Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Hey,

how exactly is a new host supposed to know which cards with 2 sentences are "paired" abilities and which aren't.

Take each sentence separately and ask yourself "would this ability make sense as the ability on a card by itself?"  If the answer is no then the abilities are probably paired.  In the case of Destruction "Artifact's ability is negated" is not an ability that makes sense by itself, so it's safe to assume that it is paired.

Also certain abilities are always paired, so if you see a set aside, poison, disease, search, or interrupt ability then you know it is paired.

In battle I can target a protected character to remove their protection with a negate, why not in this case?

You don't actually target the protected character with the negate, you target the character's ability (which is partially why you cannot protect a card from being negated).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Not trying to be argumentative but this

Quote

Artifact's ability is negated

does make sense to me, the previously mentioned artifacts ability is negated.

The question isn't does it make sense, the question is does it make sense when removed from it's context.  The previously mentioned artifact only exists if you do not remove the context.  If you do remove the context then there is no previously mentioned artifact, and you can't negate something that doesn't exist.

The target for the first statement was invalid

DoN line 1: "I am discarding you Lampstand of Sanctuary"
LotS:  "Tough I protect from you, so nyah()"

This isn't quite how protection works (and I think is a good part of why some people are being confused in this thread).  Lampstand is protected, that doesn't mean that you can target it but it just doesn't do anything, it means you cannot target it at all.  Lampstand cannot be the artifact that Destruction is targeting to discard, therefore it cannot be the previously mentioned artifact that is the subject of the second sentence on Destruction.

I do not understand the hesitance to use play as to make the cards more understandable and make the game flow better.  I often see requests for play as to resolve an issue with a combo or situation, but they are rarely actually done.  Is there a reason for that?

The reason that you don't see cards getting play as these days is because all REG related efforts (inadequate as they may be) at the moment are being spent on getting the new REG out.  If we spent some of the existing REG efforts on minor fixes like play as for Destruction of Nehushtan it would result in the new REG taking longer before it's released.  The new REG is already a year late as it is, if we don't put all REG related efforts into it now it will simply never get finished.  I would love to see a ton of cards get play as, but the nature of a small market CCG like Redemption is that the money isn't there to fund a rules management employee, so the rules are managed by volunteers who naturally cannot commit the time to rules management that an employee could.  We try to do the best we can with the time we have.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Further to Tim's last paragraph, arguing an already-explained point on this board only compounds the lack of time issue when working on the REG.

This exact question has been asked on this board at least a couple previous times.  The answer has always been the same.  The "negated" in the second sentence refers to the artifact that was targeted by the "discard" in the first sentence.  We all agree there.  You CANNOT target a card for discard if it is protected.  You can't say "I am trying to target that protected artifact for discard."  You can't select a protected target.  Period.  I don't know why you think you could.

If you can't target the card for discard, then there is no artifact that can be targeted for the negate.

Get it?  Please?

This exact question has been asked on this board at least a couple previous times.  The answer has always been the same. 
Get it?  Please?

And the Dead Horse says "Beat Me Beat Me Beat Me Again"...

 

This exact question has been asked on this board at least a couple previous times.  The answer has always been the same.  

But with each round of new hosts, the question will come up again. The problem here is still that the veteran players already know the rule, but the rest of us don't.

Just put it in the REG. Please?

The easiest fix for this would simply be to say...

"Discard an artifact in play. The discarded artifact's ability is negated."

That'd solve any and all confusion.

ok as much as i hate to cause trouble i need to dig this up again.

Did you tell Reyzen--per Bryon's earlier post--that by ruling as he did that he is responsible for the delays in getting the new REG out?  Maybe that might have swayed him.

ok as much as i hate to cause trouble i need to dig this up again. It was stated in this thread by Byron and tim maly that the ruling was wrong yet i asked roy cruz aka reyzen at a tourney this weekend and the wrong ruling was made again this time by an experienced host that i know and love. and im sorry to do this roy but i need a set in stone ruling on the matter cause apparently byrons post was not enough.

When it comes to official rulings, the only person who is above Byron is Rob himself, so I would consider his ruling official.

When it comes to the new REG, Tim wrote it, so he's pretty official as well.

If you pointed the host to this thread, and they still ruled that DoN discarded LotS, then they are making a blatantly wrong ruling.

correct mkc and yes professor u thats why i dug this up again we need a decision by rob cause this whole issue is truly annoying and im kinda starting to get annoyed when i know im right and byron and tim  support me

Which is why its generally a good idea, if you know there has been a ruling recently (which could affect your gameplay), to print out the thread (If you're able) and bring it with you to the tournament.

ok as much as i hate to cause trouble i need to dig this up again. It was stated in this thread by Byron and tim maly that the ruling was wrong yet i asked roy cruz aka reyzen at a tourney this weekend and the wrong ruling was made again this time by an experienced host that i know and love. and im sorry to do this roy but i need a set in stone ruling on the matter cause apparently byrons post was not enough.

I love you too, Matt.

As what YourMathTeacher has said, he is right.  I did not catch Bryon's post here on the threads up until now.  It was crunch time and I used the usual ruling.

Many budding and experienced hosts, when judging, just like referees, can make honest mistakes.  For my part, I did not know it was a mistake until I read the posts tonight.

Thus, another post was useful to say, just like JDS always does, print out a ruling and take to the tourney with you.  The judge can easily make a better judgement call based on that.  Worst case scenario, can even call the highest power in Redemption.

Godbless!