Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Creation of the World: Take all heroes having a Genesis reference out of your draw pile and band them into the field of battle.

If there are no Genesis heroes in my draw pile, can I still use Creation of the World to band to any Genesis heroes in my territory? I ask because CotW would pull all heroes out of deck, put them in territory, then band to them. If you have no more in deck, can you still look, then band to whatever ones are already in territory, or would it be a no due to the card specifying search then band the first time it is played?

I don't think you can, because COTW specifies "them" referencing the heroes you found in draw pile.

I don't think you can, because COTW specifies "them" referencing the heroes you found in draw pile.

This is correct.

CotW would pull all heroes out of deck, then put them in territory

This is not.  Searches default to hand.

does hand limit apply here before adding to battle?

Quote from: kariusvega on July 03, 2016, 02:39:40 PM

does hand limit apply here before adding to battle?

The way Creation of the World is worded, it shouldn't apply.  It just says to band your Genesis heroes from deck into battle.

You can't band to a target in deck, I think this is an interesting question I hadn't considered before.  We're working on better definitions for where things go when, but this is one that we will have to consider.  I would say that, based on the current rules, the characters have to go through hand, but I've never seen it played with that limitation in mind.  Other Judges, thoughts?

I think the strife that has been running through the Rulings section for some time now, and the reason that all of a sudden no one knows how Redemption cards work and Elders are now constantly being "corrected" on how cards work, is because of mindset number 2.  It's a legalistic way to approach card abilities, and is what is advancing the complexity of this game to the point where it's getting ridiculous. 

QFT

I can totally agree with the sentiment, there's definitely tension lately. But not being an Elder, probably not even a REP anymore since I've only been to 3 tournaments in the last 3 years, even I don't really think it's that simple. A game needs consistency, and bottom up rulings (i.e.: ruling cards based on intention on an individual basis) don't accomplish that very well. You look at other major CCGs and they have very precise rules and very precise wording, and even then sometimes they still have pages and pages of how to properly resolve interactions and abilities and such (*cough* MtG *cough*).

Wording evolves over time in any game, most accomplish dealing with this by either having ban/limited lists or set rotations. Redemption has neither and actually prints new cards to encourage use of older cards (which is great!). However, then you have situations where the playtesters missed an error, or worded something in a way they thought meant one thing but later is shown to mean something different, or just where they tried to clean up old wording and inadvertently added confusion. It's understandable, they're human just like the rest of us. But inevitably it can cause uncertainty about how a card actually works, or whether or not it works at all.

If we leave everything to "intention" it muddies the water for any playtesters that thought it worked one way versus ones that thought it worked the other way, not to mention for hosts/playgroup leaders/players. How are John Doe and Sarah Smith who find Redemption cards in their Friendly Local Game Store supposed to know whether a card works one way or another? They only have the rules in the starter decks, or perhaps the REG if they're industrious and search online, to go off of. This is why the rules need to be as clear and all-encompassing as possible. IMO there should be as little room for doubt or personal interpretation as possible otherwise you end up with John and Sarah finding out about Nationals, driving or flying all the way there with their decks, just to find out their offense or defense doesn't work because X card is treated as "intended" rather than how the rules explain it should work. John and Sarah's playgroup could have had locals and districts with the ruling the other way and it could have affected results any number of times.

Now I'm not saying that CotW shouldn't work how it's always worked. I'm not saying that at all. In fact Genesis is one of my favorite offense themes so I'd very much like CotW to continue working. I just don't think we should be making "intention" exceptions for specific cards. We shouldn't create an exception for it simply to allow it to continue working as intended, but that doesn't mean the rules can't be reviewed to see why using "band" is all of a sudden problematic. If it's deemed that "band" needs to retain its current definition and restrictions for whatever reason, then CotW could potentially be the casualty of that. But I personally do not believe any exceptions should be made for CotW, or any other card, based simply on intention.

Sorry for the long post. Didn't intend to write a novella, lol.

*instaposted by Redoubter*

I really feel what everyone is saying here in terms of card abilities and intentions but I also think it's good to have a strong rooting in rulings which really come back to our relationships with each other.

We can't become bitter with our brothers we are all playing this game together for a powerful ministry!

I think the strife that has been running through the Rulings section for some time now, and the reason that all of a sudden no one knows how Redemption cards work and Elders are now constantly being "corrected" on how cards work, is because of mindset number 2.  It's a legalistic way to approach card abilities, and is what is advancing the complexity of this game to the point where it's getting ridiculous. 

I can't have a conversation with someone learning the game and tell them that their Genesis heroes pulled from CotW have to go through hand and therefore are subject to the hand limit, simply because it has the word "band" instead of "add to battle".  I just can't.  The cards need to be easy to understand (as much as possible at least), and they need to be straightforward.  Cards need to do what it looks like they do without invoking 7 pages of rules from the REG. 

I'm glad that I am not the only one that feels this way. I have found myself unable to explain current rulings to my middle-school players, and frankly I'm not sure I understand them myself. 

FTR, please don't take the ruling that CotW characters go to hand as official. The elders will convene and respond with an official answer. Possibly as soon as Friday.

The easiest way to make rules clear is to not make unnecessary rules.  Every rule created is one more that needs to be known, is open to misinterpretation, etc.

The problem with this is that most of the "unnecessary rules" you refer to have been around for a long time, just not applied appropriately or uniformly, or not realized by some of the playerbase.  A lot of issues come up because of newer cards as well.

We've been doing a better job of that in recent times of making rulings more uniform and correct, but that also includes changing those "unnecessary" bits where we find them.  Nothing has changed or been added or "created" here recently in terms of the rules, so that doesn't really apply here (or to most of the things debated recently), and we look for feedback on what to change to make things clearer and/or better in the rules all the time.

My feeling on all of this is we are trying to take the current state of the game and change as little as we can to try and solve every issue that arises which causes confusion. Redemption rules have never been "easy to understand" for newer players and that I think is the big issue. I would argue that implied abilities be eliminated and abiliities be specific to their names and not functions and abilities be reworked so that cards abilities function as the card reads without lawyer like debates over rulings. I would also say that cards that cannot do this easily or without a simple errata be put on a ban list. There would maybe be a handful of cards on this list like ANB. Any card that is on the ban list could be reprinted to a functioning version as intended or not at all. Is that a lot of change. Yes. Are plenty of people against it. Yes. Does the game function currently as is. Yes. But the way I look at it is one must have specialized knowledge and almost a degree in redemption rulings to be able to make sense of scenarios which I feel is bad for the game. I'm fine with the way things are currently because I've been playing the game long enough to know/accept the state of the current game. I feel that the rules as is though could be driving away potential players due to it being too complicated and not worth their time to figure out is all. I applaud the elders for making the rules as functional and coherent as possible. But I think a bit of simplification might be needed and not more additions to the rules to clarify them. Sorry for the rant or if it is a bit off topic.

What would have held and what was held before are two different things and it speaks to the frustration that everyone is feeling on both sides of this argument.