Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Potential issue: if blocking can happen mid-battle, you RA, I block low, play TitF on your Hero in battle, then play Lurking or Rage or whatever to bring in a bunch of PD's or OM's. I know that wouldn't be OP in T1, but in T2 it'd be a good way to have 5 CBN blocks that also empty hand for SitC...

Well that's what I'm saying. I agree too, but my question is whether that play would be borken in T2 where two cards can win a battle CBI and also empty the opponent's hand.

Potential issue: if blocking can happen mid-battle, you RA, I block low, play TitF on your Hero in battle, then play Lurking or Rage or whatever to bring in a bunch of PD's or OM's. I know that wouldn't be OP in T1, but in T2 it'd be a good way to have 5 CBN blocks that also empty hand for SitC...

I think that's why the ruling that RDT mentioned was made. I know I had heard of it before this thread.

I agree that this would be a fairly devastating play. What would make it even more powerful is if you had 5 copies of the PG PD, so that you can place them on the rest of your opponent's heroes. Some T2 decks would be able to come back from that, but it sure wouldn't be easy.

On character abilities, a plain "hero" is usually short for "this hero."  For example, "Hero is immune to demons."

On enhancements, "hero" or "your hero" can often refer to any one of your heroes.  See "Set your hero aside" or "Set hero aside."  On the enhancement Thorn in the Flesh, it means "Each time one of your demons blocks..."

In The Disciples, we are shortening "(This) Hero is immune to demons." to the shorter "Immune to demons" (like the recent ECs who got "Immune to lone heroes.")

Similarly, the characters with first strike just say "First strike." rather than "This character has first strike."

Also, characters that protect only themselves from some effect say "Protected from capture." rather than "Protect this character from capture."

We like to shorten/streamline wording, as long as it remains perfectly clear who gets the effect.

Okay, so let me get this straight:

If I play Cherubim banded to ET and play Spiritual Warfare, who's ignoring all human evil characters?

If I have a gold hero and Thomas in battle, have initiative and play Gideon's Call, does Thomas get to play enhancements of any brigade?

If I have Armorbearer band to a gold wc hero that's holding Spear of Joshua, who has access to any site?

If I band Claudia to ET and play God's Provision, are both of my heroes 0/0?

Quote from: Minister Polarius on May 07, 2010, 10:27:16 AM

Potential issue: if blocking can happen mid-battle, you RA, I block low, play TitF on your Hero in battle, then play Lurking or Rage or whatever to bring in a bunch of PD's or OM's. I know that wouldn't be OP in T1, but in T2 it'd be a good way to have 5 CBN blocks that also empty hand for SitC...

I think that's why the ruling that RDT mentioned was made. I know I had heard of it before this thread.

I agree that this would be a fairly devastating play. What would make it even more powerful is if you had 5 copies of the PG PD, so that you can place them on the rest of your opponent's heroes. Some T2 decks would be able to come back from that, but it sure wouldn't be easy.

Oh, whats this card that I found? Possibly one that stops that combo cold?



If that combo you talk about comes up, who knows, people may actually start using this card!

No, They're 5/5 and 5/4 respectively, God's Provision doesn't change abilities, its a gain til you're not dying ability.

The answer to the other three, is Cherubim, Gold Hero, and Gold Hero. (I think)

Since the advent of Samson's Sacrifice I would argue that we can have negative abilities.  In my example the abilities of the EC is 0/0.  So either just ET would be 0/0 or both heroes would be 0/0.  But that's neither here nor there because my main point is this part of Bryon's post:

On enhancements, "hero" or "your hero" can often refer to any one of your heroes.  See "Set your hero aside" or "Set hero aside."  On the enhancement Thorn in the Flesh, it means "Each time one of your demons blocks..."

Based on the interpretation, and to keep it consistent with all cards, here is how each of my examples would work:

1) Each hero gains the ignore.

2) Each hero gains the ability to play enhancements of any brigade.

3) Each hero gains access to any site.

Just doesn't seem right, does it?  That's why I have always ruled TitF that it is only applied to the demon on which it is played.

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on May 07, 2010, 12:42:48 PM

No, They're 5/5 and 5/4 respectively, God's Provision doesn't change abilities, its a gain til you're not dying ability.

The answer to the other three, is Cherubim, Gold Hero, and Gold Hero. (I think)

Since the advent of Samson's Sacrifice I would argue that we can have negative abilities.  In my example the abilities of the EC is 0/0.  So either just ET would be 0/0 or both heroes would be 0/0.  But that's neither here nor there because my main point is this part of Bryon's post:

Quote from: Bryon on May 07, 2010, 02:26:54 AM

On enhancements, "hero" or "your hero" can often refer to any one of your heroes.  See "Set your hero aside" or "Set hero aside."  On the enhancement Thorn in the Flesh, it means "Each time one of your demons blocks..."

Based on the interpretation, and to keep it consistent with all cards, here is how each of my examples would work:

1) Each hero gains the ignore.

2) Each hero gains the ability to play enhancements of any brigade.

3) Each hero gains access to any site.

Just doesn't seem right, does it?  That's why I have always ruled TitF that it is only applied to the demon on which it is played.

Every example you gave is a "hero gains" situation. What does the demon gain from TitF? Nothing. TitF simply says, if this hero is blocked by a demon that belongs to the owner of this card, do this.

The abilities you listed are all simply commands, TitF is more of a reactive ability, as it reacts to specific actions. I really don't get how the those abilities and TitF are similar in any way.

Emphasis mine. You are forgetting a very important word here...

How about if it was rephrased to say "Each time a demon that belongs to the holder of this card blocks"? Its the same thing.

Also, "Each Time" means that its NOT a one shot deal. First demon enters battle, thats the first time a demon entered the battle. Another one enters, thats the second time a demon has entered the battle, another one enters and that would be the third time a demon enters battle...

Whatever.  I guess I'll get back to you and try to see your point of view.  Maybe.  I don't know.

Yes, but I guess we'll see whether you really understand, if you even try.