Author Topic: Leading Others Astray (Read 9678 times)

Redoubter · « **Reply #25 on:** December 31, 2014, 03:28:21 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 31, 2014, 03:12:05 PM

Thematically, having a converted King Asnapper or Nebushasban be awesome as heroes makes more sense than making them useless. I think the idea of nixing all converted EC abilities is a terrible idea. It will kill self-conversion as a strategy for all but Paul.

That's certainly not true. Proud Pharisee is a fantastic hero, and Abimelech is arguably the best judge in the game. Those are just two that I have personally used, but there are more, including Namaan or The Dreaming Pharaoh.

Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #26 on:** December 31, 2014, 03:32:45 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 03:28:21 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 31, 2014, 03:12:05 PM
Thematically, having a converted King Asnapper or Nebushasban be awesome as heroes makes more sense than making them useless. I think the idea of nixing all converted EC abilities is a terrible idea. It will kill self-conversion as a strategy for all but Paul.

That's certainly not true. Proud Pharisee is a fantastic hero, and Abimelech is arguably the best judge in the game. Those are just two that I have personally used, but there are more, including Namaan or The Dreaming Pharaoh.

Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.

You missed the part about "nixing all converted EC abilities," which is one of the ideas being contemplated...

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #27 on:** December 31, 2014, 04:22:38 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 03:28:21 PM

Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.

Because it is unnecessary. Right now there is one single example which involves re-converting a character who had previously been Lead Astray (i.e., converted from hero to EC via Leading Others Astray) that has been put forward as a possible reason for such a change. This strikes me as a very thin reed, especially given that even in the worst case, it is a minor inconvenience.

Redoubter · « **Reply #28 on:** December 31, 2014, 04:30:50 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 31, 2014, 04:22:38 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 03:28:21 PM
Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.
I don't know. Why is it so bad to just leave things the way they are currently? Right now there is one single example which involves re-converting a character who had previously been Lead Astray (i.e., converted from hero to EC via Leading Others Astray) that has been put forward as a possible reason for such a change. This strikes me as a very thin reed.

Does not actually address my question, but I'll answer yours. If we have abilities that convert when an EC becomes a Hero, that new ability should be 'herolike' and that's the way it has always been designed. It was agreed awhile ago that this led to subjectivity, so an objective rule was put in place instead, and that's the rule we have now. However, it is being shown that there still a simple way to have an objective rule that encompasses more of the 'herolike' component that was the rule for so long.

It's not as if this rule hasn't already changed over time, and it's good we have gotten away from something that was easy to interpret multiple ways. But that's the idea behind these rules, that they adapt as we go. Resisting change just to avoid it doesn't make sense, there needs to be a good reason to avoid moving forward on something than 'it is a change.' We have a good reason to go forward. I don't see a good reason being given not to.

On to YMT's post, I did not miss that, but I actually thought you were replying to the Prof U post not the Guardian post since that was earlier and other discussion had happened, sorry about that

Though I do agree with you, I'd rather avoid taking out evil abilities converting altogether, because converting your EC should be thematically encouraged IMO.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 31, 2014, 04:49:50 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 04:30:50 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on December 31, 2014, 04:22:38 PM
Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 03:28:21 PM
Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.
I don't know. Why is it so bad to just leave things the way they are currently? Right now there is one single example which involves re-converting a character who had previously been Lead Astray (i.e., converted from hero to EC via Leading Others Astray) that has been put forward as a possible reason for such a change. This strikes me as a very thin reed.

Does not actually address my question, but I'll answer yours.

Sorry, you must have missed that I updated my post prior to your response. The reason is that changing the rule is (almost) completely unnecessary at this time. Rules stability is a very, very good thing for any game, and changes should only be made when necessary.

Quote

Resisting change just to avoid it doesn't make sense, there needs to be a good reason to avoid moving forward on something than 'it is a change.' We have a good reason to go forward. I don't see a good reason being given not to.

Making changes simply to effect change also doesn't make sense. There should be a good reason *to* make a change. The single example given does *not* rise to that level in my opinion. Even if you disregard the importance of rules stability, YMT has provided more and better examples where the game play is hurt by making the change than it wpould be benefited by it.

It seem strange that you brush aside YMT's examples as merely "some combo usage" while simultaneously arguing in favor of changing a rule based on a singular case of much rarer and more minor combo.

Redoubter · « **Reply #30 on:** December 31, 2014, 05:13:54 PM »

I did read your previous post, where you just said it is unnecessary because of this being 'one instance' but also where you seemed to be in favor of a change to remove all conversion instead of implementing the change to stop conversions that affect LS, were a change made.

I responded by saying that 'herolike' (or 'anti-hero') has been a thing and was the previous rule, making rescues harder would have certainly fallen under that umbrella, and this is just an objective way to work with all such situations instead of just case-by-case.

Lastly, I never brushed aside YMT's examples, but instead responded to his assertion that the proposal would neuter self-conversion completely, since I misunderstood which proposal he was referring to (he was talking about the 'remove all' that you seemed in favor of if a change is made, while I thought he was still on what I had suggested earlier).

So, I am not advocating a rule change based on a single case, but rather to make the conversion of abilities fit the mold that has been the design since evil abilities could be converted (I said as much), I do not think that removing all abilities from conversion is a good idea (thematically we should be encouraged to self-convert), and I don't see any good reason not to go forward with this change (I'm not seeing any actual argument beyond 'we don't really need it' and I disagree with that for reasons already stated).

Hopefully we are all on the same page now.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 31, 2014, 08:04:06 PM »

Just to clarify, I would prefer:

That the current status quo be retained
Failing #1 that we do away with all EC abilities on conversion similar to how the rule was changed a long ways back to do away with SA when heroes fall. (This I would prefer less by about two orders of magnitude.)

Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 05:13:54 PM

I responded by saying that 'herolike' (or 'anti-hero') has been a thing and was the previous rule, making rescues harder would have certainly fallen under that umbrella, and this is just an objective way to work with all such situations instead of just case-by-case.

The "harder" bit is true for precisely one limited case that has been discussed where it causes minor discomfort. To this I have three responses:

YMT has already provided multiple examples where a converted EC ability targeting a LS makes it easier to make a rescues. These would all clearly fall under your definition of a "hero-like" ability.
I could with the same justification note that having certain evil fortresses in play makes it harder to make rescues. Thus by your reasoning any SA which allows you to search for an Evil Fortress is not "hero-like."
A single marginal edge case should not be sufficient cause to change a rule.

Quote

Lastly, I never brushed aside YMT's examples,

It is hard to read...

Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 03:28:21 PM

Why is it so bad to remove evil abilities that target souls as being used on the side of good? That this would remove some combo usage is beside the point to me.

as anything other than brushing YMT's examples off as nothing more than "some combos usage."

Quote

I don't see any good reason not to go forward with this change

Which is *not* in itself a reason to make a change.

Redoubter · « **Reply #32 on:** January 01, 2015, 12:50:53 AM »

You seem to continue to move past the point being made that evil abilities targeting souls are not hero-like and should not be converted. That is my point, not that there is a single card combination necessitating a change. I have said over and over that the one card in question is not the only one I am referring to, but you keep going to that. And again, you are not reading my comments in the light they were given. I have tried my best to clarify where you seem to be interpreting them differently, like YMT did with me, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere, so I'm going to just have to let that go.

We'll see what other opinions are on this, but I would certainly like to see this minor update to the rule so that it reads "that target heroes or Lost Souls" for what does not convert.

Praeceps · « **Reply #33 on:** January 01, 2015, 01:18:38 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 01, 2015, 12:50:53 AM

You seem to continue to move past the point being made that evil abilities targeting souls are not hero-like and should not be converted.

It seems to me that in saying this you are discounting something Christ commanded the disciples to do. In these YMT's two examples you are putting an unreceptive (un-winable) LS behind you (in your territory) and moving on to try to redeem a LS that can be won (transferring one of yours into their territory). Is this not what Christ was commanding be done in Mark 6:11? How would this not be Hero-like?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #34 on:** January 01, 2015, 01:35:37 AM »

Wow... we haven't had a good debate like this in years...

...

FWIW MJB, I do not question Redoubter's sincerity in not intending to disregard my examples. I think we just had some misunderstandings. No worries.

I am interested in other Elders' input. I will simply end with my vote to not change the current ruling that converted EC SAs cannot target a hero. I would rather have annoying backfires on a couple ECs, than to lose the plethora of possibilities associated with conversions of other EC SAs. I also would rather not take away Soul Swappers and the like, just to appease Soul Protectors.

The Guardian · « **Reply #35 on:** January 01, 2015, 04:05:02 AM »

Personally I don't see a need to change the current rule.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #36 on:** January 01, 2015, 09:37:33 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 01, 2015, 12:50:53 AM

You seem to continue to move past the point being made that evil abilities targeting souls are not hero-like and should not be converted.

I am moving past this point, because I do not believe that it correct. I understand that you have asserted this to be true, but just because you claim something as fact does not make it so. Let me clarify...

I agree that we have an example that appears to support your argument (even that is iffy--if certain lost souls can be protected even from the Son of God, why should any given hero be able to rescue any particular lost soul?). That being said, there are three additional items related to this that touch on a possible ruling...

First, while there is an example that supports your contention, YMT has provided multiple examples where a converted EC ability targeting a lost soul seems to be *very* hero-like. Was YMT's analysis incorrect or does your single example outweigh the multiple examples he provided?

Second, there are other converted EC abilities (my example was Fortress Search and Play) that have edge case examples that hinder rescuing lost souls. Should those abilities also be considered "not hero-like" and prevented from converting--why or why not?

Lastly, even *if* one accepts your underlying assertion at face value, there is an opportunity cost to making rule changes. Adding confusion to experienced players/hosts, complicating the learning curve for new players, etc. If someone is arguing in favor of a rule change they need to make a positive argument in favor of it (i.e., an argument where the benefits to the game are shown to be greater than the drawbacks). Why is this a particular issue significant enough (either now or in the future) that it warrants all of the added costs of making a rule change?

I disagree with your current argument insofar as I understand it. I admit that it is possible that I have simply misunderstood you. It is, however, hard for me to tell whether I have misunderstood you or not because I have not seen you *meaningfully* address any of the three issues raised above. Simply answering the questions that conclude the previous three paragraphs would greatly clarify the matter.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 01, 2015, 01:35:37 AM

FWIW MJB, I do not question Redoubter's sincerity in not intending to disregard my examples. I think we just had some misunderstandings. No worries.

I also do not doubt Redoubter's sincerity. Your examples are, however, direct counter-examples to his underlying premise, and I feel that it is worth pointing out that Redoubter still has *not* addressed them.

Redoubter · « **Reply #37 on:** January 01, 2015, 09:57:29 AM »

Quote from: Praeceps on January 01, 2015, 01:18:38 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on January 01, 2015, 12:50:53 AM
You seem to continue to move past the point being made that evil abilities targeting souls are not hero-like and should not be converted.

It seems to me that in saying this you are discounting something Christ commanded the disciples to do. In these YMT's two examples you are putting an unreceptive (un-winable) LS behind you (in your territory) and moving on to try to redeem a LS that can be won (transferring one of yours into their territory). Is this not what Christ was commanding be done in Mark 6:11? How would this not be Hero-like?

I like the logic argument there, but we also have plenty of examples of not giving up on the unrighteous to do other things. Acts 18 with Paul is a perfect example, where he is literally shaking the dust and about to leave an unreceptive audience, yet God does not want them to be ignored and Paul ended up staying a year and a half. Or all of Hosea works, even if most of that is supposed to be figurative. Or multiple parables about focusing on and caring about the one lost person at the expense of everything else. That's a fun debate to have though, I like that counterpoint

Based on abilities already printed and the precedents there, though, I have always argued that soul manipulation of this sort should be exclusive to EC, which is also why I advocate changing the rule here (which I have also said multiple times, MJB, addressing the YMT examples throughout). I also advocate for a subjective rule so that we don't have to pick and choose among those abilities that target souls (like in the old days).

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #38 on:** January 01, 2015, 10:23:18 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 01, 2015, 09:57:29 AM

Based on abilities already printed and the precedents there, though, I have always argued that soul manipulation of this sort should be exclusive to EC, ...

This is where we will have to agree to disagree. Although it has been primarily given to ECs as a SA, I think soul manipulation is an awesome hero ability that helps the rescuer, which I will always support for the sake of new and young players. Getting locked out of rescues because you do not have a N.T. Female that is */4 or greater is annoying for beginners.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 01, 2015, 11:46:50 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 01, 2015, 09:57:29 AM

Based on abilities already printed and the precedents there, though, I have always argued that soul manipulation of this sort should be exclusive to EC,

We have a good dominant (Harvest Time), multiple heroes (e.g., Faithful Servant, Paladin, the Fighter, Angel of Deliverance), and good enhancements (e.g., Wedding Party) that specifically target lost souls. Moreover, abilties such as the ones found on Faithful Servant (promo) and Paladin, the Fighter are protect abilities that target lost souls.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "soul manipulation of this sort."

Redoubter · « **Reply #40 on:** January 02, 2015, 12:56:13 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 01, 2015, 11:46:50 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on January 01, 2015, 09:57:29 AM
Based on abilities already printed and the precedents there, though, I have always argued that soul manipulation of this sort should be exclusive to EC,
We have a good dominant (Harvest Time), multiple heroes (e.g., Faithful Servant, Paladin, the Fighter, Angel of Deliverance), and good enhancements (e.g., Wedding Party) that specifically target lost souls. Moreover, abilties such as the ones found on Faithful Servant (promo) and Paladin, the Fighter are protect abilities that target lost souls.

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "soul manipulation of this sort."

We don't have evil abilities that search out souls to add them to play or protect them from evil cards (obviously on the latter). We do have evil abilities that protect souls from rescue or manipulate souls (placing them on/in decks, moving them around, etc.). I really am not sure why I have to define what I mean by 'soul manipulation of this sort' when it is clear that there are very different things that target souls from a good and evil side. You prove that with your own examples.

browarod · « **Reply #41 on:** January 02, 2015, 01:40:00 PM »

You have to define it because it's a completely subjective, opinion-based definition. You think that soul manipulation like exchanging is solely an evil ability, other people disagree. You think a change should be made to the rules because of your opinion despite the fact that people have shown you examples of why this would be more of a detriment to creativity and options than a help. Rules shouldn't ever have subjective aspects or be based on any one person's individual opinion. I thought that was why the "harm" aspect of the rule was finally removed?

Discarding a hero, that's easily determined as inherently evil. Discarding a lost soul, that's also inherently evil. Discarding an EC, that's inherently good (though perhaps shouldn't be, see my note below about withdraw). Exchanging lost souls/heroes? That could be evil or good (or even neutral, see Stalks of Flax). Just because an ability is more often found on an EC than a Hero doesn't necessarily mean it's inherently an evil ability. I believe there were more cards (at least prior to I/J) that were evil and withdrew heroes than were good and withdrew evil characters. Does this mean withdraw is an inherently evil ability? Nope. I would, in fact, argue the opposite: that thematically withdraw makes more sense as a hero ability than an evil ability because the hero would be more likely to end the conflict (battle) non-violently (via returning the EC to territory rather than killing/removing them) and show God's grace.

TL;DR: While some things (demons, angels, heretics, magicians, discarding opposite alignment, etc) are obviously aligned one way or another, there are a lot of abilities in Redemption that don't inherently have an alignment either way. If any change to a rule is to be made it should be based on the necessity for a change as well as the change that makes the most logical sense apart from subjective opinion. Since there is disagreement over what constitutes "harming" a hero/lost soul I would vote in favor of not making a change at this time until if/when a better definition can be determined.

Redoubter · « **Reply #42 on:** January 02, 2015, 03:45:00 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 02, 2015, 01:40:00 PM

You have to define it because it's a completely subjective, opinion-based definition. You think that soul manipulation like exchanging is solely an evil ability, other people disagree.

This is actually my point. We used to have a subjective rule about what counted as 'hero-like' and it changed based on who was looking at it (I would look at soul-swaps as not hero-like, while others would see it as more vague or not applicable). This is why the rule changed in the first place.

Based on the fact that we have plenty of cards that target souls in purely evil ways (protecting them from rescue alone we have more than a couple handful, not even counting the card that started this). Instead of something subjective, a blanket rule about targeting is far better.

Uzzah and the whole mess of heretics have an evil ability. That's pretty clear and I'm not sure could be up for debate. I'd rather not go case-by-case like the old way and make a blanket rule. If you're suggesting that something about that is subjective, I'll need your help getting to the same place you are.

JSB23 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 02, 2015, 04:04:54 PM »

Why is this even being discussed?

It's such a niche case, why does it matter?

The Guardian · « **Reply #44 on:** January 02, 2015, 04:15:59 PM »

While this particular case is niche (and highly unlikely to even happen since we're talking about double conversion), the issue of EC abilities converting at all is worth discussion.

For the record, I think we are in a good place with the ruling that EC abilities that target a Hero (which unfortunately has to include banding) do not convert.

BTW, if you're in town on break, you and your Dad should come to the tournament tomorrow, would be great to see you guys!

browarod · « **Reply #45 on:** January 02, 2015, 05:34:50 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 02, 2015, 03:45:00 PM

If you're suggesting that something about that is subjective, I'll need your help getting to the same place you are.

It's subjective because you want to change the rule to target additional abilities based on your opinion that most/all abilities targeting lost souls are evil. That's my point. I agree that your suggestion for the new rule is sufficiently blanketing and not inherently subjective in and of itself, but your reasoning for wanting to change it to that is what is subjective.

Quote from: The Guardian on January 02, 2015, 04:15:59 PM

For the record, I think we are in a good place with the ruling that EC abilities that target a Hero (which unfortunately has to include banding) do not convert.

I agree with this.

Redoubter · « **Reply #46 on:** January 02, 2015, 06:21:59 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 02, 2015, 05:34:50 PM

That's my point. I agree that your suggestion for the new rule is sufficiently blanketing and not inherently subjective in and of itself, but your reasoning for wanting to change it to that is what is subjective.

My reasoning is that evil abilities that target souls are just that, evil, and should not convert. I'm still not understanding how protecting lost souls from rescue or removing them from play should remain if an EC is converted. If you want to argue about soul manipulation in play, then fine I can have a discussion on that. But to say my reasoning is somehow flawed when I'm pointing out cards like Uzzah and Creeping as justification is baffling. And it makes no sense.

Praeceps · « **Reply #47 on:** January 02, 2015, 06:53:07 PM »

uzzah is a horrible example. He has a may ability so you have to choose to use it in order for it to activate; if you choose to use a converted Uzzah's ability while making a RA with him you are either a very new player, and I would hope that after your opponent pointed out your mistake he/she would let you take it back, or you deserve what results...

browarod · « **Reply #48 on:** January 02, 2015, 11:02:39 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 02, 2015, 06:21:59 PM

Quote from: browarod on January 02, 2015, 05:34:50 PM
That's my point. I agree that your suggestion for the new rule is sufficiently blanketing and not inherently subjective in and of itself, but your reasoning for wanting to change it to that is what is subjective.

My reasoning is that evil abilities that target souls are just that, evil, and should not convert. I'm still not understanding how protecting lost souls from rescue or removing them from play should remain if an EC is converted. If you want to argue about soul manipulation in play, then fine I can have a discussion on that. But to say my reasoning is somehow flawed when I'm pointing out cards like Uzzah and Creeping as justification is baffling. And it makes no sense.

I never said your reasoning was flawed, just subjective. You think certain abilities are inherently evil, others disagree, just that and nothing more. Your opinion leads you to the conclusion that we should add "abilities that target lost souls" to the list of evil character abilities that don't convert. Others think the current "abilities that target Heroes" is sufficient for evil character abilities that don't convert. All I'm saying is that there is room for different interpretations, it's not as cut-and-dry as you're seeming to think it is.

Personally, I feel that both positions are at least somewhat valid but I don't think your position has enough urgency or necessity to actually warrant a changing of the rule. The rules shouldn't be changed casually (especially when adding clauses and/or making them more complicated) and I really don't see anything at this juncture that your change would solve that would break the game if the change isn't made.

However, I can accept that you disagree, and I will abide by whatever decision ends up being made by the Elders.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #49 on:** January 03, 2015, 12:58:10 AM »

Just chiming in here

I'm with Chris on this one. If the goal (Which I feel it is) is to bring in new players, simpler rules are inherently better. Having no abilities convert is about a simple as it gets. The other option is that all abilities convert, technically that's simpler as it doesn't involve explaining why the ability doesn't convert, but I get that having certain abilities convert doesn't make sense.

News:

Author Topic: Leading Others Astray (Read 9678 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod