Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: SomeKittens on September 17, 2011, 12:54:05 PM
-
Can dominants have identifiers? The REG isn't working for me right now...
-
Doubt has some.
-
I think he meant a *real* Dominant. ;)
-
Ok, just checked. Doubt's the only one, and all the others say "none." (Doubt's generic for some reason...). Does this mean that there could be identifiers for the rest?
-
Doubt's ID is for when it is a character.
-
Doubt's ID is for when it is a character.
This changes everything I ever knew about identifiers....
-
Doubt's ID is for when it is a character.
This changes everything I ever knew about identifiers....
Apparently that is also the case with Deafening Spirit. It confuses me, though, based on the rule (that I thought existed) that identifiers are always active.
-
Doubt's ID is for when it is a character.
This changes everything I ever knew about identifiers....
I do not believe Olijar is correct on this. Before it becomes a character, Doubt is genderless and generic and most definitely not a human nor a demon. (If you disagree replace the phrase "Before is becomes a character, Doubt" in the previous sentence with the word "Buckler." There is nothing in the newly revised statement that does not make sense--albeit it does seem a bit strange.)
Apparently that is also the case with Deafening Spirit.
Huh? The identifiers on Deafening Spirit are NT and Connected with Demons. Both of these make perfect sense for an enhancements as well as a character.
-
Huh? The identifiers on Deafening Spirit are NT and Connected with Demons. Both of these make perfect sense for an enhancements as well as a character.
If you look on the actual card (as opposed to the still incorrect REG entry), you'll see that it says "Generic, Demon," though apparently those are only active after it becomes a character. That's what I was referring to.
-
I think he meant a *real* Dominant. ;)
I'm guessing you haven't used it multiple times in one game... 8)
-
So, is it that dominants can't have identifiers, or just that they don't currently?
-
They don't currently, because there is no reason to have any.
-
It confuses me, though, based on the rule (that I thought existed) that identifiers are always active.
I suppose a more accurate way to state that rule would be that identifiers on characters are always active. Therefore, once Doubt or Deafening Spirit become characters then their identifiers become and stay active from that point on.
-
It confuses me, though, based on the rule (that I thought existed) that identifiers are always active.
I suppose a more accurate way to state that rule would be that identifiers on characters are always active. Therefore, once Doubt or Deafening Spirit become characters then their identifiers become and stay active from that point on.
So Magnificat is only a Hymn when in play? That's inconsistent and makes enhancements having identifiers almost completely useless (makes Musicians' Chambers useless).
-
So Magnificat is only a Hymn when in play? That's inconsistent and makes enhancements having identifiers completely useless.
I suppose that an EVEN more accurate way to state the rule would be that "character type" identifiers (ie. demon, male, etc.) on characters are always active and that "enhancement type" identifiers (ie. depicting a weapon, hymn, etc.) on enhancements are always active. :)
-
is that "accurate way to state the rule" in the REG somewhere, or anywhere that people can check to refer? If not, then it should be if that's the official way it's being ruled, especially considering people are teaching it that "identifiers are always active" with no caveats.
Also, is it really that broken to allow all identifiers to always be active? You'd get to have some fun with Deafening Spirit and Doubt, I can't think of any other non-characters that have character identifiers. I really don't see why the simple rule can't be used in this case (especially with all the other threads about rule changes to "simplify" the game).
-
is that "accurate way to state the rule" in the REG somewhere
Not that I know of. That's why I started those posts with "I suppose" :)
I would wait for another elder to confirm that they see it the same way before assuming that it is official.