Author Topic: drawing cards verses adding to hand from top of deck... (Read 6401 times)

theselfevident · « **Reply #25 on:** July 14, 2011, 01:46:01 PM »

I don't understand how one "add to" results in a different ability such as banding but "add to" when its adding to your hand is not drawing. You redefine one but not the other?

?? Seems suspect and contrary.

So please explain how the one can be redefined to banding and the other becomes as a separate ability from drawing although it does the same thing?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #26 on:** July 15, 2011, 06:30:59 PM »

@ YMT: No, exchange is a third ability separate from both band and add to battle.

Bobbert · « **Reply #27 on:** July 16, 2011, 10:06:58 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on July 14, 2011, 01:46:01 PM

I don't understand how one "add to" results in a different ability such as banding but "add to" when its adding to your hand is not drawing. You redefine one but not the other??? Seems suspect and contrary.

So please explain how the one can be redefined to banding and the other becomes as a separate ability from drawing although it does the same thing?

I agree. If one "add to" ability is considered the same as another ability it's similar to, why aren't all of them? The prevailing thought in Evil Spawn vs. Wool Fleece is contrary to the prevailing thought here, with several of the same people. The only explanation of this I can think of (at the moment, I'm tired

) is the rule that two characters in battle are considered banded, which should not always be the case IMO.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #28 on:** July 17, 2011, 01:48:30 AM »

I would argue that "add to battle" abilities should not shift to become other types of abilities they work similarly to, just as "adding to hand" does not ever crap to drawing.

STAMP · « **Reply #29 on:** July 17, 2011, 10:23:59 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 17, 2011, 01:48:30 AM

I would argue that "add to battle" abilities should not shift to become other types of abilities they work similarly to, just as "adding to hand" does not ever crap to drawing.

SonofLar · « **Reply #30 on:** July 17, 2011, 12:46:20 PM »

Is there such a big problem with "adding to battle" becoming a banding ability but adding to hand not being considered a draw ability? Sure there's an inconsistancy, but that seems a small price to pay for all the abuses or weird combos that might come out. Right off the top of my head: if Susanna's ability was considered a draw ability, she could rescue against a Rain Becomes Dust and the holder could decide to "Draw" a lost soul, thus discarding it from their deck. Stuff like that would creat a bunch of messy situations. It seems that many of these abilities do the same thing but are worded different on purpose so they can't all be affected/negated/whatever by just one or two cards.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #31 on:** July 17, 2011, 01:17:22 PM »

RBD puts LS in play instead.

What's the rationale (from the elders) for the difference?

Drrek · « **Reply #32 on:** July 17, 2011, 02:02:11 PM »

To me Susanna's ability seems more akin to a search ability, because you aren't just taking the top card off the draw pile, but are rather choosing a card from a group of them from your draw pile. I can't think of an add to hand ability that doesn't have a search, reveal or look in it, and to me a draw is not picking a card from a group you revealed, searched or looked at, but rather simply taking the top card(s) from the deck and placing them into your hand.

SonofLar · « **Reply #33 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:11:17 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on July 17, 2011, 01:17:22 PM

RBD puts LS in play instead.

*facepalm* Aaugh, thats right. Never mind then!

Bryon · « **Reply #34 on:** July 18, 2011, 03:15:45 AM »

I can't speak for all the elders, but I will guess where the difference lies:

When two or more characters are on the same side of the battle, we consider those characters banded together. Band just means join together. "Band" doesn't mean "add to battle." If so, then my high school marching band (musicians joined together) needs to know that a trumpet isn't going to help much on the battlefield.

What Polarius is pointing out is that "add to battle" doesn't NEED to be considered a "band" ability, just because it results in characters being banded together. I agree that we don't NEED to call it a band ability, and I very much prefer to have abilities be treated ONLY as the ability type that is written on the card, as much as is practical.

"Add (character) to battle" can be separate from Band, even if the result is that characters band together.

"Add (enhancement) to battle" can be separate from Play, even if the result is that the enhancement is played.

"Shuffle" can be separate from Return, even if the result is that the card is returned to deck.

Aelec Enitnel · « **Reply #35 on:** July 18, 2011, 08:00:34 AM »

Are you saying that Household Idols wouldn't ignore "adding to battle" cards?

Bryon · « **Reply #36 on:** July 18, 2011, 10:03:26 AM »

That is not the ruling now, but it is a possibility for someday. Then again, Household Idols is worded oddly. I know the "play as" says "prevent band abilities used by heroes," but the card itself just says "heroes cannot band." That makes it sound like nothing is allowed to happen that would create a situation where there are two heroes on the same side of the battle. Even an evil card like Siege shouldn't allow a second hero into battle, right? I'm just thinking out loud here. These are not official rulings.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #37 on:** July 18, 2011, 10:47:20 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on July 18, 2011, 03:15:45 AM

my high school marching band (musicians joined together) needs to know that a trumpet isn't going to help much on the battlefield.

Gideon would beg to differ.

The fact that I am a trumpet player may have contributed to my desire to correct this slight

theselfevident · « **Reply #38 on:** July 18, 2011, 10:50:57 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on July 18, 2011, 03:15:45 AM

I can't speak for all the elders, but I will guess where the difference lies:

When two or more characters are on the same side of the battle, we consider those characters banded together. Band just means join together. "Band" doesn't mean "add to battle." If so, then my high school marching band (musicians joined together) needs to know that a trumpet isn't going to help much on the battlefield.

What Polarius is pointing out is that "add to battle" doesn't NEED to be considered a "band" ability, just because it results in characters being banded together. I agree that we don't NEED to call it a band ability, and I very much prefer to have abilities be treated ONLY as the ability type that is written on the card, as much as is practical.

"Add (character) to battle" can be separate from Band, even if the result is that characters band together.

"Add (enhancement) to battle" can be separate from Play, even if the result is that the enhancement is played.

"Shuffle" can be separate from Return, even if the result is that the card is returned to deck.

I think for consistency sake, I believe this should be the way you rule on abilities. I would prefer cards not to be rewritten. Just as "add to hand" is not drawing but a separate ability (based on the ruling), "add to battle" should be a separate ability from banding.... This was not my original contention but I feel rulings should be consistent. Inconsistencies (especially in rule making) confuse and frustrate people. (and for me: make me question the system)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #39 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:23:50 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on July 18, 2011, 03:15:45 AM

"Add (character) to battle" can be separate from Band, even if the result is that characters band together.

"Add (enhancement) to battle" can be separate from Play, even if the result is that the enhancement is played.

"Shuffle" can be separate from Return, even if the result is that the card is returned to deck.

This is ultimately what I would like to see. However, I'm sure the reason that "add to battle" can be a band is because the majority of older¹ banding enhancements just said "add a second character to battle" or "may join the battle."

¹ cards that came on the back of Hostess boxes

STAMP · « **Reply #40 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:35:37 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on July 18, 2011, 10:03:26 AM

That is not the ruling now, but it is a possibility for someday. Then again, Household Idols is worded oddly. I know the "play as" says "prevent band abilities used by heroes," but the card itself just says "heroes cannot band." That makes it sound like nothing is allowed to happen that would create a situation where there are two heroes on the same side of the battle. Even an evil card like Siege shouldn't allow a second hero into battle, right? I'm just thinking out loud here. These are not official rulings.

I, for one, very much appreciate you thinking out loud on this side of the boards, Bryon.

I know it can be difficult to resolve gameplay/ruling inconsistencies that must be discussed at length on the Elders side of the boards. Even though I may not have any input to the process, I like to know the key points that were discussed that resulted in a decision. I'm a problem-solver at heart. If I had ever become a math/science teacher, I would be one of those that strongly encourages students to show their work that documents the process they used to arrive at a conclusion.

theselfevident · « **Reply #41 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:40:56 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on July 18, 2011, 01:35:37 PM

Quote from: Bryon on July 18, 2011, 10:03:26 AM
That is not the ruling now, but it is a possibility for someday. Then again, Household Idols is worded oddly. I know the "play as" says "prevent band abilities used by heroes," but the card itself just says "heroes cannot band." That makes it sound like nothing is allowed to happen that would create a situation where there are two heroes on the same side of the battle. Even an evil card like Siege shouldn't allow a second hero into battle, right? I'm just thinking out loud here. These are not official rulings.

I, for one, very much appreciate you thinking out loud on this side of the boards, Bryon.

I know it can be difficult to resolve gameplay/ruling inconsistencies that must be discussed at length on the Elders side of the boards. Even though I may not have any input to the process, I like to know the key points that were discussed that resulted in a decision. I'm a problem-solver at heart. If I had ever become a math/science teacher, I would be one of those that strongly encourages students to show their work that documents the process they used to arrive at a conclusion.

Well put

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #42 on:** July 18, 2011, 01:57:00 PM »

I'm sure this ruling would be accompanied by a ruling on old wording something along the lines of "any special ability before (patriarchs? Kings?) that
adds a character to battle is a banding ability."

theselfevident · « **Reply #43 on:** July 18, 2011, 03:59:51 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 18, 2011, 01:57:00 PM

I'm sure this ruling would be accompanied by a ruling on old wording something along the lines of "any special ability before (patriarchs? Kings?) that
adds a character to battle is a banding ability."

That just seems contradictory to the point of consistency in rulings. But I only play the game............. I dissent, and withdraw from this debate as it only frustrates me.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #44 on:** July 18, 2011, 04:26:10 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on July 18, 2011, 03:59:51 PM

I dissent, and withdraw from this debate as it only frustrates me.

This is the exact reason that I do not post in the Open Discussion section anymore.

Bryon · « **Reply #45 on:** July 18, 2011, 05:03:05 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 18, 2011, 01:57:00 PM

I'm sure this ruling would be accompanied by a ruling on old wording something along the lines of "any special ability before (patriarchs? Kings?) that
adds a character to battle is a banding ability."

Am I the only one that wishes that Redemption cards had electronic components that made it possible for Rob to change the wording on all copies of a card in existence, all at once?

Since we don't have that feature, then for simplicity, cards should do what they say as much as possible. If that means old cards sometimes behave a little differently than what was originally intended, then sometimes we need to just roll with it. Cards with broken gameplay or clear misprints can get fixed with errata.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #46 on:** July 18, 2011, 05:17:36 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on July 18, 2011, 05:03:05 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 18, 2011, 01:57:00 PM
I'm sure this ruling would be accompanied by a ruling on old wording something along the lines of "any special ability before (patriarchs? Kings?) that
adds a character to battle is a banding ability."
Am I the only one that wishes that Redemption cards had electronic components that made it possible for Rob to change the wording on all copies of a card in existence, all at once?

In all fairness to Polarius, I believe that his quote was just a response to my post (there were two posts in between).

Quote from: STAMP on July 18, 2011, 01:35:37 PM

I, for one, very much appreciate you thinking out loud on this side of the boards, Bryon.

I concur (and I'm not saying that just because I am a math teacher that makes his students show their work

).

Arch Angel · « **Reply #47 on:** July 18, 2011, 05:26:36 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on July 18, 2011, 05:03:05 PM

If that means old cards sometimes behave a little differently than what was originally intended, then sometimes we need to just Troll with it.

Fixed that for you.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #48 on:** July 18, 2011, 05:27:34 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 18, 2011, 05:17:36 PM

I am a math teacher that makes his students show their work ).

I always hated showing my work for arithmetic and algebra, because I typically preferred to try to come up with the answer in my head, and once I did that, I felt like showing my work was just busywork that I didn't need.

However, my mother's insistence that I did show my work (yes, I was one of those homeschooled types until my middle school years) paid off when I learned about proofs, which helped me quite a bit in calculus and beyond. So it's good to see teachers still being annoying about that these days.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #49 on:** July 18, 2011, 05:59:30 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on July 18, 2011, 05:27:34 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on July 18, 2011, 05:17:36 PM
I am a math teacher that makes his students show their work ).

I always hated showing my work for arithmetic and algebra, ...

FTR, I teach Precalculus and Calculus.

News:

Author Topic: drawing cards verses adding to hand from top of deck... (Read 6401 times)