Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Based on the way that we have treated other abilities with punctuation, I would say that they are independent abilities, and that there is no cost-benefit relationship either.  So even if the hand is protected from discard, the reveal could still happen if the condition is met.

Hrm.

It is just clarifying text for when the first sentence could not be met by the opponent.

I could understand that if there was actually a rule that said you have to reveal.  As I have been told by several Elders, and had it ruled at Nats, there is no rule that you have to prove a condition could not be met.  If there is no rule, then this is actually an additional ability, because it goes beyond the rules governing the situation.

For the record, I am very much in favor of adding the prove-you-can't rule in conjunction with a rule allowing players to fail searches (so decks don't have to be revealed...and it's silly anyway ).

Well, since everybody seems to do whatever they want anyway, I guess it doesn't matter. Your Enoch can go back to territory even if he is captured. My lone hero will still not be able to make a rescue against your Emperor Nero even if I AotL Nero. Let's just be free! 

Source? Second elder verification?

...even if they are two abilities, they would not trigger separately so the check for "no evil cards in hand" takes place at the same moment as the opponent discarding an evil card.

Can you elaborate on that?  How do we know when two abilities activate sequentially and separately in the order written, like almost all cards I know of, or when they 'activate together' as you are describing?

However, we need to be consistent.

Let's start with agreeing here, and move forward.

There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the second sentence is conditional.

It is worded the exact same way as all other conditional abilities ("If X then Y"), so it actually would be a conditional ability if it were on its own on a card.

My point is that, if we are going to be consistent, how do we know which periods separate 'clarifying text' from the 'actual' ability and which are truly two different abilities that activate separately?  Discard and reveal are two different abilities, and so it would follow by the logic of other cards that they would be done sequentially on this card.  Add to that that there is no reveal-if-you-can't rule, and it appears to have no way to be 'clarifying'...

...IF we read it as we would read today's cards.  And there's the problem.  We have old cards that don't follow the consistency we have established, and it is obvious why, but how do we as players all know right away which case it is?  That's the problem I put forward.

TL;DR Not disagreeing with the ruling, but how do we know when a period separates two abilities or ability+clarifying with consistency?

Quote from: Redoubter on October 16, 2013, 04:54:21 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 16, 2013, 09:56:53 AM

There is nothing in the wording that indicates that the second sentence is conditional.

It is worded the exact same way as all other conditional abilities ("If X then Y"), so it actually would be a conditional ability if it were on its own on a card.

I meant that the second sentence was was not conditional upon the first completing. 

So...we were saying the exact same thing and both want consistency?  I'm fine with that...unless I'm misreading you again

Okay then I misread everything from his post on...so I agree with YMT, if it is not clarifying text, then it would activate separately and in order.  Checks for any ability only occur when that ability comes up unless otherwise specified.

The Current Rule on cards like this is as follows, This covers I Am Holy I believe.

The elders have discussed this, and have not received a Rob stamp.  However, it looks like we may just institute this very clever rule (which I wish I had been smart enough to create):

On cards printed in the Warriors expansion and earlier, the second sentences of special abilities are always just a clarification of the special ability on the first sentence.

So, the discard on Hunger only clarifies what happens to decreased characters.  It is not a separate SA.
The second sentence on PotW only clarifies the first sentence.
For Highway and Stillness, you only get to return enhancements if you withdrew the hero.
For Darkness, you only get to add another hero if all the heroes actually withdrew from battle (and were not protected from withdraw, etc.)

There are lots of examples.  Go ahead and read all the 2-sentence special abilities on the Warriors cards and earlier and see if this rule would make something not work as intended.  If you find something, please post it here so we can revise the rule.  Thanks!

So it is clarifying text that your opponent reveals hand if they have no evil cards at the onset of the ability.

That would revive the discussion, but it would not affect I am Holy, which came out after the Warriors Set.

Drat I always get my set order confused I thought Patriarchs and Apostles were before Warriors, but the presence of silver in both makes me go doh!  Kindly disregard my earlier post.

Bumping this because we never got Elder input after Guardian's odd statement about them activating simultaneously, and I was reminded of this question today.

As I mentioned earlier, I would recommend adding this to the Errata-Reworded Abilities thread to make it official, and avoid recurring questions.