Cactus Game Design Message Boards

If i use rain becomes dust, do the cards added to hand/looked at from Susanna become discarded?

Quote from: theselfevident on July 13, 2011, 11:36:22 PM

If i use rain becomes dust, do the cards added to hand/looked at from Susanna become discarded?

No. Susanna has a look ability, and an add to hand ability. Neither of those are draw abilities, so she doesn't actually draw anything. Even if she is the only NT female, and you do seemingly draw a card, it's a different ability entirely.

It sure walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Please, for my sake, define drawing in the game of redemption?

Drawing is when you take a card from the top of your deck and place it in your hand either via game rule (during the draw phase) or because of a draw special ability on a card.

Reveal and look at are different because the card is in the limbo of being revealed/looked at between the deck and the hand. There has to be a separate special ability telling you what to do with the card(s) from there, otherwise they just returns to the deck in the same position (i.e.: top, bottom, etc.) they were before.

so is reveal/look-at= search?

No, search is a separate ability. Reveal/look at are their own abilities, they aren't any other ability.

so if you look at a card from the top of your deck and add it to your hand it is not drawing a card from your deck? Quirky and this is my dissent...

Nope, it's not drawing. When you draw a card you don't see what it is until it's in your hand. When you look at a card, you see it before it enters your hand and you need another ability to actually add it to your hand (the "add to hand" ability). That's the biggest difference.

I get it, but essentially it is doing the same thing as letting you draw the card....................................................... dissent 

There are cards that say reveal/look at without letting you add any to hand, and some that say "add to hand" are optional and you don't have to add any to hand, that makes it different than drawing. The Revealer Lost Soul would be the most popular example. If reveal/look at were the same as draw, the non-Lost Souls would go to your hand rather than on the bottom of your deck. Thus, reveal/look at are, and have to be, different abilities than draw.

That is a better explanation of the look at feature, my problem is the letting you add the card to your hand as not being = drawing... that is why i dissent. It does not change the ruling. But I reserve the right to dissent and I do.  ... Not trying to chap your hide or make you feel inferior by dissenting to the ruling. I just disagree with it. One can do that... doesn't change anything. Just look at our government over the last 100 years.... I don't agree with it but dear goodness I have to live with it....... I dissent. 

I find it interesting that "add to battle" can become a band ability, even though it doesn't say "band," yet "add to hand" is not a draw or search ability, even though it may have the same net result. Perhaps theselfevident's query is not as quirky as it may seem.

Amen & plus 1 

I find it interesting that "add to battle" can become a band ability, even though it doesn't say "band," yet "add to hand" is not a draw or search ability, even though it may have the same net result. Perhaps theselfevident's query is not as quirky as it may seem.

I agree that it's inconsistent, especially considering exchanges (like Numerous as the Stars) are not considered banding abilities (last I heard) even though they result in an additional character in battle, but I think the inconsistency is more on the add to battle side than the reveal/look at side. I think that abilities that have similar end results but not the same way of getting there should remain separate abilities. I do see where you and selfevident are coming from, though, and I'd be happy either way the ruling could be consistent-ized, I just wish it was consistent, lol.

Since you'd probably be asked this by an Elder if you brought it up to them, I'll get you thinking now: What reason or evidence do you have to support your claims that "reveal/look at and add to hand" should be considered "draw" abilities? They trigger differently, they work differently (reveal/look at require a specific paired ability to even end in the same result as a draw), not to mention cards have been printed with the idea that "reveal/look at and add to hand" are not draw abilities so changing it now would drastically affect the game as a whole (such as making cards like Goliath, Rain Becomes Dust, and Iron Pan very much more powerful). There is no theological reasoning for this (so it's not like the captured demons ruling) since these are strictly card game mechanics, so I'm wondering, other than personal opinion, what your thinking is for why they should be the same (other than that they end in the same result).

2 x 2 and 16 / 4 end in the same result, does this mean they are the same operation?

browarod is correct.

A similar thing happens with decrease abilities.  I can play Angel of the Lord on a Pharisee in your territory (discard ability).  Or, I can activate Crown of Thorns (decrease ability).  The net result for the Pharisee is the same (discard), but decrease and discard are distinct abilities.  One is not a subset of the other.

If you add a hero to the battle, it is banding. If you add a card from the top of your deck.... aparently not drawing???

Quote from: Bryon on July 14, 2011, 10:06:02 AM

browarod is correct.

A similar thing happens with decrease abilities.  I can play Angel of the Lord on a Pharisee in your territory (discard ability).  Or, I can activate Crown of Thorns (decrease ability).  The net result for the Pharisee is the same (discard), but decrease and discard are distinct abilities.  One is not a subset of the other.

If you add a hero to the battle, it is banding. If you add a card from the top of your deck.... aparently not drawing???

If a character is reduced to /0 or less it is discarded.  But the ability is a decrease ability, not a discard ability.

If a character is added to the battle, it doesn't always result in a band.  If I play Angel of the Lord on your lone blocker, you can use the "add to battle" ability on Unknown Nation to add an evil character to the battle.  That is not a band.  So, "add a character to battle" is not the exact same thing as "band."

SOMETIMES a decrease results in a discard.  When that happens, we still call it only a "decrease" ability.  The fact that it results in a discard is based on the rule alone.  But not all decreases are discards.  They are not the same thing.

SOMETIMES an "add to hand" results in same effect that a draw would do.  When that happens, we still call it only an add to hand.  The fact that a card goes from deck to hand is based on the rules for the ability.  But not all "add to hand" abilities result in a draw.  They are not the same thing.


SOMETIMES an add to battle results in a band.  When that happens, we call that both an "add to battle" and a "band" ability?  Perhaps to be consistent we should consider the ability only an "add to battle" ability, and state that the characters are considered "banded" at that point only due to the game rule that two characters being on the same side of the battle are called "banded."  Even if the ability that got them there was not a band ability.  What would this effect?

SOMETIMES an add to battle results in a band.  When that happens, we call that both an "add to battle" and a "band" ability?  Perhaps to be consistent we should consider the ability only an "add to battle" ability, and state that the characters are considered "banded" at that point only due to the game rule that two characters being on the same side of the battle are called "banded."  Even if the ability that got them there was not a band ability.  What would this effect?

Would that then mean that characters exchanged into battle (like those Genesis enhancements) are now considered "banded into battle?"