Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Prof Underwood on January 15, 2011, 09:23:02 PM
-
I think it is best said with a rule that cards that respond to certain events don't care whether their targets are in play.
If X happens to a card, do Y to it instead.
When you read "If X happens to a card," you complete the ability regardless of its location.
-
rofl worst ruling ever. Commence game breakage! Unless you want to quick correct that statement to say "'Instead' abilities default target to anywhere in relation to the initial ability's target." Or something less complicated that means the same thing, although I couldn't think of an easier way to say that.
If not, you're going to need to have a lot more publicity and be ready to face almost universal resistance if this is, as it sounds like, a no-good-reason overturn of the decade-old "defaults to play" rule.
-
even if he has been removed from the game before dust and ashes shows up? so are we Yu-gi-oh where remove from the game means remove from the game....UNLESS you do this ...then he can come back...
I gotta go with Pol on this one and say this is not smart.
-
Furthermore, this isn't even close to the right place for this to be posted.
-
even if he has been removed from the game
I'm sure that "removed from the game" would NOT be covered.
Furthermore, this isn't even close to the right place for this to be posted.
Since the OFFICIAL thread has been locked, this is the only place I can announce this. Hopefully Guardian will incorporate this into the other thread and then delete this one.
-
Actually, hopefully this ruling will be fixed, then added. And hopefully in that order.
Furthermore, as written that's not even a rule. "Cards that respond to certain events don't care whether their targets are in play?" What on earth is that supposed to mean? Even satire aside I'm still not entirely sure what that sentence is getting at, and it's certainly not written in any sort of ruling language.
-
even if he has been removed from the game
I'm sure that "removed from the game" would NOT be covered.
OK fine but your first post..a quote of bryon says that ..."that cards that respond to certain events don't care whether their targets are in play."...removed from the game is decidedly NOT in play so perhaps a little more clarity needs to be incorporated in these decisions because from my first reading, that is what the elders are saying
-
Help me understand why you think that a Job that has already been removed from the game could be targeted by Dust and Ashes?
-
I thought I was clear in my post that as I read what Mark had quoted from Bryon that it seemed to say that no matter where the card is, when DNA comes in play, Jobe goes there.
"that cards that respond to certain events don't care whether their targets are in play."
If DNA does not care whether Job is in play, is it a stretch to think that DNA would pull him back in the game? it is a dynamic used in other games (such as Yu-gi-oh) and I was hoping that this wasn't going to start that type of precedent in Redemption.
-
I thought I was clear in my post that as I read what Mark had quoted from Bryon that it seemed to say that no matter where the card is, when DNA comes in play, Jobe goes there.
"that cards that respond to certain events don't care whether their targets are in play."
I understand what you've said. I'm just not sure why you've come to that conclusion. Help me understand.
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When you play this card, search discard pile for Job. If your Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent, you may place him here instead. Each upkeep, return contents to hand. Cannot be negated.
It says to search your discard pile. Do you think this ruling somehow changes that to "removed from the game also"?
Or when it says "If your Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent" are you interpreting that to say "if your Job was harmed or defeated..."? Meaning that because Job was removed in the past somehow D&A will reach back in time to save him?
Or is there something else I'm missing?
-
No it was more the second one that was where I was going.
Ex. I get job before DNA. i attack with job and he is removed from the game. I draw DNA and while the 1st part doesn't apply, (search d/c pile) the other part was where I was focusing on. becuase Job was harmed and if DNA does not care whether he is in play or not, then its a logical step to say that it can drag him back.
Now that you have pointed out the difference I see that is would not undo a remove form the game done on a previous turn.
But it is easy to see how this could be confusing because if DNA is undoing other things done on a previous turn (such as setting aside), why not a remove from the game done on a previous turn? Basically, if DNA can reach into the realm of out of play, how far back can it reach and how much can it undo to drag Job back into the game?
-
Job would have to be harmed while removed from the game, nothing can harm him when hes out of the game.
-
But it is easy to see how this could be confusing because if DNA is undoing other things done on a previous turn (such as setting aside), why not a remove from the game done on a previous turn? Basically, if DNA can reach into the realm of out of play, how far back can it reach and how much can it undo to drag Job back into the game?
Help me see how this ruling says that D&A undoes anything done on a previous turn.
This was the intention of the quote posted by Bryon:
"cards that respond to certain events" - in the case of D&A the event is "If your Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent". That's an event that is presently happening. Right now you're doing something bad to my Job.
"don't care whether their targets are in play" - this is just saying that my Job that you're harming could be in my hand, set-aside, deck, or anywhere, D&A can still "you may place him here instead."
Hopefully that makes sense now. Clearly something we've said isn't that clear though. What part of what was said is causing confusion?
-
Why does the ability on DnA not default to in play? aka harm done to my job in play
-
At first I was assuming this was a new ruling for a mechanic specific to "instead," and I was ripping on the poor wording of the "ruling." But the more I read this thread the more it seems that my facetious comments may actually be accurate and some elders seem to be confirming that "default to play unless otherwise specified" is being reversed.
-
some elders seem to be confirming that "default to play unless otherwise specified" is being reversed.
The traditional ruling that cards default to play unless otherwise specified is still true. This new rule is just stating what one of those "specified" situations is. The idea is that if a card refers to a specific card (ie. D&A targeting Job, or Prince of the Air targeting Chamber of Angels), then it targets that card even if it is NOT in play (ie. set aside).
-
This makes enough sense when you look at Prince of the Air.
-
Well why isn't that the new ruling, then? "When a card targets another card by name, the default location is anywhere?" Why the jibber-jabber about whether or not cards have feelings and hints at "certain situations?" Took me like three seconds to come up with that wording, and it's not perfect (probably because it took three seconds) but at least it's clear and sounds like a real ruling. Would that have been so difficult?
And be fair now. The ruling before that made PoA work was "when a card can only exist in one area, cards targeting that card are assumed to be targeting it in that area (though more poorly worded)." This is in fact a new ruling. Probably a good ruling if worded like a ruling and not just some random mind sick.
-
This ruleing doesn't work seeing as you can't harm something that isn't alive(In play by Redemption standards) Sorry elders ruling is not logical. Logic is a gift most of the Playtesters/elders don't have it seems.
-
This ruleing doesn't work seeing as you can't harm something that isn't alive(In play by Redemption standards) Sorry elders ruling is not logical. Logic is a gift most of the Playtesters/elders don't have it seems.
This comment is not only wrong on many levels, it is also somewhat derogatory.
FWIW, the ruling is the way Chamber has been played for years, which is why the I am Holy/Chamber was even considered legal (since discarding Angels from hand caused them to go to Chamber). So it's not even really a change to how things were, it's just a clarification in the rules necessitated by other cards triggered by "If your X is Y'd, do Z". All the ruling really says is that in these situations, "your X" is "your X" regardless of where it happens to be at the time.
-
Sorry but seeing as I may soon be judging tournaments It's hard to keep up with these rules and then have to explain them to players it's harder than people think and I personlly wish there was five players who weren't elders given acesses to the elder board and give Judges and Hosts a heads up to discussions.
-
Hey, three elders posting in this thread, can we get a ruling here that's worded properly?
-
give Judges and Hosts a heads up to discussions.
We already give you a heads up to discussions. The new OFFICIAL NEW RULINGS thread and OFFICIAL REG UPDATE thread are both great initiatives that Guardian has organized to give judges and hosts just a couple places to look in order to stay up to date with the game. And this thread itself is a result of me taking a ruling question to the other side (which I stated on this side that I was doing) and then coming back with an answer.
I know that there are still some problems with the system. But I'm getting a bit tired of people ignoring the progress that has been made in the last 6 months and insulting the very people who have been working hard to try to fix some things.
-
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When you play this card, search discard pile for Job. If your Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent, you may place him here instead. Each upkeep, return contents to hand. Cannot be negated.
While we are on this card, what is supposed to happen to Job when you search the discard pile for him? It doesn't say anything about putting him in DNA or to your hand or deck or anything...just need clarification.
-
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When you play this card, search discard pile for Job. If your Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent, you may place him here instead. Each upkeep, return contents to hand. Cannot be negated.
While we are on this card, what is supposed to happen to Job when you search the discard pile for him? It doesn't say anything about putting him in DNA or to your hand or deck or anything...just need clarification.
He goes to hand by default.
Of course, cards are supposed to only target cards in play by default too...
-
Will do.
-
This ruleing doesn't work seeing as you can't harm something that isn't alive(In play by Redemption standards) Sorry elders ruling is not logical. Logic is a gift most of the Playtesters/elders don't have it seems.
Wow. I'd try to clarify this for you, but apparently I don't have the gift of logic so I won't bother trying to help you.
For the others in the thread who are more concerned about understanding the ruling than insulting the playtesters:
If I discard a card from your hand, or the top card of the deck, and it is an angel, the angel goes to Chamber. It always has. Nothing is changing about that. But Chamber does not say "If your angel is discarded FROM PLAY..." It just says "If your angel is discarded,..."
It is exactly the same with Dust and Ashes. "If your Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent,..." works just the same as "If your angel is discarded..."
The answer I gave on the playtester side of the board was not really intended to be a final wording for a ruling. I was just answering a question how I thought it should work and none of the playtesters disagreed. If anyone has a suggestion for a better way to word it, please help. Helping is better than mocking and insulting.
-
Hey, three elders posting in this thread, can we get a ruling here that's worded properly?
How's this sound?
When the first half of a conditional "instead" ability targets a specific card without specifying a location, then it may target the card regardless of its location.
Basically: If (specific target) is/would be (verb-ed), instead do this.
See also:
Chamber of Angels
Dust and Ashes
The Masters Table
Potters Field
Wandering Spirit
Obadiah's Caves
City of Refuge
Covenant of Eden?
Haman's Gallows (doesn't really do much though, but it fits)
Herod's Temple
Lay Down your Life
-
Reason #37 why I retired.
-
The idea is that if a card refers to a specific card (ie. D&A targeting Job, or Prince of the Air targeting Chamber of Angels), then it targets that card even if it is NOT in play (ie. set aside).
"Not in play" is too general. Based on this particular statement (which I realize is just a generalization), a card that says "Discard Saph" could target a Saph still in a deck or set-aside.
The answer I gave on the playtester side of the board was not really intended to be a final wording for a ruling. I was just answering a question how I thought it should work and none of the playtesters disagreed. If anyone has a suggestion for a better way to word it, please help.
Is there currently a game term that refers to all face-up cards (including set-aside)? If not, then perhaps now is the time to create one, and apply it to this particular ruling.
When the first half of a conditional "instead" ability targets a specific card without specifying a location, then it may target the card regardless of its location.
Basically: If (specific target) is/would be (verb-ed), instead do this.
So this ruling is only in reference to "instead" abilities?
I apologize for being a little behind in this conversation, especially since it appears to have taken place over three different threads. :-\
-
Reason #37 why I retired.
I dunno, I may be with you. redemption is getting to hard to play. It is to complicated, Rules keep changing, and it takes way to much work to stay current on how to play the game correctly.
There has to be a better way
-
You'd think.
-
There has to be a better way
I'm sure there's a better way. However, not one that's feasible. It's hard enough juggling 2,000 + cards, rulings and players under ideal conditions. Add to that players jumping all over you whenever they think you've made a mistake, and it's stressful. Now keep in mind that these are volunteers, working with limited resources.
-
Hey, three elders posting in this thread, can we get a ruling here that's worded properly?
How's this sound?
When the first half of a conditional "instead" ability targets a specific card without specifying a location, then it may target the card regardless of its location.
Basically: If (specific target) is/would be (verb-ed), instead do this.
See also:
Chamber of Angels
Dust and Ashes
The Masters Table
Potters Field
Wandering Spirit
Obadiah's Caves
City of Refuge
Covenant of Eden?
Haman's Gallows (doesn't really do much though, but it fits)
Herod's Temple
Lay Down your Life
That is a nice attempt, but there are two problems with it:
1) The first half of Chamber and the first half of Dust and Ashes don't target anything. They only say "if such and such happens to this (type of) card,..."
2) While the SECOND half of Dust and Ashes "redestines" a SPECIFIC card, Chamber of Angels "redestines" certain TYPES of cards. Whether the card title is mentioned or not doesn't really matter.
It appears this thread is really just about "redestination."
No wonder it has been so controversial. :D
-
The idea is that if a card refers to a specific card (ie. D&A targeting Job, or Prince of the Air targeting Chamber of Angels), then it targets that card even if it is NOT in play (ie. set aside).
"Not in play" is too general. Based on this particular statement (which I realize is just a generalization), a card that says "Discard Saph" could target a Saph still in a deck or set-aside.
Just thought this line of thinking had merit. also wanted to post this SA:
Joanna (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: White • Ability: 7 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard Herod's Dungeon. Immune to Herods. Negate special abilities on Evil Characters with toughness 2 or less. • Identifiers: NT Female Human • Verse: Luke 8:3 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
-
It appears this thread is really just about "redestination."
No wonder it has been so controversial. :D
That was funny :)
-
How about something like:
"The conditions for an 'instead' ability may be applied to any card regardless of location."
Are there any holes in that? I looked over the list of all insteads and it applies perfectly to all of them with the desired rule outcome. I also can't think of a counter-example for this rule. For example, the conditions on Chamber of Angel's "instead" is "your Angel about to be Discarded." That condition can be applied to a Captured Angel, and Angel in set-aside, an Angel in deck, hand, or anywhere else an Angel could be Discarded from.
-
How about something like:
"The conditions for an 'instead' ability may be applied to any card regardless of location."
If we are only talking about an exception for "instead" abilities, then I see no problem with it. I like short, simple sentences. ;D
-
And then since we already have the "card that can only exist in that location" rule for PoA v. Chamber, we would get the desired result without the bad new ruling opening up unnecessary targeting of cards in set-aside and possibly hands and decks.
-
How about something like:
"The conditions for an 'instead' ability may be applied to any card regardless of location."
Are there any holes in that? I looked over the list of all insteads and it applies perfectly to all of them with the desired rule outcome. I also can't think of a counter-example for this rule. For example, the conditions on Chamber of Angel's "instead" is "your Angel about to be Discarded." That condition can be applied to a Captured Angel, and Angel in set-aside, an Angel in deck, hand, or anywhere else an Angel could be Discarded from.
I think that works. Thanks!
-
so now we figure some combo to do with captured angels so they go to chamber?
-
so now we figure some combo to do with captured angels so they go to chamber?
One card combo: ANB
-
If Opponent plays Vain Philosophy with my Job in hand and D&A down, where does Job go?
-
It goes under the darn deck see bft sog mayhem ruling if bft cant protect sog in hand then dna cant instead job period
-
It goes under the darn deck see bft sog mayhem ruling if bft cant protect sog in hand then dna cant instead job period
Protect works differently than instead.
-
And I demand proof period
-
And I demand proof period
I am Holy/Chamber of Angels. Discarded from hand, still insteaded.
-
The issue isn't how instead works (as that clearly does the way Westy described), the issue is if the definition of "harmed" applies to cards in hand. I think it would make more sense for it to not apply (because of cards like VP and Mayhem) but I don't know for sure.
-
The issue isn't how instead works (as that clearly does the way Westy described), the issue is if the definition of "harmed" applies to cards in hand. I think it would make more sense for it to not apply (because of cards like VP and Mayhem) but I don't know for sure.
The definition of harm requires that the card be targeted by an effect from the opposing alignment.
-
The issue isn't how instead works (as that clearly does the way Westy described), the issue is if the definition of "harmed" applies to cards in hand. I think it would make more sense for it to not apply (because of cards like VP and Mayhem) but I don't know for sure.
The definition of harm requires that the card be targeted by an effect from the opposing alignment.
Well, technically, it just has to be a different alignment. Artifacts can harm Heroes and ECs as well.
I agree that at face value the rules on harm would say that a card in hand can be harmed, but I don't know that the particular situation has come up or has been considered beofre, which may require some re-evaluation.
Here's what would trip me up:
I have Job in hand (maybe just after he spent a turn in D&A) and D&A in set-aside. My opponent plays Mayhem. According to the definition of harm, Job has been harmed and thus goes to D&A. However, since part of the shuffle is insteaded, I did not shuffle my hand to draw 6. Therefore, I don't have a hand, just because I use Job and got Mayhem'd at an inopportune time. That's something I'd rather avoid. The same logic was applied to Birth Foretold and Son of God, which is why SoG is not protected by BF in hand.
-
Vain should be insteaded because job is specifically targeted but it should not instead mayhem.
-
The issue isn't how instead works (as that clearly does the way Westy described), the issue is if the definition of "harmed" applies to cards in hand. I think it would make more sense for it to not apply (because of cards like VP and Mayhem) but I don't know for sure.
The definition of harm requires that the card be targeted by an effect from the opposing alignment.
Well, technically, it just has to be a different alignment. Artifacts can harm Heroes and ECs as well.
I agree that at face value the rules on harm would say that a card in hand can be harmed, but I don't know that the particular situation has come up or has been considered beofre, which may require some re-evaluation.
Here's what would trip me up:
I have Job in hand (maybe just after he spent a turn in D&A) and D&A in set-aside. My opponent plays Mayhem. According to the definition of harm, Job has been harmed and thus goes to D&A. However, since part of the shuffle is insteaded, I did not shuffle my hand to draw 6. Therefore, I don't have a hand, just because I use Job and got Mayhem'd at an inopportune time. That's something I'd rather avoid. The same logic was applied to Birth Foretold and Son of God, which is why SoG is not protected by BF in hand.
Unless the rule that targeting defaults to play was made because of Mayhem and Birth Foretold, then that is not why birth foretold is not protected in hand. Its not protected in hand because protect defaults to play, and hand is not in play.
-
Unless the rule that targeting defaults to play was made because of Mayhem and Birth Foretold, then that is not why birth foretold is not protected in hand. Its not protected in hand because protect defaults to play, and hand is not in play.
That is a good point, I agree it was a misapplication of the example.
Vain should be insteaded because job is specifically targeted but it should not instead mayhem.
The problem there is that instead doesn't just instead things that are specifically targeted. If AoC discards a bunch of your ECs, none of them are specifically targeted (at least not any more than Job is by Mayhem in that scenario) but you can use HT on some of them just the same.
-
Herod's Temple doesn't specifically target any character.
-
Herod's Temple doesn't specifically target any character.
I thought your point was that VP specifically targets Job, but Mayhem doesn't (since it targets the hand). So I'm not sure I follow your point here...I don't see why Herod's Temple specifically targeting a character or not is important.
-
I think it's both. VP specifically targets Job and sends him under but that is insteaded by DA specifically targeting Job. Mayhem specifically targets the players' hand, and the game has no way to check that Job being targeted because the hand is not public knowledge.
-
Vain should be insteaded because job is specifically targeted but it should not instead mayhem.
Elhanan specifically targets Lahmi so can he discard him from opponents hand if he is banded in with Praise Him Moon?
-
The game doesn't know that. The game does know that vain is underdecking job. If a random card was underdecked that happened to be job I'd say no d and a does not activate because it is not necessary to show the random card when it is underdecked. Vain shows as far as I know so the game knows its job and it is insteaded
-
Praise Him Moon reveals your opponents hand so it the game knows Lahmi is in it.
-
Praise Him Moon reveals your opponents hand so it the game knows Lahmi is in it.
No, it doesn't, because the band and look at hand are two separate abilities. Once the look at hand stops, the hand becomes unknown again (as far as the game is concerned). Vain is linked, so the game does know that Job is being underdecked.
-
So a Birth Fortold SoG is not protected from Mayhem because we dont want Mayhem to be that powerful, right?
-
So a Birth Fortold SoG is not protected from Mayhem because we dont want Mayhem to be that powerful, right?
It's not protected because the game can't confirm where Son of God is unless it's in a known location like Play/Set Aside/Discard/etc. For example, I would rule it couldn't be removed from your discard pile if you BF'd the same turn it was being targeted.
-
So whats the ruling on Job/DnA vs. Vain?
-
Praise Him Moon reveals your opponents hand so it the game knows Lahmi is in it.
No, it doesn't, because the band and look at hand are two separate abilities. Once the look at hand stops, the hand becomes unknown again (as far as the game is concerned). Vain is linked, so the game does know that Job is being underdecked.
Then you can never band a hero into battle from that hand, with your interpretation.
-
Praise Him Moon reveals your opponents hand so it the game knows Lahmi is in it.
No, it doesn't, because the band and look at hand are two separate abilities. Once the look at hand stops, the hand becomes unknown again (as far as the game is concerned). Vain is linked, so the game does know that Job is being underdecked.
Then you can never band a hero into battle from that hand, with your interpretation.
Technically, you would be correct because they're two separate abilities. The definition of band states that you can only band to heroes in a territory or your hand anyway, so Praise Him Moon is pretty much worthless either way. Poor wording.
-
One thing I want to point out is that, to the best my knowledge, there is no precedent in Redemption that the game needs to "know" anything, though I'm fully open to the possibility that this assumption is incorrect. That said, even if it is a valid way to establish rulings, it still doesn't necessarily keep Mayhem from shuffling Job. What if I played Sorrow of Mary (a reveal - not just a look) to put a good card under the deck, and right after that, I play Mayhem while Job is in that hand? For all intents and purposes, the game knows that Job was in hand. What if I'm playing Teams, and someone chooses to reveal that they have a Job in hand (per the rules of the category) without actually playing him, and then the opponent (or heck, even the teammate) plays Mayhem? Again, the game knows that Job is in the hand, only this time, it's not even via a special ability.
It's not protected because the game can't confirm where Son of God is unless it's in a known location like Play/Set Aside/Discard/etc. For example, I would rule it couldn't be removed from your discard pile if you BF'd the same turn it was being targeted.
It's not protected because Birth Foretold's protection defaults to play. That is definitely the current ruling, regardless of what you think it should be. Ruling that it couldn't be removed from the discard pile if BF was played beforehand would be a bad ruling.
-
One thing I want to point out is that, to the best my knowledge, there is no precedent in Redemption that the game needs to "know" anything, though I'm fully open to the possibility that this assumption is incorrect. That said, even if it is a valid way to establish rulings, it still doesn't necessarily keep Mayhem from shuffling Job. What if I played Sorrow of Mary (a reveal - not just a look) to put a good card under the deck, and right after that, I play Mayhem while Job is in that hand? For all intents and purposes, the game knows that Job was in hand. What if I'm playing Teams, and someone chooses to reveal that they have a Job in hand (per the rules of the category) without actually playing him, and then the opponent (or heck, even the teammate) plays Mayhem? Again, the game knows that Job is in the hand, only this time, it's not even via a special ability.
Then that's your punishment for playing Job.
Joking aside, I think that when a hand ceases to be revealed, the location becomes unknown, and Mayhem would still shuffle it.
-
Praise Him Moon reveals your opponents hand so it the game knows Lahmi is in it.
No, it doesn't, because the band and look at hand are two separate abilities. Once the look at hand stops, the hand becomes unknown again (as far as the game is concerned). Vain is linked, so the game does know that Job is being underdecked.
Then you can never band a hero into battle from that hand, with your interpretation.
Technically, you would be correct because they're two separate abilities. The definition of band states that you can only band to heroes in a territory or your hand anyway, so Praise Him Moon is pretty much worthless either way. Poor wording.
That is the default yes, it is saying that you cannot present Jacob and ask an opponent if he has Captain in his hand to band to. I think PHM is a case of a special ability overriding game rule.
-
Technically, you would be correct because they're two separate abilities. The definition of band states that you can only band to heroes in a territory or your hand anyway, so Praise Him Moon is pretty much worthless either way. Poor wording.
As Hobbit stated, that is merely the default condition. If a card specifies that it can band from elsewhere, then it can do so. Ship to Cyprus and Resurrection are other examples of banding to Heroes not in a territory or your hand.
-
The game doesn't know that. The game does know that vain is underdecking job. If a random card was underdecked that happened to be job I'd say no d and a does not activate because it is not necessary to show the random card when it is underdecked. Vain shows as far as I know so the game knows its job and it is insteaded
I just read through the REG entry of "Instead", and I see no reference to "the game knowing something" affecting how instead abilities work. The precedence is "instead abilities target abilities, and thus are not restricted to the field of play". It seems that the logical conclusion is "if Job is harmed anywhere, in any way, he is placed in Dust and Ashes". Therefore, Job being shuffled/underdecked by Mayhem/VP are both conditions to be "insteaded" by DaA.
Is this "known to the game" idea in the REG anywhere? If not, then I don't think it should be used for ruling questions.
-
I agree with jmhartz. So to be clear on this, if Mayhem is played with Job in hand and DnA down then that player does not draw from Mayhem, correct?
-
I agree with jmhartz. So to be clear on this, if Mayhem is played with Job in hand and DnA down then that player does not draw from Mayhem, correct?
As of this point, I would have to rule yes based on current rulings, but this may have to be taken under consideration.
-
So Job players get punished for keeping him in hand...
Kirk
-
So Job players get punished for keeping him in hand...
Kirk
In the same way that Wall of Protection players get punished if they're playing against Philistines. :P
-
Yet we can discard a hand of zero to satisfy PO...
...still enjoying retirement. ;)
-
Yet we can discard a hand of zero to satisfy PO...
That will always and forever irk me.
-
Doesn't PO say minimum 7 cards? :scratch:
Or were you referring to the blocking player?
-
Yet we can discard a hand of zero to satisfy PO...
That will always and forever irk me.
Even though it's only theoretical and never actually happened... because Primary Objective sees little to no play and emptying your opponent's hand is difficult even when using a hand control deck. ::)
Doesn't PO say minimum 7 cards? :scratch:
For you, the opponent just has to discard their hand.
-
Yet we can discard a hand of zero to satisfy PO...
That will always and forever irk me.
Even though it's only theoretical and never actually happened... because Primary Objective sees little to no play and emptying your opponent's hand is difficult even when using a hand control deck. ::)
It's the principal of the thing. [/soapbox]
I'm more annoyed by the same ruling in reference to Sinning Hand than PO. :P
-
Make up my mind. Is it theoretical or is it a rule? If it is a rule, then discarding a hand happens regardless of the condition of its contents (0 or n cards; insteaded or not; etc.).
-
Actually discarding a hand of zero to fulfill Primary Objective (for the blocker) is completely consistent with the rule that Job not getting shuffled by Mayhem will not allow you to draw.
Primary Objective says "discard entire hand" (or something to that effect), if my hand has 0 cards in it, I discard the entire hand of 0, thus fulfilling the condition.
In the Mayhem - Job situation, I have to shuffle my entire hand (which includes Job) so my hand has n cards in it and I only shuffle n - 1 cards, therefore not my entire hand.
-
So Job players get punished for keeping him in hand...
Kirk
Or whenever DNA sends him back to hand.
As far as "known" and "unknown" locations go, this is something from Pokemon (I believe it's in other games as well) that has inevitably influenced both Olijar and me. Basically the concept states that the gamestate knows whether there is a valid target or not. Thus if you search your opponent's deck and there's a valid target, you have to take it, because the deck is a "known" location. However, as a general rule, you can't target a specific card in opponent's hand because the location is unknown (I can't currently think of an example). In Redemption, default conditions tend to fill this role, but known/unknown is essentially a way of simplifying everything. The really confusing thing is that the deck can't be looked at at any time, so it doesn't follow the common known/unknown location rules. Olijar and I like to think it's a logical rule and should be applied to Redemption situations.
As far as the purpose of it, it's a rule to stop lying. In Pokemon you can search your deck and not take a target because your opponent shouldn't know the contents of your deck--including whether you have a valid target or not--so that nobody can lie and say there was no valid target and then the opponent throws a fit when there actually was, but at that point there's no way to prove it and he gets screwed. This was brought up in past and Gabe basically said feel free to call a judge over if somebody fails a search. Personally, it seems strategic to play Birth Foretold at certain situations and not grab Son of God, baiting your opponent into playing Vain Philosophy/Mayhem when you actually don't have a good hand, and I really don't know what would happen if my opponent played Vain Philosophy immediately after only to discover it's not in my hand. But I digress.
-
Pokemon =/= Redemption. Stop confusing yourselves by trying to cross over rules. ::)
-
I'm confused. Is Mayhem a "Do as much as you can" or not? If it is, wouldn't you draw regardless of whether Job is insteaded? If its not, then wouldn't Job getting insteaded stop the shuffle under the idea that if you can't do all of it, you don't do any of it?
-
I'm confused. Is Mayhem a "Do as much as you can" or not? If it is, wouldn't you draw regardless of whether Job is insteaded? If its not, then wouldn't Job getting insteaded stop the shuffle under the idea that if you can't do all of it, you don't do any of it?
Mayhem is a shuffle hand to draw 6, so if the shuffle your hand doesn't go through in its entirety, then you don't get to draw 6. It does fall a bit to do as much as you can, like if you only have 4 cards in your deck, you still get to draw them, or if Job gets insteaded, you still shuffle the rest of your hand (although in this case you won't get to draw)
-
I'm confused. Is Mayhem a "Do as much as you can" or not? If it is, wouldn't you draw regardless of whether Job is insteaded? If its not, then wouldn't Job getting insteaded stop the shuffle under the idea that if you can't do all of it, you don't do any of it?
Mayhem is a shuffle hand to draw 6, so if the shuffle your hand doesn't go through in its entirety, then you don't get to draw 6. It does fall a bit to do as much as you can, like if you only have 4 cards in your deck, you still get to draw them, or if Job gets insteaded, you still shuffle the rest of your hand (although in this case you won't get to draw)
So you're saying it both is and isn't a do as much as you can?
Followup: Where on Mayhem does it say it has to be the entire hand? I thought it just said "shuffle hand".
-
I'm confused. Is Mayhem a "Do as much as you can" or not? If it is, wouldn't you draw regardless of whether Job is insteaded? If its not, then wouldn't Job getting insteaded stop the shuffle under the idea that if you can't do all of it, you don't do any of it?
Mayhem is a shuffle hand to draw 6, so if the shuffle your hand doesn't go through in its entirety, then you don't get to draw 6. It does fall a bit to do as much as you can, like if you only have 4 cards in your deck, you still get to draw them, or if Job gets insteaded, you still shuffle the rest of your hand (although in this case you won't get to draw)
So you're saying it both is and isn't a do as much as you can?
Followup: Where on Mayhem does it say it has to be the entire hand? I thought it just said "shuffle hand".
I said that you have to shuffle your hand to draw 6. But there are parts that, in the right circumstances, will fall into do as much as you can.
Shuffle hand is functionally the same as shuffle entire hand. Since Mayhem is a cost benefit ability, you have to fulfill the cost (shuffling your hand) in order to get the benefit (draw 6). If Job is insteaded then you haven't shuffled your hand, you've only shuffled part of it, just like if your opponent has Nazareth they don't shuffle their hand (they didn't pay the cost) so they don't get to draw 6.
-
Okay, I see how it works now. Tanks for the explanation.
-
Now see, this is what I'm not getting. You say you have to shuffle the entire hand to draw. That makes perfect sense. You justify this by saying that shuffle hand is the same as shuffle the entire hand. Makes perfect sense. Then you say that if you can't shuffle your entire hand, you still have to shuffle what you can. Say what? Either shuffle hand means Shuffle the Entire Hand or it means shuffle as much of the hand as you legally can, but you're telling me it means both at the same time...
The default rule is that you do as much as you can, if I play Wrath of Satan and I am unable to discard my opponent's Gideon (because of Angel Under the Oak) then I would still discard every other hero. The same applies to the Shuffle ability on Mayhem, even if one card get's insteaded you still shuffle your hand. However, Mayhem is also a cost benefit ability linked to whether or not you shuffled your entire hand. So because you didn't shuffle your entire hand, you don't get to draw 6.
So the shuffle your hand is a do as much as you can ability. But the draw 6 only happens if you shuffle your entire hand.
-
I don't have time to read this entire thread, and some of the recent posts are referencing earlier posts, apparently. What is the current official ruling about abilities that specify targets, but those targets are in the hand?
For instance:
Job discarded from hand randomly when Dust & Ashes is active.
An angel discarded from hand randomly when Chamber of Angels is active.
etc.
-
I don't know.
(That's all I can say, otherwise my post may get whacked. ;) )
-
Job discarded from hand randomly when Dust & Ashes is active.
An angel discarded from hand randomly when Chamber of Angels is active.
Let's see if I can get this correct:
1. Job would be discarded unless it was a nuetral or evil ability discarding him.
2. Angel goes to Chamber regardless of alignment.
-
RTS is correct. Instead abilities apply to cards in any location: hand, deck, discard pile, play, set-aside area, etc. Thus if Job is harmed (targeted by a neutral or evil card) then he goes to D&A no matter where he is currently. If an Angel is discarded (by any ability, no matter where it is) then it goes to Chamber.
-
Thanks for clearing that up. ;D
-
So Job players all players get punished for keeping him in hand having Mayhem played against them...
FTFY
-
I understand that this thread is dead and buried, but for the sake of clarity due to this ruling being referenced elsewhere (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/deck-concepts/job-turtle/msg529858/#msg529858), and this being the only location you can find this particular ruling spelled-out, I wanted to add a piece to the discussion that makes most of it moot:
Dust and Ashes (http://redemption.wikia.com/wiki/Dust_and_Ashes_(Di))
When you play this card, search discard pile for Job. If your Job is harmed or defeated by an opponent, you may place him here instead. Each upkeep, return contents to hand. Cannot be negated.
So while the ruling is correct that you cannot draw if you decide to put Job in Dust and Ashes (as the cost of shuffling your entire hand was not done, you do not get the benefit of drawing 6), the ability is optional. There is no penalty for playing Job decks and getting Mayhem'd (though perhaps a Nazzy or two would help anyway, since he goes to your hand so often anyway), as you can still choose not to instead the shuffle; since he goes with the rest of your hand, the benefit (drawing 6) occurs as normal.