Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Hanno102 on January 18, 2012, 06:25:34 PM
-
From the Reg:
Susanna:
Play As: Search the top X cards of deck for any one card. Holder may place it in hand. Place the rest beneath deck. Cannot be negated.
Divination:
Play As: If used by a Magician, search the top six cards of deck for one evil card and place in hand or add to battle. Place the rest on the top and/or bottom of deck in any order. Cannot be interrupted.
According to these play as, both Susanna and Divination are considered search abilities, and as such are stopped by Nazareth. Two questions:
1. Was this a recent change? I don't particularly recall it.
2. Wouldn't this technically be an Errata? I've always played, and been instructed to play Susanna as a reveal ability, getting around both Nazareth and Hezekiah's Signet Ring.
-
They're both actually look abilities. The REG is wrong.
-
What Sauce said. Disregard errata disguised as play as.
-
I agree with Sauce & Kittens.
-
I agree with Sauce, Kittens, and Red Wing.
As an additional question, who exactly was the person who wrote all these play-as'? I've heard about them for at least a year, probably two or three, and I've never actually heard the origin story. Did Bryon go crazy one day and type them all out while laughing maniacally?
-
It could be the result of a script gone wrong.
-
I think it's the product of trying to make the REG more searchable by adding the keywords to more cards.
-
Alex is correct. And when the Play As was added, Susy was considered a search ability, but it has since been clarified that search is only reserved for either the entire draw pile or entire discard pile, and only if you are searching for a card. If it's only a specific number of cards you are viewing (like Susy or Divination) or if you are just looking at the deck without shuffling (like John Promo) it's a Look ability, not a Search.
-
Alex is correct. And when the Play As was added, Susy was considered a search ability, but it has since been clarified that search is only reserved for either the entire draw pile or entire discard pile, and only if you are searching for a card. If it's only a specific number of cards you are viewing (like Susy or Divination) or if you are just looking at the deck without shuffling (like John Promo) it's a Look ability, not a Search.
If you take a card into hand per Divination do you have to reveal it?
Feel free to add four pages of discussion on this topic.
-
Yes.
I'm not going to get into the whole argument as to why one is a search and the other is a look + take ability.
-
Yes.
Why?
We reveal searched for cards because of a game rule...
Instant Abilities > Search
Special Conditions
If an ability that is paired with a search ability targets a specific type of card, reveal the targeted card before carrying out the paired ability.
Divination--for example--is not a search ability nor is it paired with a search ability. Given that there is no similar reveal rule for "look" or "take" special abilities, you do not have to reveal a card taken into hand by Divination. Correct?
I'm not going to get into the whole argument as to why one is a search and the other is a look + take ability.
I accept that they are different abilities. Hence my question.
-
Yes.
Why?
Because you have to prove you took the card you were allowed to and not, for example, SOG.
-
Because you have to prove you took the card you were allowed to and not, for example, SOG.
There is no rule saying you have to prove the card you took was allowed, that's only for searches. In fact, revealing it is actually against the rules I believe.
-
Because you have to prove you took the card you were allowed to and not, for example, SOG.
There is no rule saying you have to prove the card you took was allowed, that's only for searches. In fact, revealing it is actually against the rules I believe.
How is it against the rules to reveal it? What rule says you can't reveal cards?
-
You can reveal in Teams, as long as it's universal.
-
I was told you can't reveal even if it was universal. Multiple times, in fact.
-
Alex is correct. And when the Play As was added, Susy was considered a search ability, but it has since been clarified that search is only reserved for either the entire draw pile or entire discard pile, and only if you are searching for a card. If it's only a specific number of cards you are viewing (like Susy or Divination) or if you are just looking at the deck without shuffling (like John Promo) it's a Look ability, not a Search.
If you take a card into hand per Divination do you have to reveal it?
Feel free to add four pages of discussion on this topic.
Ooh, goody, another thread where common sense is thrown out with the bath water. Hold on! I need to go make some more popcorn and refill my soda.
:P
-
By whom Alan?
I'm 99% sure that even if such a rule doesn't exist, the other Elders and I will create one for it. I know here in Rochester we've always revealed the Evil card that we grab. We did the same at Boston Nationals 2 years ago.
-
Oh, I didn't see Randall said teams. I know you can reveal in teams, I was talking about multiplayer (and I assume it would apply to 2p also). My apologies.
I have no idea, this was a few years ago. I want to say Bany told me that, but I'm not sure. I also know I also posted a thread on it, but I can't seem to find it. I did find YMT mentioning an appropriate section of the REG here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/table-talkrevealing-hand/msg419610/#msg419610), but he didn't link/quote and I can't find what he was referring to.
-
Wait, everyone!
I just had a brainstorm.
How about we just make a simple rule to reveal anything that comes from the deck? We're almost to that point anyway. Check me if I'm wrong, but I believe at this point drawing and exchanges(??) are the only actions that don't currently reveal...well, and the exception for Search and False Peace (and I'm enjoying the irony of the current rule now - reveal any card obtained with a search, except of course the card actually entitled Search, lol).
So whaddyathink? ::) I guess that might tip the tables on the current power structure, what with Rainman-types having the edge, but overall who could argue with such a beautiful solution?!?
I am completely serious. :P
-
Yes.
Why?
Because you have to prove you took the card you were allowed to and not, for example, SOG.
No you do not. I pointed out the specific rule that makes the reveal required for searches. There is *no* comparable rule for "taken" cards.
I'm 99% sure that even if such a rule doesn't exist, the other Elders and I will create one for it.
Why?
I know here in Rochester we've always revealed the Evil card that we grab. We did the same at Boston Nationals 2 years ago.
And for years and years we played that Everyman's Sword stopped site access abilities on heroes and that you could discard an angel to Chamber to satisfy I am Holy. Then it was pointed out that those plays was incorrect according to the rules. The fact that you have been playing Divination incorrectly for years is no reason to add a rule now.
-
Yes.
Why?
Because you have to prove you took the card you were allowed to and not, for example, SOG.
No you do not. I pointed out the specific rule that makes the reveal required for searches. There is *no* comparable rule for "taken" cards.
I'm 99% sure that even if such a rule doesn't exist, the other Elders and I will create one for it.
Why?
I know here in Rochester we've always revealed the Evil card that we grab. We did the same at Boston Nationals 2 years ago.
And for years and years we played that Everyman's Sword stopped site access abilities on heroes and that you could discard an angel to Chamber to satisfy I am Holy. Then it was pointed out that those plays was incorrect according to the rules. The fact that you have been playing Divination incorrectly for years is no reason to add a rule now.
Your two examples are slightly diferent because they deal with specific card interactions. the divination situation is a case of player accountability.
-
You always have to show the card you grab with divination.
-
Divination requires that you take a specific kind of card (evil), therefore I agree with everyone that says that you have to show your opponent that the card you take is evil.
-
Divination requires that you take a specific kind of card (evil), therefore I agree with everyone that says that you have to show your opponent that the card you take is evil.
You always have to show the card you grab with divination.
+1
-
I actually don't think I've every seen anyone reveal the card they get with Divination....
:2cents:
-
Since I have a -4 on my previous post I sense there is a slight, outside chance I'll come up with an equally agreeable post.
How about....no, that won't work...but maybe, yes...NO....yes, yes I believe it will...stop talking to yourself...well, no one else talks to me...that's because you're a Seriously Truthful And Modest Prophet...true, true...you're going to say it anyways, aren't you...you know me too well...
How about we only reveal cards that...{gasp}...say "reveal" on them?!? :o
-
How about we only reveal cards that...{gasp}...say "reveal" on them?!? :o
So every time I draw Seeker of the Lost or Strength Revealed, I have to show it to my opponents?
-
How about we only reveal cards that...{gasp}...say "reveal" on them?!? :o
So every time I draw Seeker of the Lost or Strength Revealed, I have to show it to my opponents?
Well, OBVIOUSLY you only have to reveal the strength ability on Strength Revealed. Gosh! C'mon, man. ;)
-
I don't know what is so difficult about this concept. When you search for a specific type of card, you have to reveal the card you searched for to prove you're not cheating. Don't like it? Too bad. That's what's right. That's what's fair. When you're allowed to search for any card, there is no reason for this reveal because it's not preventing cheating. I see no reason that Look abilities should not follow this same guideline. If you are looking for a specific card - the way Divination allows you to - you have to reveal it to prove you're not cheating. If it's any card that was looked for - the way Susie allows - there's no need to reveal, because you're not trying to prevent cheating. Again, that's what's right. That's what's fair.
-
I don't know what is so difficult about this concept. When you search for a specific type of card, you have to reveal the card you searched for to prove you're not cheating. Don't like it? Too bad. That's what's right. That's what's fair. When you're allowed to search for any card, there is no reason for this reveal because it's not preventing cheating. I see no reason that Look abilities should not follow this same guideline. If you are looking for a specific card - the way Divination allows you to - you have to reveal it to prove you're not cheating. If it's any card that was looked for - the way Susie allows - there's no need to reveal, because you're not trying to prevent cheating. Again, that's what's right. That's what's fair.
I also like fair. It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.
You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.
Otherwise, we may as well write up some rules to cover all the ways players can cheat with lost souls.
In fact, I decided I'll go ahead and write Parker Brothers and ask them to change their rules to make sure players always keep at least 0.5 centimeters between dwellings placed on adjoining properties. I can't count the number of times my opponent has told me there were actually four houses on Atlantic Ave rather than three.
You can, however, provide consequences. By all means, set up a separate section in the REG for the consequences of cheating. :thumbup:
-
If you cheat, you lose.
-
I also like fair. It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.
You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.
So that means you shouldn't try? Just because you cannot regulate some kinds of cheating doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate what you can. Not only is that not logical, but it tempts people (especially RLKs) to cheat because we've made it easier for them. Just because we can't stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. That's the equivalent of removing of removing the Secret Service and leaving the President unprotected. If someone is smart enough and tries hard enough, they could assassinate the President - does that mean we should make it easier for them? (I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.)
-
I don't understand why this is even an issue, removing a way that it would be very easy for someone to cheat without getting caught that has a minimal negative impact on the ability for people to be competitive and have fun in a game seems like a good idea to me. If you search or look for a specific type of card you should have to reveal it.
-
I also like fair. It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.
You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.
So that means you shouldn't try? Just because you cannot regulate some kinds of cheating doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate what you can. Not only is that not logical, but it tempts people (especially RLKs) to cheat because we've made it easier for them. Just because we can't stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. That's the equivalent of removing of removing the Secret Service and leaving the President unprotected. If someone is smart enough and tries hard enough, they could assassinate the President - does that mean we should make it easier for them? (I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.)
By all means, try. What you get is the IRS tax code, or maybe even Obamacare.
Guns tempt murderers. Repeal the 2nd amendment.
Mini-skirts tempt rapists. Pass a law to forbid mini-skirts.
Affluence tempts thieves. Outlaw affluence.
-
By all means, try. What you get is the IRS tax code, or maybe even Obamacare.
Guns tempt murderers. Repeal the 2nd amendment.
Mini-skirts tempt rapists. Pass a law to forbid mini-skirts.
Affluence tempts thieves. Outlaw affluence.
That argument has no bearing whatsoever on the current discussion. Why should we make it easier to cheat?
-
I also like fair. It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.
You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.
So that means you shouldn't try? Just because you cannot regulate some kinds of cheating doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate what you can. Not only is that not logical, but it tempts people (especially RLKs) to cheat because we've made it easier for them. Just because we can't stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. That's the equivalent of removing of removing the Secret Service and leaving the President unprotected. If someone is smart enough and tries hard enough, they could assassinate the President - does that mean we should make it easier for them? (I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.)
By all means, try. What you get is the IRS tax code, or maybe even Obamacare.
Guns tempt murderers. Repeal the 2nd amendment.
Mini-skirts tempt rapists. Pass a law to forbid mini-skirts.
Affluence tempts thieves. Outlaw affluence.
Irrational jump in discussion is irrational and stupid.
-
I also like fair. It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.
You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.
So that means you shouldn't try? Just because you cannot regulate some kinds of cheating doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate what you can. Not only is that not logical, but it tempts people (especially RLKs) to cheat because we've made it easier for them. Just because we can't stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. That's the equivalent of removing of removing the Secret Service and leaving the President unprotected. If someone is smart enough and tries hard enough, they could assassinate the President - does that mean we should make it easier for them? (I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.)
By all means, try. What you get is the IRS tax code, or maybe even Obamacare.
Guns tempt murderers. Repeal the 2nd amendment.
Mini-skirts tempt rapists. Pass a law to forbid mini-skirts.
Affluence tempts thieves. Outlaw affluence.
Irrational jump in discussion is irrational and stupid.
Common sense is not irrational or stupid. But it is not all that common.
-
I also like fair. It's bad enough I get RLKs crying at tournaments when they lose an honest game.
You. Can't. Regulate. Cheating.
So that means you shouldn't try? Just because you cannot regulate some kinds of cheating doesn't mean you shouldn't regulate what you can. Not only is that not logical, but it tempts people (especially RLKs) to cheat because we've made it easier for them. Just because we can't stop it doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder. That's the equivalent of removing of removing the Secret Service and leaving the President unprotected. If someone is smart enough and tries hard enough, they could assassinate the President - does that mean we should make it easier for them? (I DO NOT IN ANY WAY CONDONE AN ATTEMPT ON THE PRESIDENT'S LIFE. GOD BLESS AMERICA.)
By all means, try. What you get is the IRS tax code, or maybe even Obamacare.
Guns tempt murderers. Repeal the 2nd amendment.
Mini-skirts tempt rapists. Pass a law to forbid mini-skirts.
Affluence tempts thieves. Outlaw affluence.
Irrational jump in discussion is irrational and stupid.
Common sense is not irrational or stupid. But it is not all that common.
Common sense is not stupid. Making any kind of connection between making a rule to prevent cheating in a CCG and murder, rape, and theft is stupid. but just for fun let me play this game too.
So what you're saying is that we should not make a rule, we should just trust them not to cheat.
Murder is morally wrong, let's make it legal since we can obviously trust people not to do it anyways.
No means no, your conscience should keep you from raping we don't need that law.
The bible says though shalt not steal we don't need that law either.
//see what I did there.
-
Common sense is not irrational or stupid. But it is not all that common.
And neither is it in either of your previous two posts. By all means, open communication and debate is welcomed here, but your arguments have been deviating from that. Originally, you had a good point, but it was disproved. Everyone involved thinks that it's a smarter idea to reveal, rather than hide. Yes, people can cheat. Yes, they will attempt to cheat despite the attempts of the rules. However, that doesn't mean we should try to stop them. We're not doing anything near as drastic as banning, simply recognizing that the way that the majority of players have been playing is correct.
-
//see what I did there.
Yes, but I forgive you. :)
May I ask how old you are? It has nothing to do with the discussion. I am only curious.
Murder is morally wrong, let's make it legal since we can obviously trust people not to do it anyways.
Did I say legalize murder?
No means no, your conscience should keep you from raping we don't need that law.
Did I say legalize rape?
The bible says though shalt not steal we don't need that law either.
Did I blasphemy?
Common sense is not irrational or stupid. But it is not all that common.
And neither is it in either of your previous two posts. By all means, open communication and debate is welcomed here, but your arguments have been deviating from that. Originally, you had a good point, but it was disproved. Everyone involved thinks that it's a smarter idea to reveal, rather than hide. Yes, people can cheat. Yes, they will attempt to cheat despite the attempts of the rules. However, that doesn't mean we should try to stop them. We're not doing anything near as drastic as banning, simply recognizing that the way that the majority of players have been playing is correct.
I know how old Randall is. ;) And I forgive him, too.
Nobody's light bulb has switched on yet, sadly. (Actually, if Nobody signed on once in awhile we'd know for sure. ;) )
As I said, common sense isn't all that common.
-
Did I say legalize murder?
Did I say legalize rape?
Did I blasphemy?
No, but you did post an extremist attitude and then accused those who disagreed with you of not having common sense.
Edit: you also used improper grammar. One can't blasphemy. One blasphemes or commits blasphemy.