Cactus Game Design Message Boards

If I have Ends of the Earth into my hand during battle, can I add it to battle, or does it have to be in territory before I go for my rescue?

Thanks. That's what I thought but he didn't believe me.

Quote from: Red Wing on March 28, 2018, 07:10:10 PM

Sites cannot be put in battle from hand.

Why is the ruling like this? If you can add a site from territory into battle at any time, what's the reasoning behind not letting you add it from hand?

That rule predates my discovery of this game.

Quote from: Red Wing on March 28, 2018, 07:10:10 PM

Sites cannot be put in battle from hand.

Why is the ruling like this? If you can add a site from territory into battle at any time, what's the reasoning behind not letting you add it from hand?

 

While we’re at it let’s increase the power of another card type and start a petition to be able to be able to activate artifacts in our discard phase. We can also do one to allow souls to be removed from sites.

Some rules exist because that’s just how the game was made and cards are designed around those rules. They shouldn’t be arbitrarily changed if they don’t cause actual problems with the game.

I totally agree with this. One of the rules I petitioned to change was heal when I noticed it was working very differently than the older rule books described. I suggested it be made to work more similarly to the way they described in older rule books for the sake of consistency. Very thankful for the current heal ruling as it is more in line with the in circulation rule books..This is a case of a reasonable rule adjustment when it deviated from rulings where people who are not on the boards would find.

That said, considering the way rules have been for a long time is very good for maintaining consistent rulings and confident judges.

While we’re at it let’s increase the power of another card type and start a petition to be able to be able to activate artifacts in our discard phase. We can also do one to allow souls to be removed from sites.

Some rules exist because that’s just how the game was made and cards are designed around those rules. They shouldn’t be arbitrarily changed if they don’t cause actual problems with the game.

  At the very least deactivate an art in discard phase.

Kind of like back when curses retain their brigade when activated as artifact and now all of a sudden they don't.

Bad example. Think about how every other dual card type works. Then think about how Curses and Covenants were treated. You’ll see one blatant inconsistency that necessitated a change.

I didn't say it I didn't like the change in fact it probably should have been this way all along. I was referring to

Quote from: kariusvega on March 28, 2018, 08:59:37 PM

That said, considering the way rules have been for a long time is very good for maintaining consistent rulings and confident judges.

But that's the point. The change was made to be more consistent with how similar card types work. The only precedent for sites being able to be added to battle from hand is the rule that they can't be.

On the whole JD is correct though. There will always be exceptions as the game grows.

Since I started playing I’ve wished that I could add sites to battle from hand. Still do. While that change fits my play style I don’t know that it’s what is best for the game.

But the basic point is why is it such a problem to add it from hand? All this rule does is create unnecessary confusion and questions on the forum, which is what started this thread. This is not the first time I’ve seen this question asked. I didn’t know the answer until a few months ago because it’s an ambiguous rule. Many others who I spoke with also didn’t know it was a rule either. And the question will continue to be asked, and players will still be surprised to learn they can’t add it from hand.

So what is the reasoning as to why it cannot be added to battle from hand?

Yes but I guess we need to look back to when sites were first introduced what made them go to territory before being added to battle? And if I remember correctly no site had special abilities so there was no need to place it into the field of battle except for gaining access. You also didn't make a rescue attempt if there was no lost soul. Anyways things change all the time. It was kind of a joke with the petition and all.

So that’s the reason, because it’s a small cost? I’m sorry but given the card type that seems trivial to me.

I have briefly considered cutting Ends from some of my faster decks because its a dead card if I draw it mid battle where if I had another battle winner in that slot I would have more gas to use. If I instead could just put it straight down and get a GE from it that consideration wouldn't exist. Removing the cost of being a dead draw in certain situations would remove pretty much the only weakness this card has.

So that’s the reason, because it’s a small cost? I’m sorry but given the card type that seems trivial to me.

Didn't say that--I wasn't on the design team when Sites were introduced. I was merely pointing out that for how often I've heard people complain about Redemption being "cost-free" compared to other games, this is actually one situation where there is a cost albeit a very minor one.

Sites and cards that interact with Sites have been designed with that rule in mind, and I have yet to see a reason to change that.

If you could add a site from hand to battle it turns Samaria + Gates of Samaria into a potential battle winner without needing initiative.

Sites are added to battle for the hero’s site access. ECs don’t use them in battle so Gates’ ability being used in battle is irrelevant.