restricting rescues is merely stopping LS's from being redeemed during battle resolution, the owner of Shroud should be able to attack regardless of whether the Hero has access to any Lost Souls.
-
the owner of Shroud should be able to attack regardless of whether the Hero has access to any Lost Souls.
Last I heard, you could do that in T1. The question is with that and Rescuer's Choice in T2, which is what I said, lol.
-
Last I heard, you could not do that in T1.
-
At any rate, Burial Shroud has nothing to do with repelling anyone, which is what Red Warrior keeps talking about, so that's why I'm mentioning that again.
It seems we'll need an Elder to solve the "mechanism" question.
-
Claiming that things are not resolved doesn't make them resolved. As of right now, if you have access to a Lost Soul in T1 with your own Burial Shroud up, you cannot enter battle. You must start the battle as a battle challenge, no matter what. With that in mind, the question that must be answered is does Burial Shroud restrict the player from making a rescue attempt or being in a rescue attempt? If the former, then the way you've described would indeed be the way it works. If it's the latter, then the heroes should get get kicked out.
-
Restrict stops a player from doing something. In that regard, it's more like a prevent than an interrupt. I can play a set aside enhancement and then activate CwD and it won't undo the card I already played. Similarly, Shroud's restrict shouldn't undo a battle that's already in progress (i.e.: by kicking anyone out of battle). I have not seen anyone play it as kicking anyone out, it doesn't make logical sense for it to do that, so that's where I'm coming from. Restrict is not, and imho should not be, a battle winner.
-
Restrict stops a player from doing something. In that regard, it's more like a prevent than an interrupt. I can play a set aside enhancement and then activate CwD and it won't undo the card I already played. Similarly, Shroud's restrict shouldn't undo a battle that's already in progress (i.e.: by kicking anyone out of battle). I have not seen anyone play it as kicking anyone out, it doesn't make logical sense for it to do that, so that's where I'm coming from. Restrict is not, and imho should not be, a battle winner.
The thing is you're misreading the restrict. You aren't being restricted from winning a LS, you're being restricted from making a rescue attempt. If Burial Shroud is active and non-negated you can not make a rescue attempt. If your Battle Challenge turns into a Rescue attempt then you can not continue as you can not make a rescue attempt. If you can do A but not B, then the minute A turns into B, you're done as you can no longer continue.
You can't read a card that says you can't make a rescue attempt and say that it means you can't win a Lost Soul and still say you want simplicity and clarity. It's already simple and clear, which is something we all say that we want, The holder can not make a Rescue Attempt. No exceptions. No loopholes.
-
Restrict stops a player from doing something. In that regard, it's more like a prevent than an interrupt. I can play a set aside enhancement and then activate CwD and it won't undo the card I already played. Similarly, Shroud's restrict shouldn't undo a battle that's already in progress (i.e.: by kicking anyone out of battle). I have not seen anyone play it as kicking anyone out, it doesn't make logical sense for it to do that, so that's where I'm coming from. Restrict is not, and imho should not be, a battle winner.
It makes perfect sense to do that depending on what Burial Shroud is restricting. I know what a restrict does, but if BS is restricting the player from being in a rescue attempt, how do you propose that that be solved? There is nothing in Burial Shroud's wording that keeps a player from rescuing a lost soul, so if it works the way you're proposing, if a battle challenge turns into a rescue attempt, there's nothing keeping me from a successful rescue attempt.
-
This thread's getting pretty circular, but it seems to me that the key word is "making." Given that the REG uses "initiate" to indicate that a Rescue Attempt is starting I would say that a player is making a rescue attempt at all points where they have access to a lost soul. Thus, Burial Shroud could be interpreted as restricting the holder from performing any action that changes a BC to a RA, including:
-Playing HT
-Soul Gen cards like Joseph Before Pharaohs
-Using the Hopper
This last one would be interesting as Burial Shroud is restricting a player from drawing, but only a particular card.
-
This thread's getting pretty circular, but it seems to me that the key word is "making." Given that the REG uses "initiate" to indicate that a Rescue Attempt is starting I would say that a player is making a rescue attempt at all points where they have access to a lost soul. Thus, Burial Shroud could be interpreted as restricting the holder from performing any action that changes a BC to a RA, including:
-Playing HT
-Soul Gen cards like Joseph Before Pharaohs
-Using the Hopper
This last one would be interesting as Burial Shroud is restricting a player from drawing, but only a particular card.
I can see your point here, but wouldn't it simplify matters to just let the cards play as they will but once the BC becomes a RA it ends, rather than make the artifact stop certain cards being played in certain ways at certain times?
-
;D Scott, I was getting ready to post a couple quotes from people who were still disagreeing that Shroud works the way you and I think and then Praeceps and Chronic made their post. I'll save the page space...
Scott,
I'm not trying to mix repel and restrict, "repel" is a nickname for the aforementioned interpretation of Burial Shroud that leads to an "end battle - return characters" situation. I agree with your stance.
Praeceps and Chronic,
You are correct in saying that, as written, Burial Shroud does not restrict a "soul from being rescued". I admittedly am effectively proposing to a "play as" to avoid the above confusion of a "battle winner" situation.
Kittens
That makes the best use of the wording as is... but creates some funny situations. "I interrupt the battle and draw one, two, thr.... o wait, that's the hopper... do I draw 2? 0?" or "I drew the revealer, your top two please... oh, one is a soul? put the soul on top and the other on the bottom... er... both on the top?"
-
This thread's getting pretty circular, but it seems to me that the key word is "making." Given that the REG uses "initiate" to indicate that a Rescue Attempt is starting I would say that a player is making a rescue attempt at all points where they have access to a lost soul. Thus, Burial Shroud could be interpreted as restricting the holder from performing any action that changes a BC to a RA, including:
-Playing HT
-Soul Gen cards like Joseph Before Pharaohs
-Using the Hopper
This last one would be interesting as Burial Shroud is restricting a player from drawing, but only a particular card.
I can see your point here, but wouldn't it simplify matters to just let the cards play as they will but once the BC becomes a RA it ends, rather than make the artifact stop certain cards being played in certain ways at certain times?
Who said anything about simplicity? We're here to make sure the cards play exactly as they should, unless it becomes OP'd.
Come to think of it, Burial Shroud wouldn't restrict me from drawing the Hopper/Revealer, just playing them, so I should keep them in my hand.
-
I think the simplest interpretation for the restrict on BS would be something to the effect of: "holder cannot begin a rescue attempt, and holder's battle challenge cannot become a rescue attempt regardless of other abilities." That way there isn't confusion about "what if I draw Hopper" as well as the battle not having to stop or kick anyone out. As far as I had ruled it/seen it ruled, this is already how it was being treated, so I don't think much of anything would actually change if this was used, just that it would clarify when ruling questions like this thread came up.
Is there anything anyone can find that would be a problem with this interpretation?
-
I think a better definition would be, "holder cannot begin a rescue attempt, and is restricted from rescuing a Lost Soul".
-
Is this still going? Can we just get an elder ruling already? Any time a ruling question moves to a second page it should go to elder ruling as it's obviously not something the community can come to a consensus on.
-
Come to think of it, Burial Shroud wouldn't restrict me from drawing the Hopper/Revealer, just playing them, so I should keep them in my hand.
:rollin:
You can keep Hopper but you have to play Revealer. If revealer doesn't pop a soul you're fine. If it does, it stays on deck...
Nope, we definitely don't need to resolve the issues at hand with this ruling ;)
Is there anything anyone can find that would be a problem with this interpretation?
Is this still going? Can we just get an elder ruling already?
That's why I've continuously bumped this thread. No definitive answers.
-
Hopefully we can get Elder input so that this gets a definitive answer one way or another.
I think a better definition would be, "holder cannot begin a rescue attempt, and is restricted from rescuing a Lost Soul".
The problem I see with that is it would give the holder the ability to make a battle challenge even if they would have had access to a soul. I think it's better to still require that they not have access before they can use one of their hero's abilities. :2cents:
-
We were wrestling with wording clear back at page 4, here was my "version 1.3" from that page:
Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder's hero gains access to a lost soul, holder is restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution. Battle is considered a battle challenge regardless of access. Limit Twice.
The "battle is considered a battle challenge" was to get away from cards like Primary Objective and ANB Errata that function only when you are making a "rescue attempt" by name.
-
Scenario 1: Lost souls in LoB I don't initially have access to. I choose a lost soul I don't have access to.
Scenario 2: No lost souls in LoB to choose. I choose none of them which is basically choosing a lost soul I don't have access to.
Scenario 3: Lost souls in LoB, all of which I have access to. I choose none of them which is basically choosing a lost soul I don't have access to.
Scenarios 1 & 2 follow the rules and are how Type 2 have been played for eons. Scenario 3 is a valid scenario but the rules are little waffling on it. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be valid. It's Rescuer's Choice after all. I should have the choice of not making a choice.
Does Stamp need Mr. Hiatus to take him to T2 school?
These scenarios are ridiculous.
Use specific examples.
Me rewording your scenario 1: The only lost souls my opponent has are the */4, N.T. only, FRP in first round, and Female only. I do not RA with Benjamin, but I battle challenge with Benjamin. I have no lost soul access, therefore do NOT make a RA, or "choose" a lost soul I do not have access to. You do not choose a lost soul when declaring a BC when you have no access. Now if you DID have one generic lost soul out, you could choose the N.T. only, but only when access is available do you choose. If you have to say something is basically doing something else, then a) it isn't and b) you can not use it in another example.
Your scenario 2 is beyond ridiculous. I can not even reword this, only explain to you the craziness of your example. You do not choose none when there is none. You STATE a BC, meaning you do not have access, or you chose one you did not have access to. Choosing none is NOT "basically" choosing a lost soul which does not exist. It is "basically" stating a BC.
Scenario 3: Should be throw out due to scenario 2 and the usage of basically to describe rulings. If there are lost souls out in T2, and you attack with a hero who has access to EVERY lost soul, then you can not "basically" choose no lost soul and make it a battle challenge. And once again, choosing no lost soul, because that would not be choosing, choosing is targeting, you have to target your lost soul, is not the same thing as going for a lost soul you have no access to.
So to sum it up: My rewording of Scenario 1 is fine. If you have no access to the lost souls out, you declare a BC. You do NOT choose no lost soul.
My rewording of Scenario 2: State a BC when you have no access, if you do have access to a lost soul, but do not wish to go for it and you have other targets to choose from, you choose the lost soul which you do not have access to making it a BC. In type 1 this would not work, only in T2.
My rewording of Scenario 3: If you have access to a lost soul, there is no such thing as a BC, only a RA.
To completely sum it up: If you attack and your opponent has all generic lost souls, you can not declare a BC. If Burial Shroud is active against you during this, then you can not step into battle.
Do I need to clarify on the type 1 questions too?
-
Is it not true that in T1, when a player initiates a battle challenge that if, during the course of battle, a rescue-able soul enters the opponent's LoB, the battle now continues as a rescue attempt? Meaning, there is no choice, there is no "may;" the battle is now a RA. (See Definition of Rescue Attempt below)
THAT is the problem with Burial Shroud as it stands. There is no provision in the ability or the rules of the game where you can "elect" to continue the battle as a battle challenge. I know, I know, that is how it has been ruled and it is the most popular way. The problem is there is no support for it at this point.
The problem lies in this definition right here:
Rescue Attempt
A rescue attempt is the effort to recover a Lost Soul from the Land of Bondage by battle. A rescue attempt battle is initiated when a Hero is placed in the Field of Battle. The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle. A player is allowed one rescue attempt per turn unless a card states otherwise.
This one sentence makes the current way BS has been ruled in T1 technically incorrect. (This has all been stated before)
Possible SOLUTIONS:
The battle may be considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.
--OR--
The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle; if Rescuer is restricted from making a Rescue Attempt, battle must continue as a battle challenge and a lost soul cannot be rescued.
-
You have always been able to choose a lost soul you don't have access to even if there are no other eligible lost souls. You say it's a battle challenge so you cannot choose but choosing the star four over a generic lost soul is still a battle challenge so how can you choose in that situation but not the other :dunno: In type 2 Rescue Choice has nothing to do with Rescue attempts really, it has every thing to do with what lost soul I am want to try and rescue. The quote in the REG is a bad quote.
-
Does Stamp need Mr. Hiatus to take him to T2 school?
Naw, I'm being homeschooled with the Hobbit... ;)
You have always been able to choose a lost soul you don't have access to even if there are no other eligible lost souls. You say it's a battle challenge so you cannot choose but choosing the star four over a generic lost soul is still a battle challenge so how can you choose in that situation but not the other? In type 2 Rescue Choice has nothing to do with Rescue attempts really, it has every thing to do with what lost soul I am want to try and rescue. The quote in the REG is a bad quote.
-
I think Stamp and Hobbit were replying to Mr.Hiatus, not you Lawman.
-
Couldn't tell, my bad. Deleting as we speak haha! Guess it helps to quote people... (My last one was an "in general" to those who recently tuned in to this matter and were repeating the cycle) :o
-
Is it not true that in T1, when a player initiates a battle challenge that if, during the course of battle, a rescue-able soul enters the opponent's LoB, the battle now continues as a rescue attempt? Meaning, there is no choice, there is no "may;" the battle is now a RA. (See Definition of Rescue Attempt below)
Correct.
I said what Hobbit said...
Like I said, you attack with Benjamin having no lost soul access, you still choose, just it's a battle challenge.
-
This is what confused me:
I do not RA with Benjamin, but I battle challenge with Benjamin. I have no lost soul access, therefore do NOT make a RA, or "choose" a lost soul I do not have access to. You do not choose a lost soul when declaring a BC when you have no access..
-
That was in regard to no lost soul access. I guess you are still right that you would choose which one, regardless of access.
-
Is it not true that in T1, when a player initiates a battle challenge that if, during the course of battle, a rescue-able soul enters the opponent's LoB, the battle now continues as a rescue attempt? Meaning, there is no choice, there is no "may;" the battle is now a RA. (See Definition of Rescue Attempt below)
Correct.
I said what Hobbit said...
Like I said, you attack with Benjamin having no lost soul access, you still choose, just it's a battle challenge.
So then, an "additional" modification to Rescuer's Choice could be the option to Declare a Battle Challenge (Whether there are souls or not) and once that decision has been made, you cannot change it? i.e. Not choosing a soul.
-
I got a PM asking for elder input on this topic so I've only read the original question. I apologize that I don't have time to read through 100+ posts.
The question is answered in this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/burial-shroud-25217/msg397962/#msg397962) by SomeKittens and Pol with elder confirmation from Justin.
The question is also answered again here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/burial-shroud-15437/msg262523/#msg262523) by Bryon, Schaef and myself.
Hopefully that is enough to answer the question, or simply confirm the answer(s) you've already received. :)
Blessings,
Gabe
-
It seems the easiest solution for all situations would be to errata Burial Shroud to say: "Restrict players from making Rescue Attempts or Battle Challenges this round. May be used Twice." I read this thread all the while thinking of all the various situations that could come up, and I came to the conclusion that it was too confusing. I know that historically you have never been able to make a battle challenge if a Hero that you attack with has access to a Lost Soul, but that rule was put into place long before cards like Woman at the Well, Hopper, The Generous Widow, etc. made it very likely that a Lost Soul would become available mid-BC (I guess Hur was one of the first in that regard). I just don't see a better solution that fits all the various issues that come up. My second solution would be to get rid of the rule that you cannot battle challenge if an initial Hero, either the first attacker or a Hero who was banded in as a result of the first attacker's ability, has access to a Lost Soul, but that rule has been around for quite some time.
If I had to make a decision with no errata, here's how I would answer the issues that I see:
1) You can begin a Battle Challenge with Heroes that have no access, even if those Heroes may cause an LS to become available. So you can BC with Woman at the Well and fetch an LS with Shroud up.
2) If an LS becomes available, Shroud's SA will override the game rule of a BC becoming an RA with an available LS; the battle will remain a BC. Thus, no LS can be rescued. The precedent for this is seen in both Primary Objective and Ambush the City, where Heroes can be involved in Battle Challenges even though they may have access to a Lost Soul.
3) Shroud doesn't do anything else in that situation except override the usual rule. It doesn't kick people out of battle, nor does it stop things like Hopper/HT/etc. from functioning as normal.
4) You cannot begin a Battle Challenge with any Hero that has access to a Lost Soul as the initial attacker, or any character brought in by the initial attacker via a banding ability, with Shroud up. This is where the most confusing situations can arise. For example, the only LS my opponent has is the Fem. only. I can BC with Oak and exchange for Deborah, but I can't BC with Adam banded to Eve. Banding has always been a unique ability anyway, so I think the exception could be passable, though it is really only based on the way things have been in the past and is probably not the best way. An easier solution would be you can begin a BC as long as the initial attacker has no access, and anyone else brought in could have access with no effect. However, either of the two solutions I proposed above would be even easier, IMO.
As for the T2 situation, I would argue that the only time that you cannot select a Lost Soul for RC is when your opponent has no Lost Souls in his territory. Otherwise, you can always select any Lost Soul regardless of access, and the battle is a BC until the LS is available. This is however my opinion so take it FWIW, but that is always how I've understood it. As for Burial Shroud in T2, I think the same idea as 4 would apply, regardless of which LS you picked. I.e, if your opponent has the Female only and NT only out, you cannot pick the NT only then BC with Rachel, similarly you cannot pick the NT only and BC with Adam banded to Eve. However, again, I think that the complexity of the situation merits a more concrete approach, i.e. one of the two suggestions I made above.
Perhaps an errata to Shroud would be complained about and would make it considerably weaker, but it would solve pretty much every issue that I can think of regarding it. I will likely repost this in the Elder's side of the board to see if that's a solution we can use, or alternatively, if we can institute a rule that Battle Challenges can be made at any time regardless of access, but I can already think of some problems that could cause.
-
I don't like your proposed errata, because it takes away part of what the card was supposed to do for no reason. Surely there's a way to errata it to answer all further questions without nerfing it?
-
I don't like your proposed errata, because it takes away part of what the card was supposed to do for no reason. Surely there's a way to errata it to answer all further questions without nerfing it?
Actually, it takes away part of what the card ended up doing but was probably not intended to do. I'm fairly certain Burial Shroud was meant to allow no battles, but like many other Apostles' cards, had bad wording that turned out to mean something different. If you can think of a better errata, feel free to propose it, but I can't think of one that isn't paragraphs long that could cover all the bases.
-
I got a PM asking for elder input on this topic so I've only read the original question. I apologize that I don't have time to read through 100+ posts.
The question is answered in this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/burial-shroud-25217/msg397962/#msg397962) by SomeKittens and Pol with elder confirmation from Justin.
The question is also answered again here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/burial-shroud-15437/msg262523/#msg262523) by Bryon, Schaef and myself.
Hopefully that is enough to answer the question, or simply confirm the answer(s) you've already received. :)
Blessings,
Gabe
Thanks Gabe, but THAT question morphed into a much more complex series of questions which Prof. A. has already addressed and promised to bring up on the "dark side" of the boards.
-
"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."
-
"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."
The strike-through phrase has to be modified or eliminated because it still leaves room for questioning what happens when a BC becomes a RA.
(Unless you wish to follow the Prof's steps for non-errata...)
-
"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."
The strike-through phrase has to be modified or eliminated because it still leaves room for questioning what happens when a BC becomes a RA.
(Unless you wish to follow the Prof's steps for non-errata...)
No it doesn't. It clearly says "starting a rescue attempt," which doesn't leave much margin there. The middle part "or rescuing a soul with a hero" helps clarify that a soul still cannot be rescued.
-
"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."
The strike-through phrase has to be modified or eliminated because it still leaves room for questioning what happens when a BC becomes a RA.
(Unless you wish to follow the Prof's steps for non-errata...)
No it doesn't. It clearly says "starting a rescue attempt," which doesn't leave much margin there. The middle part "or rescuing a soul with a hero" helps clarify that a soul still cannot be rescued.
It may not be much, but there is a margin... If the BC becomes a RA, one could reasonably argue that you are now starting a rescue attempt. However, if you make it:
"Restrict holder from starting battle as a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice." Now the margin is eliminated.
Option 2:
"Restrict holder from starting battle as a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul as a result of battle. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice." Here, you cannot question the intent.
-
Clearly the best way to solve this issue is to just ban Mayhem. ::)
-
Clearly the best way to solve this issue is to just ban Mayhem. ::)
I highly Doubt that would happen!
-
Clearly the best way to solve this issue is to just ban Mayhem. ::)
I highly Doubt that would happen!
Woah now, we're libel to Split an Altar with that kind of talk ;D
I'll post this AGAIN for consideration (hasn't changed in 4 pages...) Remember, not Errata, just interpretation:
Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder's hero gains access to a lost soul, holder is restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution. Battle is considered a battle challenge regardless of access. Limit Twice.
Rulebook language "initiate" is used to clarify this is not a mid-battle change, but the act of beginning a battle. The "if holder gains" clause covers Lawman's "margin" (noted, good thoughts). And, again, the "considered" phrase keeps ANB, Primary Objective, etc. from working because battle is not considered "a rescue attempt".
-
Clearly the best way to solve this issue is to just ban Mayhem. ::)
I highly Doubt that would happen!
Woah now, we're libel to Split an Altar with that kind of talk ;D
I'll post this AGAIN for consideration (hasn't changed in 4 pages...) Remember, not Errata, just interpretation:
Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder's hero gains access to a lost soul, holder is restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution. Battle is considered a battle challenge regardless of access. Limit Twice.
Rulebook language "initiate" is used to clarify this is not a mid-battle change, but the act of beginning a battle. The "if holder gains" clause covers Lawman's "margin" (noted, good thoughts). And, again, the "considered" phrase keeps ANB, Primary Objective, etc. from working because battle is not considered "a rescue attempt".
With a play as that long, it would seem our hopes for redeeming Burial Shroud are rapidly Falling Away...
-
"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."
This is the best solution I've seen so far. It'd also lead to the fun situation where I BC, it turns into a RA, so I DoN my own Burial Shroud.
-
"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."
Option 2:
"Restrict holder from starting battle as a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul as a result of battle. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice." Here, you cannot question the intent.
Let's combine the two so as to avoid any Primary Objective type situations/arguments.
-
"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul as a result of battle. Restrict opponents from attacking holder. May be used twice."
If there's any more argument about this they can just be pointed to this thread, or we can just note that it's been established how it works.
-
The problem is the fact that under the current rules, you can't begin a battle challenge with LS's available. It is still unclear what that would mean in certain situations. If the only LS available is the female only, could you "battle challenge" with Simeon and band to Anna? Could you "battle challenge" with AutO and exchange for Deborah? I could see arguments for or against either situation, and there are probably a whole host of other situations that could come up.
There's also the question of what happens if Burial Shroud is activated mid-battle, like with Meal in Emmaus. That has been ruled to work in a way that you could still rescue a LS during your battle that you activated it. Of course, that was back when Restrict wasn't defined and Burial Shroud was deemed a Prevent, so it may have changed.
-
If the Lost Soul is active that says no Lost Souls may be rescued by a player with more than 10 cards in their hand, you could start a battle challenge with any hero that can band (while you have 11 cards in hand), then band to a hero in your hand to bring you down to 10.
Whatever the decision is, that's fine, but it should be decided since this has been brought up a few times (as noted by Gabe) and has yet to be finalized.
-
The problem is the fact that under the current rules, you can't begin a battle challenge with LS's available. It is still unclear what that would mean in certain situations. If the only LS available is the female only, could you "battle challenge" with Simeon and band to Anna? Could you "battle challenge" with AutO and exchange for Deborah? I could see arguments for or against either situation, and there are probably a whole host of other situations that could come up.
There's also the question of what happens if Burial Shroud is activated mid-battle, like with Meal in Emmaus. That has been ruled to work in a way that you could still rescue a LS during your battle that you activated it. Of course, that was back when Restrict wasn't defined and Burial Shroud was deemed a Prevent, so it may have changed.
May I make a request that the Rescuer's Choice definition is cleaned up, too, since Burial Shroud revealed the loopholes?
Thanks! :)
-
Well, since you asked so nicely, I'll see what I can do...see what progress you can make when you're not ornery? ;)
-
Well, since you asked so nicely, I'll see what I can do...see what progress you can make when you're not ornery? ;)
I took my meds today.
;D
-
I got a PM asking for elder input on this topic so I've only read the original question. I apologize that I don't have time to read through 100+ posts.
The question is answered in this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/burial-shroud-25217/msg397962/#msg397962) by SomeKittens and Pol with elder confirmation from Justin.
The question is also answered again here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/burial-shroud-15437/msg262523/#msg262523) by Bryon, Schaef and myself.
Hopefully that is enough to answer the question, or simply confirm the answer(s) you've already received. :)
Blessings,
Gabe
As a newer player I can see how these threads have answered the basic questions of how BS works, however I don't feel there is a complete clarification of the issues discussed in the 6 pages prior to this post nor the 3 pages following it. The "what if's" have not been answered. I understand the desire to get the full potential out of a card and use it to your best benefit, thus interpretation of terms and wording style becomes important.... that being said, I believe the true nature of the card was to protect the holder from attack for a round and in turn for that protection the holder gives up his right to rescue a lost soul for said round as well. I understand why the holder may wish to Battle challenge and use that battle to do certain strategic things but barring negating BS during the battle challenge, I don't believe the initial purpose of the card should be able to be manipulated just to benefit the holder.
-
The problem is the fact that under the current rules, you can't begin a battle challenge with LS's available. It is still unclear what that would mean in certain situations. If the only LS available is the female only, could you "battle challenge" with Simeon and band to Anna? Could you "battle challenge" with AutO and exchange for Deborah? I could see arguments for or against either situation, and there are probably a whole host of other situations that could come up.
There's also the question of what happens if Burial Shroud is activated mid-battle, like with Meal in Emmaus. That has been ruled to work in a way that you could still rescue a LS during your battle that you activated it. Of course, that was back when Restrict wasn't defined and Burial Shroud was deemed a Prevent, so it may have changed.
Part 1b of the Proposal covers both of those situations. Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul as a result of battle. Makes it simple. No matter what changes after the BC is issued, if BS isn't negated you don't get a lost soul as a result of any action taken during the battle excepting SoG/NJ as they don't count as a RA. This would work no matter what point in the battle BS was activated.
-
Well, since you asked so nicely, I'll see what I can do...see what progress you can make when you're not ornery? ;)
I mean no disrespect or annoyance, but can we please have an update? :prayer: Even if the update is "we haven't talked about this yet". (Believe me, I understand the definition of "busy", and it does not come off as an excuse to me. Life can be crazy) ;)
Again, any new readers/elders to this thread need not start at the beginning, just a page or 2 back. I think there have been 5+ summaries on the issues given in the thread (so I'm not adding another!). If it helps to know that there is a REASON we want to know this, it very much affects whether or not I would use Shroud in a current Type II project deck...