Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Cpt.Jaeger on January 03, 2011, 05:21:48 PM
-
If I block with a king of judah, and my opponent has Gates of J in play, can my king's ability be negated and does my opponent draw a card?
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.redemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FGates%2520of%2520Jerusalem%2520%28P%29.gif&hash=e804d1bf148508b16715b94dd1c0b19bfb7da3ae)
-
Your opponent's Gates does not work for your characters. The reason why is because of the word "your" in the special ability.
-
I thought the first and second half of the special ability were separate...
-
I thought the first and second half of the special ability were separate...
It seems to me that the second sentence is referring to your kings or queens of judah, whereas in this case your would be the person who played gates.
-
There is no "your" in the second sentence. The question here is whether "one" refers to "kings and queens of Judah" or "kings and queens of Judah in your territory." I'd argue it's the former since if a card blocks it is in battle, not territory, so I'd rule an opponent's GoJ will make you CBN and let you draw, and further more, you'd get to D1 for every copy of GoJ.
-
"One" refers to the K & Q controlled by the owner of GoJ.
-
No, it doesn't. That's not how the card is written and no errata/play-as has been issued.
-
There is no "your" in the second sentence. The question here is whether "one" refers to "kings and queens of Judah" or "kings and queens of Judah in your territory." I'd argue it's the former since if a card blocks it is in battle, not territory, so I'd rule an opponent's GoJ will make you CBN and let you draw, and further more, you'd get to D1 for every copy of GoJ.
well, I would assume since "your" always refers to the owner, that "you" would mean that only the owner of GoJ would draw one, but "one" has no ownership clause in the SA, so i would assume that my opponent's GoJ would make my king CBN
-
The "you" is not referring to any kind of ownership, it's just telling who draws if the conditions are met.
-
who is "you" referring to if not the owner of the card?
-
The "you" is not referring to any kind of ownership, it's just telling who draws if the conditions are met.
I would respectfully disagree. The "your" in the first sentence would logically be the "you" in the second sentence. This requires ownership and control.
-
who is "you" referring to if not the owner of the card?
there are other abilities that imply that you have ownership of that card.
this one could be used for just who draws, not who owns it.
-
No, it doesn't. English, people. Let's look at this:
Protect (verb, protect whom?) evil (adjective modifying Kings and Queens) kings and queens (subject of protect) of Judah (genitive modifying kings and queens) in your territory (describes kings and queens) from (preposition) opponents' (modifies cards) cards (object of from).
That's the first sentence. Now for the second:
If (condition) one (refers to either kings and queens, or kings and queens with all modifiers, or kings and queens of Judah, or kings and queens in your territory; this is what's being disputed) blocks (verb, subject of the condition) its special ability cannot be negated (not really relevant) and you (subject, does not refer back to anything) may draw (verb) a card (subject of draw).
The only thing in the second sentence that refers back to the first sentence is the word "one." It is either referring back to "kings and queens" (in which case someone blocking with a king or queen will D1 for all GoJ out, referring to "kings and queens of Judah" (most likely, means that someone blocking with a king or queen of Judah will d1 for every GoJ out), or referring to "kings and queens (+/-of Judah) in your territory" (in which case GoJ's second sentence does nothing).
So as you can see, as written, it will protect only your own kings and queens of Judah in territory, and grant CBN and D1 to either nobody, all kings and queens, or all kings and queens of Judah (not just yours).
-
who is "you" referring to if not the owner of the card?
there are other abilities that imply that you have ownership of that card.
this one could be used for just who draws, not who owns it.
The "you" is not referring to any kind of ownership, it's just telling who draws if the conditions are met.
I would respectfully disagree. The "your" in the first sentence would logically be the "you" in the second sentence. This requires ownership and control.
I think you and Pol are both right, but thinking about it differently. your and you are referring to the same person. the "you" it indicating who draws the card, and the only person that gets to draw a card, happens to be the owner....
I don't really see Gabe's logic when he said, " 'One' refers to the K & Q controlled by the owner of GoJ."
The word "one" is synonymous with "any" and "single" by dictionary standard.
Also, "your" is only specifying which territory, and indirectly which characters because it specified which territory. however, an evil K/Q blocking is no longer in "your territory", thus it is only determined by the word "one"..... which is "any" and pointed out in my previous point.... :D
-
We're not both right. He's just plain wrong about the "your" and "you" being linked in the way he is proposing. They're both the same person, but "you" is not an adjective and is not grammatically linked to the earlier "your" in any way.
Again, the only way for this card to not do one of these three things:
1. Give all kings and queens CBN and D1 per GoJ
2. Give no kings or queens CBN or D1 since they're not in territory
3. Give all kings and queens of Judah CBN and D1 per GoJ (the most likely)
Is with errata. As written, the second sentence must do one of these three things.
-
I simply meant that "you" and "your" are the same person, just not linked :)
or option #4
4. Give ALL kings and queens of Judah CBN and D1 to OWNER of GoJ (my opinion)
-
Yes, that clarification needs to be made. It's D1 per GoJ, but the owners of the GoJ are the ones drawing.
-
I'm not sure why this got moved to this section but the answer seems pretty cut and dried.
"If one blocks" refers to one of the cards meeting the previous conditions. What were the previous conditions? "Evil kings and queens of Judah in your territory".
The target in the second sentence has to be one card from the list of targets in the first sentence. To say the second sentence does nothing because a card is no longer in your territory if it blocks, is like saying cards that refer to blocking from hand don't work either, because the card is no longer in your hand. It's nonsensical, and a simple reading of this card should be sufficient.
-
Agreed.
-
Also agreed.
-
So if you block with an Evil King of Judah from your hand, does it get the CBN and Draw 1?
-
No
-
Ah, okay...then that seems consistent to me.
-
I'm not sure why this got moved to this section but the answer seems pretty cut and dried.
"If one blocks" refers to one of the cards meeting the previous conditions. What were the previous conditions? "Evil kings and queens of Judah in your territory".
The target in the second sentence has to be one card from the list of targets in the first sentence. To say the second sentence does nothing because a card is no longer in your territory if it blocks, is like saying cards that refer to blocking from hand don't work either, because the card is no longer in your hand. It's nonsensical, and a simple reading of this card should be sufficient.
So if you block with an Evil King of Judah from your hand, does it get the CBN and Draw 1?
No
oh, hmm, ok :) thanks
-
If an evil King/Queen is blocking, it's no longer in your territory, so it loses protection. So how could "one" refer to an evil King/Queen in your territory, since it's in battle? O_o
-
If an evil King/Queen is blocking, it's no longer in your territory, so it loses protection. So how could "one" refer to an evil King/Queen in your territory, since it's in battle? O_o
GoJ protects Evil Kings and Queens in your territory. So at the point where you are attacked, the protection extends to all evil Kings and Queens of Judah in your territory, but it doesn't protect any in set-aside, your hand, your deck, or anywhere else. When you block with one of them, you are blocking with a character referred to by the 'one' in the ability. It's really not that hard to understand how it could work that way. Could it have been clearer? Possibly. It probably should say: "Protect evil Kings and Queens of Judah from opponents' cards. If your evil King or Queen of Judah blocks from your territory, its special ability cannot be negated and you may draw a card." However, I would assume that at the time it was printed that it was thought that the current wording could say the same thing more succinctly.
I would recommend a Play As to that effect, but that's all that we really need. For now, I am hoping that the agreement of several Elders will suffice to say that is how it should be ruled.
-
However, I would assume that at the time it was printed that it was thought that the current wording could say the same thing more succinctly.
Split Alter. Just sayin'
-
After the Priests, Rob started giving guidelines for how long a special ability can be. We are told not to go beyond a certain length. If we can't fit an extra ability due to space, then we don't add it. If it is fairly clear when written briefly, then we go that way. If it needs to be longer for more clarity, then a "play as" is where that will be given.
-
Split Alter. Just sayin'
This is not Split Altar. There is nothing wrong with the way this card is worded.
-
There is nothing wrong with the way this card is worded.
Yes, there is actually. Has anyone actually rebutted my explanation of why the card doesn't do what you're saying as written? No. All anyone's said so far in response to my exhaustive breakdown of the wording is "nuh uh."
Schaef, you've ignored the problem that if "in your territory" doesn't apply to the blocking characters (which it mustn't, otherwise the second sentence would do nothing), then the second sentence does not refer only to your EC's.
-
Schaef, you've ignored the problem that if "in your territory" doesn't apply to the blocking characters (which it mustn't, otherwise the second sentence would do nothing), then the second sentence does not refer only to your EC's.
GoJ protects Evil Kings and Queens in your territory. So at the point where you are attacked, the protection extends to all evil Kings and Queens of Judah in your territory, but it doesn't protect any in set-aside, your hand, your deck, or anywhere else. When you block with one of them, you are blocking with a character referred to by the 'one' in the ability. It's really not that hard to understand how it could work that way. Could it have been clearer? Possibly. It probably should say: "Protect evil Kings and Queens of Judah from opponents' cards. If your evil King or Queen of Judah blocks from your territory, its special ability cannot be negated and you may draw a card." However, I would assume that at the time it was printed that it was thought that the current wording could say the same thing more succinctly.
I would recommend a Play As to that effect, but that's all that we really need. For now, I am hoping that the agreement of several Elders will suffice to say that is how it should be ruled.
-
Right, so the argument is "if the card had been printed today it probably would have said..." but if Split Altar had been printed today it would say...as well. At the end of the post he says a play-as is needed, which I could agree with, although what it really needs is errata.
-
Has anyone actually rebutted my explanation of why the card doesn't do what you're saying as written? No.
Schaef, you've ignored the problem that if "in your territory" doesn't apply to the blocking characters
Both of these statements are patently incorrect, because I addressed exactly that problem in my initial response.
To expand on my previous explanation, the rules clearly state: "If your opponent chooses to block, he should place an Evil Character into the Field of Battle to fight your Hero. This Evil Character can come from his territory or his hand." There is no question that an Evil Character in your territory can block. You seem to have that confused with whether an Evil Character in your territory can be "is blocking".
This is a simple ability, simply read and simply understood. "If one blocks" must refer only to a card from among the target(s) listed in the first sentence, which are specifically, evil Kings and Queens of Judah in your territory. So if you take an evil King of Judah in your territory, and you block with it, you do the thing on the card. Don't make this card more complicated than it needs to be for no reason. In fact, Prof. Alstad's recommended play-as actually changes the function of the first sentence so it is actually worse wording for the card in addition to being needlessly complex.
-
So "blocks" means "enters battle," yes?
-
Stop with the obvious leading questions and either respond to what's been said, or don't.
-
Does "blocks" mean "enters battle?" Simple yes-or-no question that your argument depends on.
-
You are missing one of three things in asking that question, either:
a). the part of the rulebook that states this,
b). the post immediately before you asked the question which quotes that passage directly, or
c). the fact that I framed my argument around that with no issues whatsoever
Repeating things I said not ten minutes before, is no more a productive use of everyone's time than making such a request without, apparently, reading the points you presume to debate.
-
There we have it, "blocks" means "enters battle." That's all I needed, thanks!
-
The only reason Schaef has time for this is because Ohio State is demolishing Arkansas.
-
Given the complete lack of rebuttal to my previous points, then, I will assume they stand as presented. Therefore, Gates is correct as written.
-
Oops! I stand corrected. The last time I checked, the Buckeyes were winning 31-13. Now suddenly it's 31-26. :o
-
There we have it, "blocks" means "enters battle." That's all I needed, thanks!
To be clear, "blocks" means an EC enters battle but an EC entering battle does not necessarily equate a to "blocking." (Side battles for example)
-
It's OK, Schaef. You can breathe now..... ;)