Author Topic: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook  (Read 1468 times)

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« on: July 29, 2016, 06:06:45 PM »
0
While re-reading the 4th ED rulebook, I came across this apparent contradiction:

Page 9:  Battle Phase

d. Resolve the rescue attempt or battle challenge (battle resolution). Note that Dominant cards cannot be played here.
1 End of battle (no more enhancements can be played)
2 Discard characters in battle that are defeated
3 if the Evil Character is defeated, transfer a Lost Soul (if there is one) from the blocker’s Land of Bondage to the rescuer’s Land of Redemption

4 Return surviving characters to territory; discard enhancements in the Field of Battle

Page 18:  Dominants Played During Battle

You and/or your opponent can play a dominant(s) (lamb or grim reaper icon) at any time during
the game except while a special ability is being completed or during Battle Resolution.

Page 18-19:  Example - Playing Dominants During Battle

You are making a rescue attempt with John, a purple brigade Hero with abilities of 5/5. Your opponent blocks with Saph, a black brigade Evil Character with abilities of 9/11. You hero is losing. You have initiative.
Instead of playing an enhancement on John, you play Angel of the Lord, a dominant (lamb icon card), that allows you to “Discard an Evil Character”. You discard Saph. Your opponent cannot stop
this using an enhancement. Your opponent also cannot present a new Evil Character. John, who is now unblocked, rescues a Lost Soul (unless your opponent plays Chistian Martyr (grim reaper icon card) that allows him to “Discard a Hero.”).

Page 24: Battle Resolution

Battle Resolution
After the last enhancement is played and both players have passed, the battle ends and the battle outcome must be resolved. It is now too late to play a Dominant card this battle.


So which is it:  no dominants can be played during battle resolution, or Christian Martyr can be played to discard my sole rescuing hero when the last EC is removed from battle??  I had this situation in a recent tournament where I discarded my opponent's last EC, was now unblocked, and had a sole rescuing hero.  He threw down CM.  I didn't think this could be done, but because I was unfamiliar with the rules at the time and didn't challenge it, I went with it.  When this situation occurs, a dominant like CM should not be able to be played since my opponent had plenty of time to play that during battle but didn't.  This is what I believe the point of the repetitious rules about how dominants cannot be played during battle resolution, but then the rules appear to be contradicting when it says CM can be played in response to AotL being played against the sole blocker, who is taken out and now the LS is unblocked.

Am I missing something here?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 06:08:47 PM by Watchman492 »
Overcome satan by the blood of the Lamb, your testimony, and don't love your life to the death!

Offline RedemptionAggie

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+38)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2016, 06:18:00 PM »
+4
Removing the last character on either side of the battle doesn't force the battle into battle resolution.  The 3rd part of the battle phase (initiative) isn't fully described, because you can trigger other cards (like Writ or Unknown Nation) there as well, even after one side is completely removed.  You don't enter Battle Resolution until both players agree to it (more or less).

d-2 is about characters that are defeated by the numbers.

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2016, 07:42:00 PM »
+1
Confirming that both players have to pass the ability to play dominants and/or activate available cards/abilities before it moves to Battle Resolution.

Basically, you stay in Step C until both players are done playing everything they want/can (unless an ability moves to Battle Resolution).

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2016, 08:30:39 PM »
0
I appreciate both responses but as a less experienced player, in reading these rules and seeing your responses I'm still confused about exactly when battle resolution occurs and the point when dominants cannot be played any longer.  Perhaps some example of each scenario (when a dominant can be played and when one can't be played) will help me understand better.

Thanks

Derek
Overcome satan by the blood of the Lamb, your testimony, and don't love your life to the death!

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2016, 08:34:28 PM »
0
These entries are way too wordy and overexplain specific scenarios instead of simply letting cross-indexing and firm definitions do the work, which was ironically done in a wrong-headed attempt to head off confusion. However, they're not technically wrong or breaking the game if you understand that battle resolution doesn't happen until all players agree it does. In fact, a more streamlined meta-rule about priority (which is already dead in the water it seems) would solve this problem alongside the many others.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2016, 08:37:48 PM »
0
Removing the last character on either side of the battle doesn't force the battle into battle resolution.  The 3rd part of the battle phase (initiative) isn't fully described, because you can trigger other cards (like Writ or Unknown Nation) there as well, even after one side is completely removed.  You don't enter Battle Resolution until both players agree to it (more or less).

d-2 is about characters that are defeated by the numbers.

If this rulebook doesn't fully describe the third part of the battle phase (apparently the most important part of this issue), what does, the REG? If so, what section can I find it in?
Overcome satan by the blood of the Lamb, your testimony, and don't love your life to the death!

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2016, 08:45:49 PM »
0
Rulebooks are updated when a new starter deck is released. There have been many, many advances in how we think of the rules since the last starter deck, and the REG is the document that reflects those upgrades. In fact, I believe if there is a conflict between the rulebook and the REG, the REG takes precedence.

I am convinced that within a season or two we will have a new starter backed with a new rulebook that is succinct, hopefully contains zero examples in its rules, and a robust document that will give new players everything they need. Give it some time! We just now eliminated "but that's not how we used to do things" from the list of valid arguments.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2016, 09:00:40 PM »
+3
I had this situation in a recent tournament where I discarded my opponent's last EC, was now unblocked, and had a sole rescuing hero.  He threw down CM.  I didn't think this could be done, but because I was unfamiliar with the rules at the time and didn't challenge it, I went with it.  When this situation occurs, a dominant like CM should not be able to be played since my opponent had plenty of time to play that during battle but didn't.

What you are missing is that the battle did not end when you discarded his EC. Your opponent is allowed to respond to your action with his own dominant before Battle Resolution begins. Whether he "had plenty of time to play it" earlier or not is irrelevant.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #8 on: July 29, 2016, 09:38:22 PM »
0
I had this situation in a recent tournament where I discarded my opponent's last EC, was now unblocked, and had a sole rescuing hero.  He threw down CM.  I didn't think this could be done, but because I was unfamiliar with the rules at the time and didn't challenge it, I went with it.  When this situation occurs, a dominant like CM should not be able to be played since my opponent had plenty of time to play that during battle but didn't.

What you are missing is that the battle did not end when you discarded his EC. Your opponent is allowed to respond to your action with his own dominant before Battle Resolution begins. Whether he "had plenty of time to play it" earlier or not is irrelevant.

YMT, thank you for clarification.  When I wrote "had plenty of time to play it" was with the understanding, based upon what I read in the rulebook, that he could not play a dominant during battle resolution, and that battle resolution occurs when the blocker(s) is removed.  But based upon the responses, I have learned that battle resolution doesn't exactly occur when the last blocker is removed from battle. 

So from what I'm understanding, battle resolution occurs when the two players "agree" on when the battle is over after each player has had the opportunity to finish playing anything that would either effectively stop a rescue attempt/battle challenge or not be further hindered in the rescue attempt/battle challenge.  Is this correct?  And I've also learned that I should basically not give too much regard to the 4th edition rulebook but refer almost exclusively to the REG.

This whole when-battle-resolution occurs is still ambiguous to me as I'm not seeing anything that clearly states this in the REG, which, in my humble opinion, needs to be more clearly defined if the 4th edition rules are effectively outdated, and there's nothing very specific in the REG that goes into the details discussed in these responses (unless I'm missing it).  There is an entry for Battle Resolution in the REG but it definitely does not go into detail about when this really occurs, what can be played/not played, etc., again, unless I'm missing or not fully understanding what's in the REG.  I know you all are much more experienced at this game than I am and have had plenty of play time and discussion about these rules, but to the newer player, these issues are pretty frustrating, to say the least, especially when I'm trying to learn the game AND teach people how to play.  This game reminds me of state statutes being on the books but that those laws and procedural justice is mostly enforced or guided by case law (when judges make a ruling that applies to how law enforcement and future court proceedings address the proper application of Constitutional rights). 

I feel sorry for new players who have not been introduced to this game by an experienced player but have purchased the 4th edition SD, read the rulebook, and have to unlearn many different things that are in the rulebook when they start playing with experienced players.  There needs to be a better solution to this problem with future starter decks (as Minister Polarius eluded to) given the constant errata changes.  Perhaps just an online-only rulebook instead of a printed one would be the best option.

I love this game, but my goodness, these constant errata changes are frustrating!
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 09:40:56 PM by Watchman492 »
Overcome satan by the blood of the Lamb, your testimony, and don't love your life to the death!

Offline kram1138

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2016, 12:53:34 AM »
0
The REG is intended to be an "advanced guide". Everything that you need to play and enjoy the game is in the rulebook, but for tournament play where minor issues can mean a difference between winning or losing the tournament, a more in depth guide is needed. Which is where the REG comes in. It doesn't have step by step rules as to how you would go about playing the game. So if you are looking for how to play a particular part of the game, it might be better to look in the rulebook, then verify that the REG doesn't contradict it. For looking up how a certain ability should be played, the REG is usually better.

But the rulebook is still valid, and looking there for understanding the game is perfectly fine, as long as it's not contradicted by the REG.

And yes, you are correct. Battle resolution happens when both players agree the battle is over.
postCount.Add(1);

Offline Watchman

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2487
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2016, 01:44:03 AM »
0
The REG is intended to be an "advanced guide". Everything that you need to play and enjoy the game is in the rulebook, but for tournament play where minor issues can mean a difference between winning or losing the tournament, a more in depth guide is needed. Which is where the REG comes in. It doesn't have step by step rules as to how you would go about playing the game. So if you are looking for how to play a particular part of the game, it might be better to look in the rulebook, then verify that the REG doesn't contradict it. For looking up how a certain ability should be played, the REG is usually better.

But the rulebook is still valid, and looking there for understanding the game is perfectly fine, as long as it's not contradicted by the REG.

And yes, you are correct. Battle resolution happens when both players agree the battle is over.

Thank you, Mark. 

In my opinion, the rulebook is still not very clear on this particular subject and needs to be re-worded.  Think of a new player who buys the starter deck, reads the rule book, and then comes across the same rules/example that I pointed out at the beginning of this thread.  The way Battle Resolution is worded and described in the rulebook, and how dominants cannot be played during Battle Resolution, and then the example of CM being played apparently during Battle Resolution (as defined in the rulebook), is confusing at the very least.  I simply think that the rulebook could and should be clearer and go into a little more detail as to why a dominant like CM can be played in the cited example.  There's no other place in the book that unequivocally explains this scenario.
Overcome satan by the blood of the Lamb, your testimony, and don't love your life to the death!

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Apparent contradiction in 4th Ed. rulebook
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2016, 03:49:52 AM »
+4
Would you say that the Bible is faulty because a study you read on it was incomplete? Whether a good or bad thing right now, the REG is the rules document for Redemption, not the rule book. Swap their names around and you've no problem. Your complaint is valid, but likely to be addressed as soon as we're done streamlining the rules in the first place. In the mean time, the more time you spend playing 99% of the great players, the more nuances you'll learn that no amount of rules documentation will ever impart you.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal