Author Topic: Highway (Read 18427 times)

crustpope · « **Reply #25 on:** April 25, 2009, 10:28:25 PM »

Quote

I dont see any reason why a highway/stillness continued recurrsion cannot continue ad nauseum.

Eventually you will eventually run out of heroes.[/quote]

Yes, but not before a lot of damage can be done

The Schaef · « **Reply #26 on:** April 25, 2009, 10:31:14 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 25, 2009, 09:49:30 PM

In the Momentum Change x2 case, there is no question that both Momentum Change have their "except this one" active, because both cards activate at the same time.

Yes, but they both return "all cards"... "except this one". The argument for the two-card combo, as you may recall, is that each would return all cards. The ruling, however, states that you cannot. Logically, if I cannot stack Mo Changes, my assumption is that I similarly cannot stack other withdraw/return cards. For me to think otherwise would violate the spirit of the ruling and ignore the entire reason it was made in the first place.

crustpope · « **Reply #27 on:** April 25, 2009, 10:41:43 PM »

So you are claiming that any cards that pull cards back to hand, even if they are different such as stillness and highway, wont pull the other card back into your hand if one has been previously played and is still in battle?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 25, 2009, 10:42:40 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 25, 2009, 10:31:14 PM

Yes, but they both return "all cards"... "except this one". The argument for the two-card combo, as you may recall, is that each would return all cards. The ruling, however, states that you cannot. Logically, if I cannot stack Mo Changes, my assumption is that I similarly cannot stack other withdraw/return cards. For me to think otherwise would violate the spirit of the ruling and ignore the entire reason it was made in the first place.

The Momentum Change ruling was not pulled out of thin air, however. There is a darned good reason within the standard rules why you cannot stack Mo Changes. To whit, both Mo Changes have active SAs that protect/prevent/what-have-you return to hand. The card's own SA prevents the return from happening. The same cannot be said for the Highway case. By the time the second Highway is played the SA on the first has already completed.

Unless you are going to special case this, it seems to me your options are two:

1) Declare "except this one" to be an ongoing prevent/protect/what-have-you SA.

2) Rule "this one" to refer to every copy of the same card in play.

robm · « **Reply #29 on:** April 26, 2009, 10:04:10 AM »

It seems to me that this stillness combo is a the result of a loop hole in Redemption. It is a combo that someone came up with, that probably was never intended to be allowed to be played that way,

Stillness was basically a card to save all your other enhancements in battle when you knew you were going to lose.

I think it should be an ongoing ability if that is what the problem is.

Or I think we should learn to read what the cards say in plan english. "except this one" should apply to any highway played. So in Type 2 they may be able to Highway 5 times as long as they have 5 in their deck.

This would still allow them a combo of discarding half on my deck but limit the boringness for the player being attacked.

Also Red Dragon is used to block and i didn't have any red in my hand or deck for that Game.

Maybe we should limit the time of a battle phase. 10 minutes??

The Schaef · « **Reply #30 on:** April 26, 2009, 10:54:51 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 25, 2009, 10:42:40 PM

There is a darned good reason within the standard rules why you cannot stack Mo Changes. To whit, both Mo Changes have active SAs that protect/prevent/what-have-you return to hand.

Does "darned good" have a definition in Minnesota that means "arbitrary"? An exception is not a protect ability. It was ruled that - simply - that you can't stack the Mo Changes, and the logic does not support disallowing the stack more than it supports allowing it. If anything, the logic that allows the stack is more sound; the ruling was made to retain gameplay integrity, much like Rob reserves the right to declare a character unique if he deems it necessary.

All I am saying, is that if the rule is we can't stack Mo Changes, and the reason is to prevent stacking them to pull them all back into your hand, then logically it doesn't make sense to turn around and say it's okay to stack Highways. Those two concepts strike me as wholly inconsistent.

Bryon · « **Reply #31 on:** April 26, 2009, 11:09:49 AM »

I agree with Schaef.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #32 on:** April 26, 2009, 11:10:40 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on April 26, 2009, 10:54:51 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 25, 2009, 10:42:40 PM
There is a darned good reason within the standard rules why you cannot stack Mo Changes. To whit, both Mo Changes have active SAs that protect/prevent/what-have-you return to hand.

Does "darned good" have a definition in Minnesota that means "arbitrary"?

You made the Mo Change ruling, and the explanation provided above was the one you gave at the time as the basis for your ruling. Although the original ruling was lost to the purge, go back to the Mo Change thread that Gabe referenced and you'll see that I gave exactly the same reason--YOUR reason--as the basis for the ruling.

I really don't understand how your decision to base the ruling on standard game rules would be considered arbitrary. At least compared to the alternative of "I think it's just bad for the game so I rule X."

The Schaef · « **Reply #33 on:** April 26, 2009, 12:45:35 PM »

I think if anything, it's more accurate to say that I passed along the Mo Change ruling, since things like this are usually discussed in committee and passed down from Rob's final decision.

"My reason" is the one that I gave above, that the Mo Changes provide exceptions for themselves independent of other Mo Changes played in the same turn. However many Mo Changes are played, that one is not returned because it says it's not returned. And that reasoning has more to do with gameplay than with a purely logical construct, because as I said, one could (and did) make a perfectly valid argument for allowing them to be picked up. Just like one can make a logical case for Widow being generic. Just like one can make a logical case for an interrupt stopping a prevent rather than the other way around. In the end, one or the other has to be decided, and the compelling factor is gameplay, even in instances where it might support the weaker logical conclusion.

I don't think there's some unstated "protect ability" that applies only to this one card. The reason that you paraphrased was that each card gave an independent exception, which is what I've been saying in this thread. The logical support for ruling it that way is no better than the logical support for allowing them to be picked up, and may be even weaker. Having to decide between two imperfect and uncertain conclusions, we went with the one that was better for gameplay. That's the very definition of arbitrary: decided on personal discretion in the absence of an airtight factual argument.

The short version of all this: I don't appreciate being told what I supposedly think, when I've made the effort to explain what I think and give the reasons for it; or having a committee ruling - with Rob as the final arbiter - held up as an example of some unilateral decision made exclusively by myself and as evidence of contradictory reasoning on my part. Especially when you refer back to a post you made which specifically says "independent exception" and not "unwritten protection". Is that really what this discussion is now boiling down to; whether or not I actually know what I think?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #34 on:** April 26, 2009, 03:14:33 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on April 26, 2009, 11:09:49 AM

I agree with Schaef.

Bottom line. In playing this game and participating on this message board for many years, I have NEVER seen any ruling that Bryon and Schaef agreed on overturned. Now that this has happened, any further discussion of allowing Highway / Stillness / Momentum Change cards being allowed to stack is guaranteed to be useless and will only lead to greater frustration.

It was a sneaky combo.
Good job to whoever thought of it.
It doesn't work anymore.
Move along

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #35 on:** April 26, 2009, 03:35:11 PM »

The question of if Highway can return stillness is still at large.

MichaelHue · « **Reply #36 on:** April 26, 2009, 03:54:01 PM »

This seems like a silly ruling to me, particularly if the motive behind it is that it can lead to devastating combos. Seriously, a lot of the useful cards in Redemption can lead to devastating combos. I see no reason why Highway, band, Highway, band, should not be legal, but Long Day, Stillness, Jubilee, Long Day, Stillness is.

Limiting the metagame for something like this seems like a bad idea to me, I'm sure it's frustrating for some people to not be able to do anything for a while during a game of Redemption, but really, it's not an overpoweringly ridiculous combo.

The Momentum Change ruling makes logical sense (both activate at the same time, it's a bit of a stretch to say that they can't return each other, but I see the reasoning behind it). To say that Highway cannot target Highway seems totally different to me. The "except this one" part of the ability of Highway specifically refers to itself being the target of its own ability. Once its ability is completed, it is, in effect, useless, and has no lasting ability that is active in the battle (unless it is erratta'd to be protected from being returned to hand...). Returning the first Highway with a second one is a completely separate action, and I don't see what the problem is.

Also, asking for a ruling change because you lost to a combo deck is just bad sportsmanship. If we limit ourselves to what the playtesters thought of, the metagame would NEVER advance in the ways that it does. There are a LOT of fantastic and inventive Redemption players out there, and they will come up with powerful, innovative ways to use the cards that are released. I think this should always be encouraged.

Gabe · « **Reply #37 on:** April 26, 2009, 03:54:43 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on April 26, 2009, 03:35:11 PM

The question of if Highway can return stillness is still at large.

I don't think it is. One cannot return the other.

Quote from: REG > Instant Abilities > Withdraw from Battle > Default Conditions

On a withdraw card, ‘All enhancement cards played’ includes enhancements used by the withdrawing character only.

If I have two characters in battle and play Highway on one of them, only enhancements used by the character that I target with Highway are returned. If the other character is able to keep Highway and later play Stillness, they aren't the character that used Highway so it wouldn't return.

Quote from: REG > Glossary > Used/Played by

Some cards in Redemption® make reference to a special ability being ‘played by’. The phrase ‘played by’ refers to cards played directly on the holder’s character(s) in battle.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #38 on:** April 26, 2009, 04:05:07 PM »

Couldn't you go....

RA with blue guy.

play blue banding card and band in a gold hero, play some blue stuff, Highway on the gold guy and target the blue guy to return. Highway is now left chilling in battle. Band in a blue guy. Play some gold stuff, Stillness on the blue guy, targeting the gold guy. That returns Highway to your hand. Band in a gold guy now and restart the process.

Its a bit longer and needs more cards, but why would that not work?

Bryon · « **Reply #39 on:** April 26, 2009, 04:07:09 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on April 26, 2009, 03:54:43 PM

Quote from: REG > Instant Abilities > Withdraw from Battle > Default Conditions
On a withdraw card, ‘All enhancement cards played’ includes enhancements used by the withdrawing character only.

If I have two characters in battle and play Highway on one of them, only enhancements used by the character that I target with Highway are returned. If the other character is able to keep Highway and later play Stillness, they aren't the character that used Highway so it wouldn't return.

Quote from: REG > Glossary > Used/Played by
Some cards in Redemption® make reference to a special ability being ‘played by’. The phrase ‘played by’ refers to cards played directly on the holder’s character(s) in battle.

ding ding ding. We have a winner!

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #40 on:** April 26, 2009, 04:32:21 PM »

Lemme explain my example in a more step-by-step method.

1. Rescue attempt with Jacob, play RTC to pick red dragon.
2. Play Courage to band in Deborah.
3. Play book of Hozai.
4. Play Highway on Deborah, targeting Jacob. He returns and I get RTC, Courage, and Book of Hozai back.
5. I play Deborahs Directive to band in Dan.
6. I play Furnace of God's Wrath on Deborah.
7. I play Stillness on Dan, targeting Deborah. She returns, and I get Deb's Directive, Furnace of God's Wrath, and Highway back.
8. I play courage to band in another gold hero.

Why can't I repeat that until I run out of heroes?

MichaelHue · « **Reply #41 on:** April 26, 2009, 04:53:47 PM »

I think they're saying that you can only target a gold hero with Highway, and a blue hero with Stillness.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #42 on:** April 26, 2009, 04:55:38 PM »

When Highway/stillness do not specify brigade? Check MJB's post about "Hero / A Hero."

Mageduckey · « **Reply #43 on:** April 26, 2009, 04:57:08 PM »

So does the Long Day/Stillness/Jubilee/Long Day/Stillness combo still work, even though the Highway/Band/Highway/Band combo doesn't work?

robm · « **Reply #44 on:** April 26, 2009, 05:06:34 PM »

Quote from: MichaelHue on April 26, 2009, 03:54:01 PM

Also, asking for a ruling change because you lost to a combo deck is just bad sportsmanship.

It was in a multiplayer game. I actually did not lose that game I came in second. We timed out and the player with the combo actually lost.

I not asking for a rule change. I'm asking people to read their cards correctly.

I'm sorry, having your deck discarded on you is bad sportsmanship. Asking for a rule clarification is not bad sportsmanship.

Please don't make assumptions about things. Its not nice.

MichaelHue · « **Reply #45 on:** April 26, 2009, 05:12:56 PM »

Quote from: robm on April 26, 2009, 05:06:34 PM

Quote from: MichaelHue on April 26, 2009, 03:54:01 PM
Also, asking for a ruling change because you lost to a combo deck is just bad sportsmanship.
I'm sorry, having your deck discarded on you is bad sportsmanship.

LOL no.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #46 on:** April 26, 2009, 05:23:11 PM »

I agree with Hue, having your deck discarded is a part of the game. Using a powerful combo isn't unsportsmanlike.

robm · « **Reply #47 on:** April 26, 2009, 05:29:21 PM »

Its not nice to laugh at other people. This is a Christian Game and it is suppose to be wholesome and fun. Not onesided and boring.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #48 on:** April 26, 2009, 05:42:51 PM »

Quote from: robm on April 26, 2009, 05:29:21 PM

Not onesided

Someone will win eventually. Besides, throw Lurking in your deck if these combos bug you that much.

robm · « **Reply #49 on:** April 26, 2009, 06:20:46 PM »

My point is these combos, Highway specifically, are illegal.

Wow lurking is a cool card. I don't have one. Anyone want to trade for one?

News:

Author Topic: Highway (Read 18427 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo