Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: lp670sv on January 30, 2012, 08:39:28 AM
-
This came up awhile ago and I still don't understand why it doesn't work, why can't Destruction Negate and Discard Lampstand? It negates and discards and artifact, so wouldn't it negate Lampstand's protection?
-
Destruction of Nehushtan (Pa)
Type: Grim Reaper • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated. • Play As: Discard one Artifact to negate its special ability. • Identifiers: False Religious Practice • Verse: II Kings 18:4 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Ultra Rare)
The first part of the ability is to discard an Artifact (can't, LotS is protected), then you negate the discarded Artifact (you didn't discard one so there's nothing to negate).
-
Protect abilities keep anything under the protection from being targeted by anything other than negate abilities. The way DoN is worded (with the discard ability before the negate ability), Lampstand is protected from the discard ability. Since the negate ability can only target the card that is also being discarded, since the discard ability can't target Lampstand, the negate also doesn't have anything to target. I hope that made sense, since I doubt it did. It took me a while to understand the logic behind this as well.
-
This is the perfect opportunity to use a classic phrase: I get it, but I don't. I understand what you guys are saying it just seems wrong the a card working as it's supposed to is so important in the explanation of Michael's CBN but doesn't say that ability, but not in this case.
-
I'd bring up Split Altar but then somebod- *is shot*
-
This is the perfect opportunity to use a classic phrase: I get it, but I don't. I understand what you guys are saying it just seems wrong the a card working as it's supposed to is so important in the explanation of Michael's CBN but doesn't say that ability, but not in this case.
This is more straightforward than Mike. Most cards nowadays say "negate and discard," but the old wording on DoN actually worked this time, since the discard happens before the negate.
I'd bring up Split Altar but then somebod- *is shot*
Wow. I seem to be -1ing your posts a lot lately.
-
I deserved a -1 on that post, though I wonder if the other person to -1 it was joking or not.
-
RDT, add to FAQ, ASAP, s'il vous plait. ;)
-
I deserved a -1 on that post, though I wonder if the other person to -1 it was joking or not.
I'm pretty sure he was not joking.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 12:37:05 PM by [Redacted] »
-
I wasn't aware [Redacted] could travel in time.
-
I've added Split Altered to my HoS, and sits right next to my A New-tered Beginning. :P
-
I wasn't aware [Redacted] could travel in time.
Psh. That's the least of his/her powers.
-
This is more straightforward than Mike. Most cards nowadays say "negate and discard," but the old wording on DoN actually worked this time, since the discard happens before the negate.
Right, but Michael does not say he can't be negated. The reasoning for him being CBN was that otherwise he would not work as intended. Even though it does not say anything about him being CBN, it was just to make his ability work the way he was supposed to. Regardless of word order it's pretty obvious that DoN was intended to negate and discard an artifact. But it doesn't.
-
This is more straightforward than Mike. Most cards nowadays say "negate and discard," but the old wording on DoN actually worked this time, since the discard happens before the negate.
Right, but Michael does not say he can't be negated. The reasoning for him being CBN was that otherwise he would not work as intended. Even though it does not say anything about him being CBN, it was just to make his ability work the way he was supposed to. Regardless of word order it's pretty obvious that DoN was intended to negate and discard an artifact. But it doesn't.
Some cards simply don't work how they're supposed to. I welcome the -1's when I say that Split Altar is an example of that, whereas there's no problem with adding things like ANB is removed from the game to keep it from being broken. It's frustrating and unfair, but that's how it works.
-
like I said, I get it but I don't :scratch: DoN vs. Lampy make brain hurt. Errata DoN to work! (kidding)
-
I deserved a -1 on that post, though I wonder if the other person to -1 it was joking or not.
I - 1 every post that mentions Split Altar. Nothing personal. ;)
-
I'm lost, what happened with The Card That Must Not Be Named?
-
I'm lost, what happened with The Card That Must Not Be Named?
All cards default targeting to in play, unless another target is mentioned (see MLaMG). Therefore, said card cannot target face-down artifacts (as it was intentioned to do).
Unfortunately, Rob Anderson refused to fix my [cardname] with a Sharpie at Nats.
-
Wasn't this why Errata was invented?
-
whereas there's no problem with adding things like ANB is removed from the game to keep it from being broken. It's frustrating and unfair, but that's how it works.
It's frustrating and unfair that everyone keeps stating that ANB broke the game! >:(
Agur & Co. + recursion + MN players broke the game. Get it right, thank you very much.
-
whereas there's no problem with adding things like ANB is removed from the game to keep it from being broken. It's frustrating and unfair, but that's how it works.
It's frustrating and unfair that everyone keeps stating that ANB broke the game! >:(
Agur & Co. + recursion + MN players broke the game. Get it right, thank you very much.
I think they should have just banned the card, rather than add abilities to it that are nowhere to be found on the card itself.
-
Wasn't this why Errata was invented?
Ask any player but an Elder or Rob and you'd get a positive response.
-
I think they should have just banned the card, rather than add abilities to it that are nowhere to be found on the card itself.
Prepare to be attacked by STAMP
It's frustrating and unfair that everyone keeps stating that ANB broke the game! >:(
Agur & Co. + recursion + MN players broke the game. Get it right, thank you very much.
Players cannot break the game, only find how cards are broken.
-
whereas there's no problem with adding things like ANB is removed from the game to keep it from being broken. It's frustrating and unfair, but that's how it works.
It's frustrating and unfair that everyone keeps stating that ANB broke the game! >:(
Agur & Co. + recursion + MN players broke the game. Get it right, thank you very much.
I think they should have just banned the card, rather than add abilities to it that are nowhere to be found on the card itself.
Then start a list of every card that "Agur & Co. + recursion + MN players" breaks.
-
funniest story from this is i attend one of korunks tourneys this gets ruled wrong which prolly costs me the tourney (no hard feelings) but then later at regionals im playing vs his wife with him next to me same question comes up oh the reaction was priceless.
-
funniest story from this is i attend one of korunks tourneys this gets ruled wrong which prolly costs me the tourney (no hard feelings) but then later at regionals im playing vs his wife with him next to me same question comes up oh the reaction was priceless.
Never gonna live it down, am I? That incident is the primary cause of my frustration with the old system of rules. (this incident occurred before "The Elders" ruling group was instantiated), which had been somewhat alleviated by the elders, and the REG correction thread.
[rant]
I am still very dissatisfied with the new REG because it does not address the fundamental problem with the original REG, which was the glacial pace of updates. The corrections thread helps that but I like many other hosts do not have an internet connection at my tournament venue and thus the offline REG (from last year no less :o) is all I have to go by. This is still a major cause of frustration for me.
[/rant]
-
Yeah, unfortunately, the REG does not get updated often enough to be 100% reliable. My understanding is that only two people can edit it, both of whom have lives, and thus, it doesn't get updated much. My suggestions of letting people who are active and knowledgeable, like Underwood and Prof A, have largely gone ignored.
-
We all clamored for a "new" REG, when we really wanted a new system for the REG.
-
We didn't get a new REG. We got a big update to the old REG.
-
Yeah, unfortunately, the REG does not get updated often enough to be 100% reliable. My understanding is that only two people can edit it, both of whom have lives, and thus, it doesn't get updated much. My suggestions of letting people who are active and knowledgeable, like Underwood and Prof A, have largely gone ignored.
They actually haven't been ignored. This issue is being discussed on the other side.
-
What are the chances that it'll result in a regularly updated REG?
-
We don't even need a regularly updated REG, we just need someone to go through and fix all the flaws in the REG we have now.
-
We don't even need a regularly updated REG, we just need someone to go through and fix all the flaws in the REG we have now.
That's what I meant by "updated." It's currently not updated, and the latest *fingerquotes* update */fingerquotes* helped, but it's one step forward when we're already fifty steps behind.
-
I wouldn't go that far. The reason updating the REG took so long last time was because they were working out definitions for a lot of different abilities (or so I was told). If it was one step forward, it was a gigantic step. We just need to remove these Play-As' Disguised as Erratas and clear up a few things.
-
The definition of "play" was the only one I heard of. There were a few other rule changes, but they weren't as crucial to the REG.