Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: CactusRob on June 23, 2011, 03:43:29 PM
-
The first article is up at the Cactus site. Enjoy.
-
Wow...so many spoilers on new cards. The Cannanites will be a tasty addition to Redemption for sure!
-
And in case you're too lazy to search Cactus' main site for it, here's a link (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/red_game_articles_2011-1.php).
-
And in case you're too lazy to search Cactus' main site for it, here's a link (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/red_game_articles_2011-1.php).
Wow! such initiative and ambition. Yawn... Can you push my left clicker on the mouse for me too? ;)
-
I wasn't lazy, I just couldn't find it. :(
Thanks for the link. I guess my reprint of Shechem is useless, lol. Also, yay for Thad counter.
-
Wow...so many spoilers on new cards.
Indeed. I think I saw 14 exact names of cards from the new set in the article...
;D
-
Yeah, it was kind of legit, spoil 1/3rd of the cards in a single article, by the time we get to article 4 we'll have all of the names out there.
-
Yeah, it was kind of legit, spoil 1/3rd of the cards in a single article, by the time we get to article 4 we'll have all of the names out there.
Could you build a top-tier deck for me while you're at it?
-
meh. nerfed.
-
I don't get it. So now I have to play canaanites if I want to counter disciples?
-
They sure talked a lot of smack against the Disciples in the article. I'm still unconvinced that the Cannies are the next big thing.
-
I like the "Protect contents from opponents" part, my list didn't have that.
-
that was a REALLY old list then.
-
Actually, I just checked... I was wrong, it does say that.
-
That article is to long, could someone read it to me.
-
That article is to long, could someone read it to me.
I'm sure ProfAlstad would be happy to tend to your every need. xp
-
An untimely MLaMG or the like would be a serious problem.
Also: Anyone notice that KoT now has a protect fort?
-
Also: Anyone notice that KoT now has a protect fort?
Only if we printed a black/orange KoT in one of the tins. ;)
-
Also: Anyone notice that KoT now has a protect fort?
Only if we printed a black/orange KoT in one of the tins. ;)
Well, did you?
-
Also: Anyone notice that KoT now has a protect fort?
Only if we printed a black/orange KoT in one of the tins. ;)
Well, did you?
Not yet. :)
-
Right, because I really need another reason to play Black with Orange...
-
Don't tempt us more it is already so awesome.
-
That article is to long, could someone read it to me.
Yes but when I read out loud I read in klingon...
-
Bravo!
But I'm still playing ANB. ;)
-
Wow, that was a really great article Bryon. Perhaps my favorite one that you have written. I loved how you included so much of the Biblical story, then really went into detail explaining the card, and then finished up with a great real-life application. Awesome job!
-
I'm still bitter my themes of choice are (mostly) getting ignored :'(
-
At least Tower already have plenty of ways to be discarded already. Might want to try a judge deck again :).
-
Does "negate heroes" mean just abilities?
-
Does "negate heroes" mean just abilities?
yes. They wanted to keep the ability short
-
Does "negate heroes" mean just abilities?
yes. They wanted to keep the ability short
I disagree, considering how Creeping Deceiver was ruled it should negate enhancements too.
-
"Negate heroes" is defined in the article.
-
"Negate heroes" is defined in the article.
I'm aware, but the wording is almost identical to CD, how is this different?
-
"Negate heroes" is defined in the article.
I'm aware, but the wording is almost identical to CD, how is this different?
Tower says: "Negate Heroes."
Creeping Deceiver says: "Cannot be negated by a character."
How are those almost identical? If Tower said "negate special abilities used by Heroes" then I could see your point. But it doesn't.
-
If CD said "Cannot be negated by a hero," it'd still stop enhancements from negating it as well.
I think Smokey does have a good point.
-
Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?
-
If CD said "Cannot be negated by a hero," it'd still stop enhancements from negating it as well.
I think Smokey does have a good point.
If CD said "Cannot be negated by a Hero", I still don't see how it is similar to "negate Heroes." One of them restricts what a certain card type can do, either by its own special ability, or abilities on enhancements used by that card type. The other just specifies the card type (and based on the definition of negate, really just specifies the SA's of a card type). Enhancments are not heroes, so Tower doesn't negate them. However, enhancements are used by characters, so it would still be the character doing the negating in the case of CD.
-
If CD said "Cannot be negated by a hero," it'd still stop enhancements from negating it as well.
I think Smokey does have a good point.
If CD said "Cannot be negated by a Hero", I still don't see how it is similar to "negate Heroes." One of them restricts what a certain card type can do, either by its own special ability, or abilities on enhancements used by that card type. The other just specifies the card type (and based on the definition of negate, really just specifies the SA's of a card type). Enhancments are not heroes, so Tower doesn't negate them. However, enhancements are used by characters, so it would still be the character doing the negating in the case of CD.
If CD cannot be negated by a character, and an enhancement used by a character also cannot negate CD, then if I negate the character should I negate his negate.
How can one be true but the opposite not be true.
-
Different categories. Negate/CBN/Protect. They don't all follow the same rules.
-
If CD cannot be negated by a character, and an enhancement used by a character also cannot negate CD, then if I negate the character should I negate his negate.
How can one be true but the opposite not be true.
"Negate" and "cannot be negated" are inherently different, so they can't be directly compared. Negate is an ability that targets abilities of specific cards (in this case Heroes). It says nothing about abilities used by Heroes, just Heroes. Cannot be negated is an ability (well, more of an identifier of an ability) that targets the ability, specifying what certain cards can do to the ability. Thus it is broader in the sense that it means that characters can't negate CD by their own abilities, and they can't use enhancements to negate CD.
-
...and it's become another "3 Stooges"-type thread...as if that's a surprise. ::)
-
...and it's become another "3 Stooges"-type thread...as if that's a surprise. ::)
And as always, your input is much appreciated... ;D
-
"Negate" and "cannot be negated" are inherently different, so they can't be directly compared. Negate is an ability that targets abilities of specific cards (in this case Heroes). It says nothing about abilities used by Heroes, just Heroes. Cannot be negated is an ability (well, more of an identifier of an ability) that targets the ability, specifying what certain cards can do to the ability. Thus it is broader in the sense that it means that characters can't negate CD by their own abilities, and they can't use enhancements to negate CD.
I wasn't attempting to argue that Negate and CBN should follow the same rules.
I'm saying that if you can include enhancements for abilities that don't mention enhancements because they are played together, then that should be universal.
The rule shouldn't be "Enhancements are played by characters and are counted as characters abilities, except when they aren't".
-
I wasn't attempting to argue that Negate and CBN should follow the same rules.
I'm saying that if you can include enhancements for abilities that don't mention enhancements because they are played together, then that should be universal.
The rule shouldn't be "Enhancements are played by characters and are counted as characters abilities, except when they aren't".
The logic behind CD is as follows:
Thaddeus has been ruled that he is protected from EC's, therefore he is protected from their enhancements. The logic there is because enhancements are used by characters, therefore it is the character doing the capture/discard/etc. Raider's Camp, Potiphar's Wife, Fallen Warrior, etc. are all examples of this. When the character captures/defeats the Hero because of enhancements they play, they get the benefit. No one is arguing, or has ever argued, that the enhancement abilities are counted as character abilities, rather, they are abilities used by characters. Hence, CD cannot be negated by characters, which means he cannot be negated by enhancements used by characters.
However, negate heroes =/= negate special abilities used by Heroes. If it did, I could see your argument, and would agree with you, but it doesn't say that. We used "negate Heroes" as shorthand for "negate special abilities on Heroes", in which case it works just like John/The Centurions, which I assume you wouldn't think negate EEs.
-
What you're saying:
If a character has a target, enhancements count as their abilities.
If a character is being targeted, enhancements don't count as their abilities.
What I'm saying:
This is illogical and enhancements interactions with characters should be made more consistant.
I'm not arguing how it works, I'm arguing that it should be changed.
I understand how and why it works, but I don't understand why it isn't being normalized.
-
I think if a card says its protected from/CBN by characters it should be protected from just characters. (so Thad wouldn't be protected from Wrath of Satan, but would be protected from King Zimri (assuming X is high enough))
Immune can be different in that the enhancements don't affect it, that doesn't bother me because then immune is a different ability from protect, right now its the same except its only for characters.
Changing it now might be a bit unfair to everyone using disciples at the moment.
-
Are all future articles just going to be links to the Cactus website...? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the article section?
-
Are all future articles just going to be links to the Cactus website...? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the article section?
There was no article section until like a year ago. It's just an archive of old articles.
-
Still, it's a lot easier to get to it here.
-
"Negate heroes" is defined in the article.
I'm aware, but the wording is almost identical to CD, how is this different?
Tower says: "Negate Heroes." <- Negates the hero alone, as it literally says.
Creeping Deceiver says: "Cannot be negated by a character." <- Emphasis on "by." Sounds like: Neither the character nor enhancements used by the character can negate it. I.E. Cannot be negated.
How are those almost identical? If Tower said "negate special abilities used by Heroes" then I could see your point. But it doesn't.
^^ I agree. Not similar in the least way. ^^
^ See remarks within quote. ^
The reasoning is logical because the cards have two completely different abilities and the wording specifies the "range" of each ability.
Carry On,
-C_S
-
Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?
A long time ago, negating Flaming Sword "negated" the numbers. But that went away years ago.
Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt only target special abilities on the card.
-
Are all future articles just going to be links to the Cactus website...? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the article section?
Rob prefers to post the articles on the Cactus website first. After they have been there for a month or two, I post them in the article section of the board, too.
-
Are all future articles just going to be links to the Cactus website...?
Set preview articles have always been posted first to the Cactus website. For all Rob gives us for free, asking us to visit the Cactus main site (letting him do a little marketing in this area) doesn't seem too much to ask.
As a special added benefit just for board members, however, I can pass along a tip about a possible Easter egg. The url for the preview articles always has something that denotes the article number. In past years if you requested a url with an article number for an article that hadn't been released, Rob and/or Bryon would have a little message for you. The message would extoll the virtues of patience or let you know that cheaters never prosper or...
I checked and there is no message currently, but that could change.
-
Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?
A long time ago, negating Flaming Sword "negated" the numbers. But that went away years ago.
Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt only target special abilities on the card.
And yet Protect does include the numbers..... ::)
-
Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?
A long time ago, negating Flaming Sword "negated" the numbers. But that went away years ago.
Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt only target special abilities on the card.
And yet Protect does include the numbers..... ::)
Because, silly, everyone knows that it is the exception that proves the rule. ::)
(FWIW, I fall in the "sides with YMT" camp on this one.)
-
...and it's become another "3 Stooges"-type thread...as if that's a surprise. ::)
And as always, your input is much appreciated... ;D
And as always, I side with the alphabet crew (YMT & MJB)... ;)
-
Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?
A long time ago, negating Flaming Sword "negated" the numbers. But that went away years ago.
Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt only target special abilities on the card.
And yet Protect does include the numbers..... ::)
Negate/Prevent/Interrupt are Paper abilities. They target special abilities only.
Protect/Immune/Ignore are Rock abilities. They target the card that is gaining protection.
Those effects are not in the same category.
Those effects do not target the same things.
They are completely different special abilities with completely different targets. How could they be inconsistent?
-
Protect/Immune/Ignore are Rock abilities. They target the card that is gaining protection.
Those effects are not in the same category.
Those effects do not target the same things.
They are completely different special abilities with completely different targets. How could they be inconsistent?
... So we made multiple Rock cards that can't be targeted by Paper.
I think that analagy is outdated for this game considering the amount of times it gets broken.
-
Rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock.
I admit it is somewhat tricky for new players when a card is both a Rock and a Scissors, but that doesn't mean it is broken.
Protection of Angels used by Michael is a powerful Rock+Scissors, and it hasn't caused too many questions.
Or by "broken" did you mean "too powerful" rather than "the analogy doesn't work"?
-
Rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock.
I admit it is somewhat tricky for new players when a card is both a Rock and a Scissors, but that doesn't mean it is broken.
Protection of Angels used by Michael is a powerful Rock+Scissors, and it hasn't caused too many questions.
Or by "broken" did you mean "too powerful" rather than "the analogy doesn't work"?
In order of appearance:
Implying I'm a new player?
Assuming you meant imbalanced when you said broken, I never said Rock / Scissors combos are broken, I said they break the Rock / Paper / Scissors balance triangle.
If Protection of Angels + Michael is powerful, what do you call Thadd?
I don't understand this line.
"A country's power can be judged by the quality of its infastructure"
The same goes for game infastructure.
-
Protection of Angels used by Michael is a powerful Rock+Scissors, and it hasn't caused too many questions.
LOL. This is the EXACT question that I am asking, and that ALWAYS causes different opinons at my tournaments.
I have ALWAYS ruled that PoA does NOT protect from the numbers, because the glossary said that Protect targets SAs. It wasn't until later that I learned people had been ruling Protect ALSO protects from the numbers.
If you do not see that a new host would be confused as to why Negate does not negate numbers, but Protect does protect from numbers, then you are doing so by choice, since several of us have already explained that it is confusing to us and confusing to explain to new players. Sweeping away our confusion with an annoying old analogy is insulting.
-
Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.
-
So now I'm waiting on responces to two posts.
-
On topic: ETA for next article?
-
On topic: ETA for next article?
If it's anything like last year, The first article will come out Monday before Nats, with the rest in December.
-
That can't be! I make it a point of personal pride that nothing I say about the new set is right.
-
That can't be! I make it a point of personal pride that nothing I say about the new set is right.
Made me think of...
I'm Your Father (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwExDG7n7Zg#ws)
-
Gabe is my father? This explains so much!
No it doesn't. I can't grow a beard at all....
-
Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.
Bryon, I am having a difficult time following your argument here. Can you please explain why you think this response provides a substantive answer to YMT's plaint? Or what is (I believe) YMT's major concern; namely...
If you do not see that a new host would be confused as to why Negate does not negate numbers, but Protect does protect from numbers, then you are doing so by choice, since several of us have already explained that it is confusing to us and confusing to explain to new players. Sweeping away our confusion with an annoying old analogy is insulting.
-
Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.
Wait a tic! My memory is fuzzy from not being online in a long time. I thought protect did NOT protect from everything? I distinctly remember joking with RDT that a card was not protected from the artwork, border, and jelly on the card (or something like that...)
(777Godspeed: If we ever get back in the game, we'll need to enroll in a refresher course...but it seems it's an upper level course now.)
-
Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.
I love your semantic games (no... not really), however page 51 of the rulebook very clearly states:
"Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities."
-
Imo protecting from numbers make sense. The Flaming Sword ruling doesn't make as much sense, however, it was neccessary to say negate targets special abilities and not the cards because otherwise you could never negate a protect (that would be broken). So you could say that protect only protects from specials to keep things similar, but to me I would rather have one ruling that makes send and another that makes sense given the state of the game then two rulings that don't make much sense at all.
-
Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.
I love your semantic games (no... not really), however page 51 of the rulebook very clearly states:
"Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities."
The REG has the exact same definition as well.
-
Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.
I love your semantic games (no... not really),
These are not semantics games to me. I am making a very important point.
Negate/Protect/Interrupt target special abilities.
Protect/Ignore/Immune target the protected card.
The targets are not the same. Is that clear? I can move on to other parts of the discussion later, but it is extremely important (foundational, actually) to know what the target of a special ability is.
however page 51 of the rulebook very clearly states: "Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities."
I think you already know that this is an incomplete definition. If the protect card specifies special abilities (example: Prince of Persia), then it protects from special abilities. But sometimes you can protect from more than special abilities. If you honestly believe that this is a complete definition of protect, then how does Belshazzar's Banquet work? There isn't a hero in the game with a rescue special ability.
So yes, the old REG and rulebook have incomplete definitions of protect. There are at least a half-dozen cards that protect from things other than special abilities. Protection of Angels, Thaddeus, Belshazzar's Banquet, Failed Objective, High Priests' Palace, and others I'm sure.
-
Protect/Ignore/Immune target the protected card.
Wouldn't that mean that Thaddeus, with the appropriate number of disiples in play, protects evil characters from being immune to him? Just like he can protect gomer from banding to another evil character?
-
Protect/Ignore/Immune target the protected card.
Wouldn't that mean that Thaddeus, with the appropriate number of disiples in play, protects evil characters from being immune to him? Just like he can protect gomer from banding to another evil character?
Great question. That is exactly what Thaddeus did, until we made the rule that says that a card cannot be protected from itself.
-
These are not semantics games to me. I am making a very important point.
At my expense. You know what I am getting at, but you choose to throw semantics in my face to prove your own point. Are you denying that Protection of Angels can cause inconsistent rulings based on what the rulebook has to say about Protect? Right now, it appears that you are, and that you are scoffing at my suggestion that the rulebook Glossary makes Protect unclear.
So yes, the old REG and rulebook have incomplete definitions of protect.
Which is what causes the confusion. That was, and always has been, my point. You can save all the other gibberish for the other side of the board, until you guys make a final decision after Nats.
-
I love that Canaanites make great use of a few old cards that previously saw little play. Most of those already existent black Canaanites are alright by themselves, but I expect they'll be quite powerful (and thus much more used) in a Canaanite deck.
-
I am so confused about protect, negate, interrupt, eliminate, dominate, and procrastinate now that I wonder if I even know how to play this game...
Meanwhile in Back-on-topic Land...
Me likey the hints at teh new kards!! :D
Carry On,
-C_S
P.S. Great Article!
P.P.S. Wait for it...
-
These are not semantics games to me. I am making a very important point.
At my expense. You know what I am getting at, but you choose to throw semantics in my face to prove your own point.
I am very sorry that I offended you. I did not mean to do anything at anyone's expense. I was trying to clarify something that I think is important. The target of a special ability is not semantics. It is foundational to the understanding of the game. It is also foundational to my explanation. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to be helpful. If there is a new player that is confused about how protect works, you can piece it together for them using these points:
1) Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt target special abilities only.
2) Protect, Ignore, and Immune target the cards they protect. If specified, they protect from special abilities (as the rulebook states). If special abilities are not specified, they protect from game rules like rescue by a hero, discard due to numbers, discard due to decrease, etc. (you can point to cards like Failed Objective from Angel Wars, and High Priests' Palace).
So yes, the old REG and rulebook have incomplete definitions of protect.
That was, and always has been, my point.
Then I wish you'd said that, and then offered to help complete the definition.
It didn't seem to me like you were trying to help. At least not when I read things like these:
an annoying old analogy
and
You can save all the other gibberish
I helped create the rock/paper/scissors analogy. I don't find it annoying in the least. It has been helpful to players past and present. It helped us sort out a lot of confusion when it was first printed, and is still helpful to me when I teach new players today. Though you might call it "old," it is still relevant. I probably shouldn't feel offended when you call it "old and annoying," but honestly, it does hurt a little.
As for my posts being gibberish, well, I don't know if there is anything I could possibly feel about that other than a direct personal attack. If you did not intend it that way, then I apologize for being too sensitive.
-
1) Negate, Protect, and Interrupt target special abilities only.
2) Prevent, Ignore, and Immune target the cards they protect.
That's backwards, right? Prevent should be part of 1) and Protect should be part of 2).
-
1) Negate, Protect, and Interrupt target special abilities only.
2) Prevent, Ignore, and Immune target the cards they protect.
That's backwards, right? Prevent should be part of 1) and Protect should be part of 2).
Even Bryon gets Aggied sometimes. :)
-
1) Negate, Protect, and Interrupt target special abilities only.
2) Prevent, Ignore, and Immune target the cards they protect.
That's backwards, right? Prevent should be part of 1) and Protect should be part of 2).
Even Bryon gets Aggied sometimes. :)
Thanks for the fix, Aggie. And thanks for the laugh to start my day, Gabe. :)
-
I helped create the rock/paper/scissors analogy. It has been helpful to players past and present. It helped us sort out a lot of confusion when it was first printed, and is still helpful to me when I teach new players today. Though you might call it "old," it is still relevant.
It might help new players get a fundamental understanding of the game, but if there aren't proper counters in place it's a dated system.
I don't think anyone would play Rock / Paper / Scissors if Rock couldn't be touched by Paper, everyone would just use Rock and the game would be boring.
The Rock in your balance triangle has been causing balance problems for four years and there still aren't enough counters to it.
More regardless of Protection / Immunity / Cannot be ignored is needed to keep it relevant.
As for my other comment, I still want to know why enhancements as character abilities aren't being made consistant.
-
The only Rock that has issues currently is Protection. There's only one real counter (Satan's Seat), and that's not hard enough. Ignore has Golgatha. Immune is pretty much dead this season.
-
The only Rock that has issues currently is Protection. There's only one real counter (Satan's Seat), and that's not hard enough. Ignore has Golgatha. Immune is pretty much dead this season.
Do you remember Boston Nats? Playing against 9 Philistine defenses was the most fun I've ever had :doh:.
Golgatha is junky, it has alot of counters including Murmuring and Benedictus (which can be recured indefinately by multiple characters).
I feel bad for anyone who planned on playing Canaanites, you won't be using tower if you don't want to get ignore rolled.
Lol Satan's Seat.
-
Boston Nats was last season. There's a bunch of new hate for immunity. Tower is in play, so the brigades count. It's fairly effective against Ignore.
The new sites are easily counterable? Huh.
-
Boston Nats was last season. There's a bunch of new hate for immunity. Tower is in play, so the brigades count. It's fairly effective against Ignore.
The new sites are easily counterable? Huh.
I lol'd.
TGT isn't all preblock ignore.
-
Satan Seat is a really good counter to thaddeus in type two. You can lol at it in type one but in type two its really good.
-
As for my other comment, I still want to know why enhancements as character abilities aren't being made consistant.
I still want to figure out how it's confusing. Enhancements are not characters. No one is arguing, or ever has argued, that enhancement abilities are character abilities. Would it be clearer if it said negate special abilities on Heroes? Because that's what "negate Heroes" is defined as.
Were you ever confused why Potiphar's Wife was able to capture a male Hero when she played a Gold battle-winning enhancement? Or why when Esau the Hunter played Stocks, the Hero went to Raider's Camp? It's because even though the ability isn't on the character card, it is the character doing the ability. Enhancements are used by characters. The abilities on enhancements don't magically become character abilities. They are, and always will be, enhancement abilities. It's just that enhancements need characters to activate, and in many cases, it does matter which character uses which enhancement ("if used by a [insert identifier here], do this").
I'm sorry if you feel this is inconsistent. But several shorthand phrases have been introduced in the past couple sets, and the new set, and this was done after playtester agreement that they all made sense, and helped us to avoid making cards where the entire picture is covered by text, while at the same time, making cards with a variety of abilities. "Negate Heroes" was one of them, but we quite obviously did not intend to make it negate enhancements, and I assure you it never will. I don't know of any other people that see an inconsistency here, and if they do, they are free to speak up. But I certainly see nothing wrong with how the wording is interpreted on either cards that say "cannot be negated by X" and "negate X".
-
I helped create the rock/paper/scissors analogy. I don't find it annoying in the least. It has been helpful to players past and present. It helped us sort out a lot of confusion when it was first printed, and is still helpful to me when I teach new players today.
It is because you helped create it that it works so well for you. That analogy is not the way that works for me to explain it. As a teacher, do you find that you teach your students better using someone else's strategy that you don't really like, or teaching them using strategies that make sense to you and have proven effective? The whole R/P/S analogy is not truly clear to me, so I would be foolish to use it to explain these critical game components to new players.
Though you might call it "old," it is still relevant. I probably shouldn't feel offended when you call it "old and annoying," but honestly, it does hurt a little.
I apologize for my lack of clarity. What I meant was that using that analogy as a response to my confusion (which has been the case repeatedly over the years when I am confused), does not help me (as explained above). So the fact that you used it again here was what was annoying.
As for my posts being gibberish, well, I don't know if there is anything I could possibly feel about that other than a direct personal attack. If you did not intend it that way, then I apologize for being too sensitive.
Again, I was referring to the fact that the R/P/S analogy does not click with me, so to continue using it (and in more detail) is gibberish to me because it is getting nowhere. My mind can not wrap around it the way that yours can. Once again, I apologize for my lack of clarity.
-
As for my other comment, I still want to know why enhancements as character abilities aren't being made consistant.
I still want to figure out how it's confusing. Enhancements are not characters. No one is arguing, or ever has argued, that enhancement abilities are character abilities. Would it be clearer if it said negate special abilities on Heroes? Because that's what "negate Heroes" is defined as.
Were you ever confused why Potiphar's Wife was able to capture a male Hero when she played a Gold battle-winning enhancement? Or why when Esau the Hunter played Stocks, the Hero went to Raider's Camp? It's because even though the ability isn't on the character card, it is the character doing the ability. Enhancements are used by characters. The abilities on enhancements don't magically become character abilities. They are, and always will be, enhancement abilities. It's just that enhancements need characters to activate, and in many cases, it does matter which character uses which enhancement ("if used by a [insert identifier here], do this").
I'm sorry if you feel this is inconsistent. But several shorthand phrases have been introduced in the past couple sets, and the new set, and this was done after playtester agreement that they all made sense, and helped us to avoid making cards where the entire picture is covered by text, while at the same time, making cards with a variety of abilities. "Negate Heroes" was one of them, but we quite obviously did not intend to make it negate enhancements, and I assure you it never will. I don't know of any other people that see an inconsistency here, and if they do, they are free to speak up. But I certainly see nothing wrong with how the wording is interpreted on either cards that say "cannot be negated by X" and "negate X".
I understand HOW it works, but why it isn't being made consistant bothers me.
Specifically, consistancy between these two ideas.
If a character has a target, enhancements count as their abilities.
If a character is being targeted, enhancements don't count as their abilities.
Enhancements should either NEVER count as abilities or should ALWAYS count as abilities.
YOU argued that enhancements count as character abilities. However, enhancements are used by characters, so it would still be the character doing the negating in the case of CD.
If there's no difference between a character who says "Negate all abilities in battle" or a character who played an enhancement that said that how are they not the same abilities.
Also, Potiphar's Wife and Fallen Warrior's abilities activate because of game rules, not enhancements they use. Would it really be THAT problematic to lose Raiders Camp's ability to hold heroes captured by enhancements to make Thadd be balanced?
-
Would it really be THAT problematic to lose Raiders Camp's ability to hold heroes captured by enhancements to make Thadd be balanced?
There's far more that would be affected than just Raiders' Camp. Changing that would also change how immunity works, for example. Suddenly you'd be able to drop any old enhancement to get rid of my Nero, rather than needing an interrupt, negate, or regardless of immunity. As if immunity hadn't gotten nerfed enough by recent sets.
-
Would it really be THAT problematic to lose Raiders Camp's ability to hold heroes captured by enhancements to make Thadd be balanced?
There's far more that would be affected than just Raiders' Camp. Changing that would also change how immunity works, for example. Suddenly you'd be able to drop any old enhancement to get rid of my Nero, rather than needing an interrupt, negate, or regardless of immunity. As if immunity hadn't gotten nerfed enough by recent sets.
Wat.
I don't see how immunity would be effected in any way.
-
Nero/PotW are immune to lone heroes, but if you centralize enhancements to never be character abilities then they would not be immune to enhancements played by lone heroes effectively making them not really immune to anything at all. Same with Red Dragon substituting "lone heroes" with "human heroes."
-
I find it funny how this thread was posted in Ruling Questions and wasn't a ruling question, but quickly turned into one.
-
I find it funny how this thread was posted in Ruling Questions and wasn't a ruling question, but quickly turned into one.
This may be the first time in recorded history that something off-topic naturally reverted to the correct topic.
-
Browarod raises a good point, and if a change is made to how Thaddeus is ruled, then it will be because of a clarification of "protect" vs. "immune" and other similar abilities.
I understand HOW it works, but why it isn't being made consistant bothers me.
It's not being made "consistent" because no one else views it as an inconsistency currently.
Specifically, consistancy between these two ideas.
If a character has a target, enhancements count as their abilities.
If a character is being targeted, enhancements don't count as their abilities.
Enhancements should either NEVER count as abilities or should ALWAYS count as abilities.
Enhancement abilities NEVER count as character abilities. Character abilities are ONLY those that are printed on character cards, and abilities that characters may gain (such as Gathering of Angels, etc.). Enhancement abilities ALWAYS count as abilities used by characters, since in order to activate, enhancements need to be used by characters. Abilities used by characters consist of both character abilities and enhancement abilities.
YOU argued that enhancements count as character abilities. However, enhancements are used by characters, so it would still be the character doing the negating in the case of CD.
I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. What I meant was what I said above: the negate enhancement was used by a character. Therefore the character did the negating, since it was an ability used by a character.
If there's no difference between a character who says "Negate all abilities in battle" or a character who played an enhancement that said that how are they not the same abilities.
There is a difference. One is a character ability, and one is not, but both are abilities used by characters. So in both cases, the character is doing the negating.
Would it really be THAT problematic to lose Raiders Camp's ability to hold heroes captured by enhancements to make Thadd be balanced?
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but like I said earlier, if Thad is made balanced, it won't be because of this reason, so it's a moot point.
-
Browarod raises a good point, and if a change is made to how Thaddeus is ruled, then it will be because of a clarification of "protect" vs. "immune" and other similar abilities.
That he does, I was under the impression immunity had a different definition so it wouldnt be effected.
Specifically, consistancy between these two ideas.
If a character has a target, enhancements count as their abilities.
If a character is being targeted, enhancements don't count as their abilities.
Enhancements should either NEVER count as abilities or should ALWAYS count as abilities.
Enhancement abilities NEVER count as character abilities. Character abilities are ONLY those that are printed on character cards, and abilities that characters may gain (such as Gathering of Angels, etc.). Enhancement abilities ALWAYS count as abilities used by characters, since in order to activate, enhancements need to be used by characters. Abilities used by characters consist of both character abilities and enhancement abilities.
This explaination made sense to me, I think the way you worded your other responces was tripping me up.
-
I find it funny how this thread was posted in Ruling Questions and wasn't a ruling question, but quickly turned into one.
Judging by my experience on the boards, I find it completely logical.
In fact, just use this thread as an analogy for your next Sunday school class on predestination.
-
I find it funny how this thread was posted in Ruling Questions and wasn't a ruling question, but quickly turned into one.
Judging by my experience on the boards, I find it completely logical.
In fact, just use this thread as an analogy for your next Sunday school class on predestination.
Free Will.
-
I'm confused as to how that fictitious term fits with my Sunday school class, Red.
We need a troll smiley face.
-
Glad I was able to get through. However, before this thread derails into an Open Discussion discussion, I'm going to lock it, assuming that there are no more pending questions to tie up in this thread.