Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheJaylor on March 20, 2014, 01:23:01 PM
-
Can Zimri, son of Salu band to Foreign Wives?
Zimri, son of Salu
5/5 Brown EC
Interrupt Wall of Protection. May band to a female Evil Character of any brigade except brown to decrease a Hero in play by 0/6.
My guess is no because it says "except brown" while she is brown but she also has other brigades so I'm not certain.
-
I would agree that because her brigade contains the color brown that she cannot be targeted by Zimri.
-
Yes, he can. If he said "non-brown brigade", then he couldn't, but basically it plays like Zadok Anoints Solomon, where you're targeting any brigade other than the specified one, but if the specified one happens to be there as well, it's okay.
-
This was ProfessorAlstad's post in the thread the last time this came up
Adding an additional example of food toppings/fillings does not clarify the position any further.
"May band to a female Evil Character of any brigade except brown" is shorthand for "May band to a black, crimson, gold, gray, orange or pale green female Evil Character". just as "May search for an O.T. good card of any brigade other than teal is shorthand for "May search for an O.T. blue, gold, green, purple, red, silver or white good card." Assuming there were a limited number of donut fillings/pizza toppings, similar logic would apply.
Could it have been worded better? Certainly. But it is perfectly logical for it to work as I have suggested, it meshes well with previous rulings on Zadok Anoints, and it is by no means OP'd. Hopefully another Elder can come in and confirm it, but until that happens, for any tournaments that I am involved with wherein my ruling is asked for, everyone can use this as a reference. I can assure you that my position won't change. :)
And this is Prof Underwood's post from the end of that thread
"With any brigade other than teal" literally means that it just has to have any other brigade, but it doesn't exclude teal cards.
"Of any brigade except brown" means that it cannot have brown.
This makes sense to me. I'll start a discussion with the other elders to see if we can come to a consensus.
-
Hmm... so I assume then that they never posted again on that thread about a consensus being reached...?
So far we have:
For (Zimri CAN band to Wives):
Westy
Professoralstad
ChristianSoldier
YMT
jmhartz
Against (Zimri CANNOT band to Wives):
RTSmaniac
Prof Underwood
Redoubter
Browarod
AJ
-
I believe I was on the Against side last time agreeing with what Redoubter posted in the quote above. Zimri reads as being exclusive whereas cards like ZAS do not, grammatically.
-
except and other than seem very simular to me.
-
except and other than seem very simular to me.
Not really, one is "exclusive" while the other is "inclusive".
Zadok Anoints requires that it have a brigade "other than teal". Quite literally any card with a brigade other than teal, even if it also has teal, meets that qualification.
On the other hand, saying "of any brigade except brown" means that anything with brown is excepted, not allowable. Anything else is fine, 'except' that.
Different meanings, different result, and should be different rulings.
HOWEVER. If this gets ruled the other way, I won't be heartbroken, so long as we have a consistent rule on these words!
Any word on that Elders?
-
This was being discussed on the Elder side awhile ago but a consensus was not reached at that time--I will bring that thread up again and see if we can resolve it.
-
I was rather confident with this because in my recent RMG video series (which will not be continuing due to my computer breaking) I looked it up. here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/zimri-son-of-salu-30106/msg472824/#msg472824) here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/zimri-son-of-salu-27902/msg437025/#msg437025) and here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/'except-___-brigade'/), although that middle one just references that last one with no disagreements.
These are all the rulings on it I can find, but they're all consistent.
-
I was rather confident with this because in my recent RMG video series (which will not be continuing due to my computer breaking) I looked it up. here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/zimri-son-of-salu-30106/msg472824/#msg472824) here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/zimri-son-of-salu-27902/msg437025/#msg437025) and here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/'except-___-brigade'/), although that middle one just references that last one with no disagreements.
These are all the rulings on it I can find, but they're all consistent.
Looks like you missed this one referenced earlier (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/color-question/). The ones you posted only had 1 Elder post, and very few posters overall, while this one did show that there may be some disagreement (and Guardian confirmed that here).
-
It makes no sense that Zimri could band to Wives. He says "except brown" so it doesn't make any sense.
-
I was rather confident with this because in my recent RMG video series (which will not be continuing due to my computer breaking) I looked it up. here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/zimri-son-of-salu-30106/msg472824/#msg472824) here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/zimri-son-of-salu-27902/msg437025/#msg437025) and here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/'except-___-brigade'/), although that middle one just references that last one with no disagreements.
These are all the rulings on it I can find, but they're all consistent.
Looks like you missed this one referenced earlier (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/color-question/). The ones you posted only had 1 Elder post, and very few posters overall, while this one did show that there may be some disagreement (and Guardian confirmed that here).
Yeah, sorry, I meant to say could find. That thread didn't exist when I built my Gates of Samaria deck.
-
The entire ruling is dependent on where the "except brown" is acting on, based on the wording I would say the "except brown" is acting on the brigade condition, therefore Zimri can band to a female evil character of any (brigade except brown), which means you check if the female evil character has a brigade that is not brown, and therefore can be banded to.
I do disagree with Redoubter's suggestion that "other than X" and "except X" are functionally different, since both exclude X
Of course this is my interpretation of how the card is ruled based on how it was explained to me when I asked about it when it was more relevant to my decks, now I mostly want a definite ruling.
-
I think we should just have one ruling for these situations regardless of the wording. If any color works, then the whole card works. I think we all agree that Zimri can band to a Crimson EC, for instance. Since Wives is Crimson, the band should work.
-
I think we should just have one ruling for these situations regardless of the wording.
Except that wording is important and matters. This is a card game based on special abilities, after all.
-
except and other than seem very simular to me.
Not really, one is "exclusive" while the other is "inclusive".
Zadok Anoints requires that it have a brigade "other than teal". Quite literally any card with a brigade other than teal, even if it also has teal, meets that qualification.
On the other hand, saying "of any brigade except brown" means that anything with brown is excepted, not allowable. Anything else is fine, 'except' that.
I have to disagree with this. "Except" and "Other than" sound exactly alike. Example:
"I like all pizza toppings except anchovies" and "I like all pizza toppings other than anchovies" mean exactly the same thing. All pizza toppings except anchovies are "liked"; anchovies are "not liked". In either case, you are both describing what you do like and what you don't like. The key, though, is that you are describing what you do like. The fact that you don't like anchovies doesn't affect the fact that you like pepperoni; and if there was a pizza that had pepperoni and anchovies, you might not like the pizza itself, but you still like pepperoni.
In Zimri's case, "May band to a female evil character of any brigade except brown", even though it uses the word "except", is describing what Zimri can do, not what he can't do. That's why the ability starts "May band...". Not being able to band to Brown doesn't affect Zimri's ability to band to FW, because FW is fully Crimson, and Crimson is one of the pizza toppings Zimri likes.
-
The problem with that example is that you're allowing for the person that doesn't like anchovies to eat a pizza with anchovies and pepperoni because it has a topping that isn't anchovies. I don't know about you but if I don't like something I won't eat it regardless of what else is on there. :P
-
I can certainly see both sides. In the last elder discussion, I argued that banding to a part-brown EC seemed counter-intuitive. Most (or at least half) of the players here in this thread seem to think that he should not be able to band to brown, based on that word "except."
But the main thing he was known for was for 'banding' to a foreign woman. So, I'd be happy if he can band to part-brown, for the sake of the theme.
I am sorry we didn't word that card clearer.
-
Zimri reprint!
"Interrupt fortresses. May band to Foreign Wives or a female Evil Character of any brigade except brown to decrease a Hero by 0/6."
In all seriousness, though, there are plenty of cards that were intended to work one way but don't because of an error in wording (*cough*Split Altar*cough*). I don't think we should start making exceptions. If "except" is ruled to be inclusive and not exclusive that's one thing because all excepts would then be consistently the same, but we shouldn't be treating individual cards differently. :2cents:
-
I would argue that you're targeting any brigade except brown. Coincidentally, if brown is included, then it's fine.
Example. Ashdod, same wording.
"While this Site is occupied, your Philistine Evil Characters may use O.T. Enhancements of any evil brigade except orange and pale green."
Now, can I play a multicolor enhancement, or is it restricting me from playing any enhancement with orange brigade? Can I play Magician's Snakes, which is half gold, half pale green? It seems much more obvious (at least, to me) in this example that the answer is yes.
-
So King Belshazzar can band to Nebby, then? Same wording - May band to a Babylonian (except a King).
In your Ashdod example I would say that no they can't use Magicians' Snakes because it has one of the excepted brigades.
-
The cases of King Belshazzar and Ashdod are different, in the case of King Belshazzar the except X is applying to the Babylonian (which is short hand for Babylonian Character) so that it means a Babylonian Character that is not a king.
In the Ashdod Example the except is being applied to the brigade, not the enhancement, so it is saying, may play an enhancement of any (brigade except Pale Green and Orange), therefore it just checks if the card is a brigade except Pale Green or Orange, and since (say Magician's Snakes) is a brigade that is not Pale Green or Orange (it is gold), the fact that it is Pale Green shouldn't be an issue.
Basically if you wanted to exclude a brigade entirely you would have to have the exception on the Character or Enhancement, not on the brigade, so to make Ashdod not allow partially Pale Green or Zimri to not allow partially brown characters it should have been written as: "Non-Pale Green or Orange Enhancements." or "Non-Brown Female Evil Character"
-
Why does referring to a card's type versus a card's identifiers change how you're "applying" targeting to it? (especially since type is basically just a kind of identifier)
Also, Zimri DOES say evil character, just earlier in the sentence. I don't see how they are not equivalent. (not to mention you're expanding some shorthands but not others)
-
Why does referring to a card's type versus a card's identifiers change how you're "applying" targeting to it? (especially since type is basically just a kind of identifier)
Also, Zimri DOES say evil character, just earlier in the sentence. I don't see how they are not equivalent. (not to mention you're expanding some shorthands but not others)
First of all, this is my interpretation, and I have little problem with it not being ruled this way.
Secondly, I'm applying the exception to where I think it makes most sense in the sentence, of course Zimri does say evil character, but the exception, according to my interpretation, is applied to the brigade, since based on my understanding of sentence structure and game rules that's where it should apply to. It's not about card types, identifiers or targeting. The fact that the evil character is earlier in the sentence is the point.
-
In your Ashdod example I would say that no they can't use Magicians' Snakes because it has one of the excepted brigades.
So, just to clarify, you'd rule that you can't play Romans Destroy Jerusalem on an emperor if Rome is in play.
"Your emperors have first strike and may use N.T. Enhancements of any evil brigade except orange."
I would argue that the ability is not restricting anything. It's allowing things to be played, with the things it's allowing to be played being N.T. enhancements of any evil brigade (except orange). So that means it's allowing you to play pale green, brown, black, gold, crimson, and/or gray brigades. In the same way, Zimri is allowing you to band to an evil character that is pale green, orange, black, gold, crimson, or gray brigade.
-
Technically yes, but I could also make a case for "use other enhancement" abilities to be additions rather than replacements. Either way, Redemption should have a specific definition for "except" when used in special abilities that is consistent across all usages of it rather than having some cards treated differently.
You can argue that but that's not what "except" means in English which is the only definition we have since Redemption doesn't have its own definition of the word.
ex·cept
ikˈsept
preposition
1. not including; other than.
<the sentence example was a bit inappropriate>
synonyms: excluding, not including, excepting, omitting, not counting, but, besides, apart from, aside from, barring, bar, other than, saving; More
antonyms: including
conjunction
conjunction: except
1. used before a statement that forms an exception to one just made.
"I didn't tell him anything, except that I needed the money"
archaic
unless.
"she never offered advice, except it were asked of her"
verbformal
verb: except; 3rd person present: excepts; past tense: excepted; past participle: excepted; gerund or present participle: excepting
1. specify as not included in a category or group; exclude.
"he excepted from his criticism a handful of distinguished writers"
synonyms: exclude, omit, leave out, count out, disregard;
-
If we have to use a food example try this on for size:
I have a friend who is allergic to nuts. He says he can eat any sandwich except peanut butter. Can I then give him a PBJ because it has another topping in addition to the Peanut Butter?
-
Technically yes, but I could also make a case for "use other enhancement" abilities to be additions rather than replacements. Either way, Redemption should have a specific definition for "except" when used in special abilities that is consistent across all usages of it rather than having some cards treated differently.
You can argue that but that's not what "except" means in English which is the only definition we have since Redemption doesn't have its own definition of the word.
ex·cept
ikˈsept
preposition
1. not including; other than.
<the sentence example was a bit inappropriate>
synonyms: excluding, not including, excepting, omitting, not counting, but, besides, apart from, aside from, barring, bar, other than, saving; More
antonyms: including
conjunction
conjunction: except
1. used before a statement that forms an exception to one just made.
"I didn't tell him anything, except that I needed the money"
archaic
unless.
"she never offered advice, except it were asked of her"
verbformal
verb: except; 3rd person present: excepts; past tense: excepted; past participle: excepted; gerund or present participle: excepting
1. specify as not included in a category or group; exclude.
"he excepted from his criticism a handful of distinguished writers"
synonyms: exclude, omit, leave out, count out, disregard;
Other than is listed as an acceptable definition.
If we have to use a food example try this on for size:
I have a friend who is allergic to nuts. He says he can eat any sandwich except peanut butter. Can I then give him a PBJ because it has another topping in addition to the Peanut Butter?
That is a perfectly acceptable use of grammar. Try this one on for size.
In my seasonings cupboard, I have pepper, salt, Morton's Seasoning Blend (onion, garlic, salt, pepper and other natural spices), oregano, and basil. My mother's secret chicken recipe calls for all of these things, except pepper. There will still be pepper due to the seasoning blend, but I won't be adding straight pepper.
Redemption has never been good with English though, which is why we need definitions. I'm a bit shocked that you guys think that except is a restrict ability, but okay.
And now I'm hungry.
-
There is nothing shocking about 'except' being inclusive or exclusive, as it can perfectly be either. Its just that Redemption needs to define which it is.
-
If we have to use a food example try this on for size:
I have a friend who is allergic to nuts. He says he can eat any sandwich except peanut butter. Can I then give him a PBJ because it has another topping in addition to the Peanut Butter?
You're going the wrong way with the analogy. Being allergic to peanut butter, and putting peanut butter together with jelly, does not make a person allergic to jelly.
There is nothing shocking about 'except' being inclusive or exclusive, as it can perfectly be either. Its just that Redemption needs to define which it is.
This. I could understand it ruled either way. But until such a ruling exists, I have to say that Zimri bands to FW.
-
If we have to use a food example try this on for size:
I have a friend who is allergic to nuts. He says he can eat any sandwich except peanut butter. Can I then give him a PBJ because it has another topping in addition to the Peanut Butter?
You're going the wrong way with the analogy. Being allergic to peanut butter, and putting peanut butter together with jelly, does not make a person allergic to jelly.
It is, however, a great analogy of ignoring a character. Ignore brown brigade and all of Foreign Wives is ignored.
Banding brings things into battle though, it doesn't keep them out, so it doesn't totally apply.
-
If we have to use a food example try this on for size:
I have a friend who is allergic to nuts. He says he can eat any sandwich except peanut butter. Can I then give him a PBJ because it has another topping in addition to the Peanut Butter?
You're going the wrong way with the analogy. Being allergic to peanut butter, and putting peanut butter together with jelly, does not make a person allergic to jelly.
It is, however, a great analogy of ignoring a character. Ignore brown brigade and all of Foreign Wives is ignored.
Banding brings things into battle though, it doesn't keep them out, so it doesn't totally apply.
Okay let me put it this way.
Zimri can band to (eat a sandwich) any female EC except (deathly allergic to) brown (PB) brigade. Can Zimri band to (eat) Jezebel who is both brown (PB) and Black (jelly) simply because he would thus be selecting her for her black brigade (jelly half)?
-
If we have to use a food example try this on for size:
I have a friend who is allergic to nuts. He says he can eat any sandwich except peanut butter. Can I then give him a PBJ because it has another topping in addition to the Peanut Butter?
You're going the wrong way with the analogy. Being allergic to peanut butter, and putting peanut butter together with jelly, does not make a person allergic to jelly.
It is, however, a great analogy of ignoring a character. Ignore brown brigade and all of Foreign Wives is ignored.
Banding brings things into battle though, it doesn't keep them out, so it doesn't totally apply.
Okay let me put it this way.
Zimri can band to (eat a sandwich) any female EC except (deathly allergic to) brown (PB) brigade. Can Zimri band to (eat) Jezebel who is both brown (PB) and Black (jelly) simply because he would thus be selecting her for her black brigade (jelly half)?
Sure he can, he'll just die.
-
Other than is listed as an acceptable definition.
.......
I'm a bit shocked that you guys think that except is a restrict ability, but okay.
To the first statement, that's true. I never said except and other than were mutually exclusive. The context is what matters and the context of ZaS is different than the context of Zimri.
To the second, I don't remember ever saying except is a "restrict." Except is "exclusive," yes, but not necessarily a "restrict."
-
Alright, I'm locking this one for now, the ruling is up to the Elders, but this is simultaneously not going anywhere while just going round and round and honestly becoming hard to follow. Especially when everyone brings up food analogies and I am hungry.
I think all sides have posted their points well, and we'll just have to wait to see what the conclusive ruling is.
By the way, if we could stop bringing real-life 'analogies' up (guilty here as well of responding in kind with one previously), since we have shown they can be used for any side of an argument without actually being relevant, that'd be cool ;) They seem to muddy things up more than anything sadly.
If the Elders could post here if there is an interim ruling we should use, and let us know when there is a final ruling (which I will add to the FAQ), that'd be super swell. If any of you feel this should be unlocked, please do so :)
EDIT: Also added this thread to the list HERE (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rulings-board-posting-rules-references-new-rules-and-faq/msg521979/#msg521979)
-
In the thread on the playtester side, 6 elders (myself, RDT, ProfA, ProfU, Gabe and Bryon) have weighed in. 4 agree the band is legal and 2 say it is not--so for now, the band is a legal play and I will do my best to encourage other elders to weigh in and/or see if those who thought it should not be allowed believe it warrants further discussion.