Author Topic: Holding= Sa? Or??? (Read 12516 times)

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #50 on:** February 03, 2010, 09:52:55 AM »

On the bright side maybe we'll get more Large Tree like cards with cooler abilities and CBIgnored

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #51 on:** February 03, 2010, 09:56:19 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 03, 2010, 09:43:41 AM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on February 03, 2010, 09:20:49 AM
I also have a question, which most likely has been asked, but what happens when a "hold" "ability" is negated? Is the card returned to where it was before? Is it returned to your hand? Is it discarded?

It should be returned to where it was.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 03, 2010, 04:12:39 AM
I'll cry quarts if this means ruling out "cannot be Ignored" in an identifier.

This seems to be inevitable. There is no way that it could be consistent with this new ruling if "cannot be ignored" was made an identifier on the identifier line, especially when the phrase appears on other cards as special abilities. Perhaps we could make "unigorable" an identifier. But it doesn't seem likely.

Let me know how many pails you fill.

I'm on my third already.

STAMP · « **Reply #52 on:** February 03, 2010, 10:08:54 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 03, 2010, 12:38:03 AM

Innumerable does not have */*. Therefore, it has a copy special ability.

Self has */*. If */* is not defined, then the card is nothingness. You can't have a character that is nothingness. Therefore it has an identifier, just like Silly Women and Angel with a Secret Name.

Just look for the stars. If words on a card are telling you what the stars are, then it is an identifier.

Get it?

The "copy" ability I'm referring to is the copying of identifiers. It would seem confusing to consider this type of copy to not be an ability.

Quote from: SirNobody on February 03, 2010, 03:48:22 AM

Hey,

The playtesting team and rules management teem are volunteers. As a result we end up flying by the seat of our pants sometimes. When we make things up as we go, occasionally we make mistakes. We made a mistake when we made Z-temple's ability to hold an artifact an identifier. We made a mistake when we said Self had a copy ability. When we realize we've made mistakes we correct them. Sometimes it takes a little time to get corrections through.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Maybe it's time to have a little separation of duties. I've worked in software development for years. The developers do not write techinical documentation. I would suggest that there be a separation between those that develop cards and those that document/proofread them.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #53 on:** February 03, 2010, 10:16:31 AM »

FWIW, I've been suggesting that to Chris for years.

On a somewhat related note: STAMP - I'm having issues with a Java program I'm writing, care to help

Bryon · « **Reply #54 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:04:48 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on February 03, 2010, 09:20:49 AM

I also have a question, which most likely has been asked, but what happens when a "hold" "ability" is negated? Is the card returned to where it was before? Is it returned to your hand? Is it discarded?

The special ability "Holds" only allows you to place the card there. It does not "keep" the card there. If a "Holds" ability is negated during the phase in which the card is placed in it, then the card comes out. If it is negated in a later phase, then the place is not undone. The card on or in the fortress remains. However, no cards may be added to the fortress while the "Holds" ability is negated.

While "unignorable" won't be appearing on an identifier line of an evil character (since it is a special ability, not an identifier), that idea will appear in special abilities on other cards (such as sites, fortresses, lost souls, etc.) eventually.

Master KChief · « **Reply #55 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:10:46 PM »

the art remains on the fort if the fort is negated? i thought it was ruled the art goes back to art pile, but it was still up in the air whether the art immediately goes back, or goes back during the owners next prep phase.

The Schaef · « **Reply #56 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:12:15 PM »

But that's sort of the point here: now that special abilities can be and are placed in the identifier line, all bets are off as to when and where these things will appear, or be shifted from one thing to another.

Soundman2 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:15:33 PM »

I thought "holds" in the case of the tabernacle where Z-temple clarifiers so we wouldn't have topics like "can I put Holy Grail in the tabernacle?". I do how ever see why its being ruled the way it is. Temple of Dagon High priest's palace.

STAMP · « **Reply #58 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:33:41 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 03, 2010, 12:04:48 PM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on February 03, 2010, 09:20:49 AM
I also have a question, which most likely has been asked, but what happens when a "hold" "ability" is negated? Is the card returned to where it was before? Is it returned to your hand? Is it discarded?
The special ability "Holds" only allows you to place the card there. It does not "keep" the card there. If a "Holds" ability is negated during the phase in which the card is placed in it, then the card comes out. If it is negated in a later phase, then the place is not undone. The card on or in the fortress remains. However, no cards may be added to the fortress while the "Holds" ability is negated.

While "unignorable" won't be appearing on an identifier line of an evil character (since it is a special ability, not an identifier), that idea will appear in special abilities on other cards (such as sites, fortresses, lost souls, etc.) eventually.

Yikes! With all due respect I completely understand the intent. However, the choice of english makes it all confusing. A "hold", which in english connotes an ongoing action, appears to be ruled as an instant action (which is further confusing when you use the verb "place" in your description).

Okay, time to throw a wrench into things. We have this game rule that cards in a fortress follow the fortress. I have Holy of Holies in Z-Temple. I play The Meal in Emmaus and choose to activate Book of the Covenant on Z-Temple and activate two covenants. Later in the battle my opponent negates Z-Temple with an enhancement.

What happens??

Bryon · « **Reply #59 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:45:48 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 03, 2010, 12:12:15 PM

But that's sort of the point here: now that special abilities can be and are placed in the identifier line, all bets are off as to when and where these things will appear, or be shifted from one thing to another.

Rob sent the last playtest list back with a request that a special ability be removed from an identifier line (see the promo at the end of the list). He wants special abilities written over the picture, where they always appear, and always will appear. "Holds" on fortresses is the only exception, and was (I thought) a needed step to allow special abilities to fit on a card. Given the confusion evident on this thread, we should have just covered more art.

The Schaef · « **Reply #60 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:54:59 PM »

Have I mentioned yet that was never my understanding of the use of the identifier line?

Gabe · « **Reply #61 on:** February 03, 2010, 12:59:04 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on February 03, 2010, 10:08:54 AM

Maybe it's time to have a little separation of duties. I've worked in software development for years. The developers do not write techinical documentation. I would suggest that there be a separation between those that develop cards and those that document/proofread them.

FWIW, that's how other successful CCGs operate also. I know our playtesters are volunteers but I'm not sure that should stop Cactus from considering deligation of tasks to people gifted in different areas. It could lighten the load on them instead of increase it.

Bryon · « **Reply #62 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:00:48 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on February 03, 2010, 12:10:46 PM

the art remains on the fort if the fort is negated? i thought it was ruled the art goes back to art pile, but it was still up in the air whether the art immediately goes back, or goes back during the owners next prep phase.

If a special ability completed in a previous phase, it can't be negated. That is why Abraham does not remove the Site Doubler from a site. The ability to put it on an occupied site completed during the player's prep phase. It can't be negated during the battle phase of a subsequent turn.

The ironic thing about this is that we have 4+ pages of debate/surprise/complaining about something that rarely happens.
Spreading Mildew specifies empties the fort, so that is nothing new.
Most fort negaters only negate during the battle phase, so those don't empty the fort.
Image of Jealousy and Destructive Sin have to be played during battle phase or on YOUR turn, which means that it is too late to undo the placement into the fort that happened on opponent's turn.

The only thing this seems to "change" is that you can't put a NEW artifact on a fort if Image of Jealousy is on it, or if Destructive Sin is on your hero. Is there something else I am missing?

STAMP · « **Reply #63 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:04:16 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on February 03, 2010, 12:33:41 PM

Yikes! With all due respect I completely understand the intent. However, the choice of english makes it all confusing. A "hold", which in english connotes an ongoing action, appears to be ruled as an instant action (which is further confusing when you use the verb "place" in your description).

Okay, time to throw a wrench into things. We have this game rule that cards in a fortress follow the fortress. I have Holy of Holies in Z-Temple. I play The Meal in Emmaus and choose to activate Book of the Covenant on Z-Temple and activate two covenants. Later in the battle my opponent negates Z-Temple with an enhancement.

What happens??

When you have that figured out, what happens if my opponent then discards Z-Temple??

Gabe · « **Reply #64 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:05:59 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 03, 2010, 01:00:48 PM

The ironic thing about this is that we have 4+ pages of debate/surprise/complaining about something that rarely happens.

Quote from: BrianGabe on January 26, 2010, 11:40:16 PM

Since when has irrelevancy kept Redemption players from having a 12 page discussion concerning something they're passionate about?

The Schaef · « **Reply #65 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:16:07 PM »

For starters, there's the understanding that identifiers were identifiers, until being told very suddenly that they were not, necessarily, making it arbitrary as to whether something is or is not going to be an identifier or reclassified as a special ability tomorrow.

If I had the first inkling that these were special abilities, I never would have endorsed the idea of moving them down to the identifier. The fact that Rob immediately recognized the special in Card X and requested it be moved out only amplifies this.

Second, there's the fact that there was zero discussion regarding this topic on any front, public or private. Research has revealed that this decision was reached as the result of a private email discussion between three people over a year ago but only just now spoken aloud. In the meantime, the rest of us, having no knowledge or input on this, went and developed an entire new set of cards under what turned out to be an obsolete premise. The only saving grace there is that I don't think there were any "holding" Forts in Thesaurus, and (hopefully) there are no other surprise rulings lurking.

Lastly, if there's no significant change between having it as a special or as an identifier, then what necessitates this change in the first place? Why can't identifiers simply be left alone and hold abilities be written in the special going forward?

Bryon · « **Reply #66 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:24:04 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on February 03, 2010, 12:33:41 PM

I play The Meal in Emmaus and choose to activate Book of the Covenant on Z-Temple and activate two covenants.

You can't do that. Meal in Emmaus activates a new artifact on your artifact pile.

Cards are put into or out of fortresses only during prep phase, unless specified otherwise. Meal in Emmaus does not specify a fortress, so you can only activate one in your artifact pile. Similarly, if I play a card during battle that lets me search my own deck for a lost soul, I can't put it in a site at that time, unless the card says I can.

I think what you are looking for (for purposes of an example) is the ability on a little-used Teal hero that allows you to activate a new artifact on your Tabernacle (or is it Solomon's Temple, I can't remember).

If that hero refers to Solomon's Temple, then the point is moot: the "holds" special ability is written over the picture on Solomon's Temple anyway.

If that hero refers to the Tabernacle, then the "Holds" ability is undone. But that is not what put the artifact there. The hero did. Sapphira or King of Tyrus would neagte the special ability on the hero (sending the artifact back). But negating the "holds" ability would not, since that is not what placed the artifact there. Get it?

The Schaef · « **Reply #67 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:33:19 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 03, 2010, 01:24:04 PM

Cards are put into or out of fortresses only during prep phase, unless specified otherwise.

An ability that activates multiple times over multiple turns cannot be a mere instantaneous one-time ability.

The rules for placing cards in Fortresses is built into the game rules, which confuses me as to why this needs to be treated as a special in the first place. Filling and emptying Forts makes the most sense as a game rule, with an identifier specifying what kind of cards, if any, it can hold.

Bryon · « **Reply #68 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:37:04 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 03, 2010, 01:16:07 PM

Research has revealed that this decision was reached as the result of a private email discussion between three people over a year ago but only just now spoken aloud. In the meantime, the rest of us, having no knowledge or input on this, went and developed an entire new set of cards under what turned out to be an obsolete premise.

Isn't separation of powers great?

Bryon · « **Reply #69 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:47:09 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on February 03, 2010, 01:33:19 PM

Quote from: Bryon on February 03, 2010, 01:24:04 PM
Cards are put into or out of fortresses only during prep phase, unless specified otherwise.

An ability that activates multiple times over multiple turns cannot be a mere instantaneous one-time ability.

The rules for placing cards in Fortresses is built into the game rules, which confuses me as to why this needs to be treated as a special in the first place. Filling and emptying Forts makes the most sense as a game rule, with an identifier specifying what kind of cards, if any, it can hold.

The Site Doubler lost soul is a perfect example of a card with a "Hold/Held" ability. You can use it any time during the preparation phase. It is an manually-triggered special ability that you can use during your prep phase.

Schaef, you are a genius! I really like your suggestion that "Holds" be a "game rule" for forts, rather than a "special ability" (as it is certainly NOT an "identifier"). The only possible "problem" with that interpretation is Solomon's Temple. Is that a special ability or a game rule?

Storehouse has to be all special ability, since you don't do it during the prep phase.

The Schaef · « **Reply #70 on:** February 03, 2010, 01:59:21 PM »

It's perfectly fine having a "Hold" special ability separate from a game rule to accommodate cards that do not follow the normal rules, just as an "Activate an Artifact" ability is its own animal from the normal game rules about when and how to activate Arts (during Prep).

Nor do I have a problem with the holding text on current Forts be identifiers because they specify what, if any, cards can be held. It's not a special ability unto itself but the parameters need to be defined, just as the parameters of * or X need to be defined.

lightningninja · « **Reply #71 on:** February 03, 2010, 02:05:07 PM »

Wow how have I missed this thread!?

So we are discussing whether fortresses and other cards that hold card... if that ability should be classified as a game rule, identifier or ability? What's wrong with the status quo? So Image of Jealousy doesn't negate that holy of holies can be placed on Z-Temple... who cares?

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #72 on:** February 03, 2010, 02:17:34 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on February 03, 2010, 01:05:59 PM

Quote from: Bryon on February 03, 2010, 01:00:48 PM
The ironic thing about this is that we have 4+ pages of debate/surprise/complaining about something that rarely happens.

Quote from: BrianGabe on January 26, 2010, 11:40:16 PM
Since when has irrelevancy kept Redemption players from having a 12 page discussion concerning something they're passionate about?

Bryon · « **Reply #73 on:** February 03, 2010, 02:20:35 PM »

So, if a fortress has no label anywhere saying what it can hold, then only a special ability can place something into it or onto it. Right?

But, if a fortress has a label saying what it can hold, then you can put any number of those things into or out of that fort during your prep phase. Those actions are allowed by game actions as defined by the rules for fortresses. And are not special abilities unto themselves. Does all this sound right?

This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't have a "separation of powers." Schaef has been very helpful on both the rules side and the development side: striving for consistency in rules, and creating unique strategies and themes such as Herods and Musicians. We all have our areas of best function, but they are not mutually exclusive. Further, the playtesters know their own limitations, and frequently look for help from select people outside the core team. Cases in point:
- The new REG has been up for reading and comment for a while now. This thread was started because a very dedicated player actually took the time to read it, noticed this, and made input now, rather than wait for it to release and whine about it after it was official.
- Most playtesters have at least a couple other players in their playgroup who put their eyes on the cards, and test them, before they go to print. In addition to the dozen or so CA players that I have testing cards with me, I send certain cards to certain trustworthy top players and discuss their balance/usefulness issues.

STAMP · « **Reply #74 on:** February 03, 2010, 02:34:18 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 03, 2010, 01:24:04 PM

If that hero refers to the Tabernacle, then the "Holds" ability is undone. But that is not what put the artifact there. The hero did. Sapphira or King of Tyrus would neagte the special ability on the hero (sending the artifact back). But negating the "holds" ability would not, since that is not what placed the artifact there. Get it?

Sorry. I am at work so I'm trying to remember cards off the top of my head and looking them up in the online REG. (BTW, HoH nullifies Sapphira or KoT.)

Okay, so let's consider an example with Eleazar, son of Aaron:

Eleazar, son of Aaron
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Teal • Ability: 8 / 9 • Class: None • Special Ability: Heal a Hero in play. When a blocker is presented, you may activate a different Artifact in your Tabernacle. Negate previous Artifact. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Tabernacle High Priest (House of Eleazar) • Verse: Leviticus 10:6

Holy of Holies
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Prevent all interrupt, prevent, and negate abilities on Characters. Cannot be negated during the battle phase. • Identifiers: OT, Tabernacle Item, Temple Item • Verse: I Kings 8:6

Book of the Covenant
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Holder may activate two covenants on this artifact. • Identifiers: OT, Tabernacle Item, Temple Item • Verse: Exodus 24:7

The Tabernacle
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Glory of the Lord protects this card and its contents. If you have Solomon’s Temple in play, discard this card (regardless of protection) and transfer its contents to Solomon’s Temple. • Identifiers: Holds one active Tabernacle Artifact • Verse: Exodus 40:34

I activate HoH on Tabernacle in my prep phase. I rescue with Eleazar and activate BotC, and then activate two covenants. HoH remains active. My opponent then negates Tabernacle.

Based on what's been said in this thread I am guessing that BotC AND the two covenants are put face down on the art pile, with HoH and the SA of the two covenants still active? I'm also guessing that Glory of the Lord provides no protection against the negate in this scenario? Finally, if my opponent discards Tabernacle I'm guessing that it's the only thing discarded and HoH and two covenants continue to remain active?

News:

Author Topic: Holding= Sa? Or??? (Read 12516 times)

Warrior_Monk

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef