Author Topic: Leviathan Triggers? (Read 2664 times)

GreatGray · « **on:** June 18, 2018, 05:33:45 PM »

Hello all! I have some questions about how Leviathan's triggering works. It's special ability is as follows: If you Job character blocks, you may take an evil Job card from Reserve. If your animal blocks, you may take and animal from deck. Protect Job animals from opponents' Dominants. Cannot be negated.
I understand that blocking with Leviathan or Behemoth allows you to use both parts of the special ability. I also understand that Job humans and animals trigger part of the ability depending on what evil character blocks; however, what happens when you having banding Job humans or animals? Does the specific ability trigger for each human and animal is it is added to the battle? Does "block" only refer to the first evil character to enter battle?
Thanks for any clarification!

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2018, 05:42:55 PM »

The characters that block are those that are in battle once abilities have completed, similar to how the characters that begin a battle are those that are in battle once abilities have completed. So each block can trigger multiple abilities, but it can only trigger each of those abilities once (so the Sons of Anak don't trigger Hebron 3 times).

So can do each search once if you block with a Job character/animal banding chain.

Josh · « **Reply #2 on:** June 19, 2018, 01:39:51 PM »

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on June 18, 2018, 05:42:55 PM

The characters that block are those that are in battle once abilities have completed, similar to how the characters that begin a battle are those that are in battle once abilities have completed. So each block can trigger multiple abilities, but it can only trigger each of those abilities once (so the Sons of Anak don't trigger Hebron 3 times).

So can do each search once if you block with a Job character/animal banding chain.

This seems inconsistent with the Throne trigger ruling, where 3 ECs banded and blocking Saul/David triggers Throne 6 times.

After all, if you have 3 Job ECs in battle, aren't they each individually meeting the condition of "If your Job character blocks"?

jbeers285 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 19, 2018, 02:07:26 PM »

Quote from: Josh on June 19, 2018, 01:39:51 PM

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on June 18, 2018, 05:42:55 PM
The characters that block are those that are in battle once abilities have completed, similar to how the characters that begin a battle are those that are in battle once abilities have completed. So each block can trigger multiple abilities, but it can only trigger each of those abilities once (so the Sons of Anak don't trigger Hebron 3 times).

So can do each search once if you block with a Job character/animal banding chain.

This seems inconsistent with the Throne trigger ruling, where 3 ECs banded and blocking Saul/David triggers Throne 6 times.

After all, if you have 3 Job ECs in battle, aren't they each individually meeting the condition of "If your Job character blocks"?

The throne ruling was changed based on the new definition of block I believe. I could be wrong though.

The Guardian · « **Reply #4 on:** June 19, 2018, 02:09:52 PM »

Correct^

Quote from: REG

The Evil Characters that blocked are those that are in battle once the block is complete, or if
there are none in battle, the last one to leave battle. The Heroes that are blocked are those that
were in battle when the first Evil Character entered battle. A block can only trigger an ability
once, regardless of the number of characters that blocked or are blocked. If any of the Evil
Characters that blocked entered battle from hand, the Hero is blocked from hand. Each block
only constitutes one instance of being blocked, regardless of the number of Evil Characters in
battle. A block can happen multiple times per battle.

The scenario mentioned above (3 banded ECs blocking Saul/David) would trigger Throne once, not six times.

Bobbert · « **Reply #5 on:** June 19, 2018, 02:18:11 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on June 19, 2018, 02:09:52 PM

The scenario mentioned above (3 banded ECs blocking Saul/David) would trigger Throne twice, not six times.

Wait, why would it trigger twice?

Quote

A block can only trigger an ability
once, regardless of the number of characters that blocked or are blocked.

Does this not mean that Throne can only trigger once, regardless of how many purple kings or ECs are in battle?

The Guardian · « **Reply #6 on:** June 19, 2018, 02:28:05 PM »

Right, I was looking at the first part and didn't read the second part closely enough.

Throne only triggers a second time if an EC is added to battle when there are no other ECs already in battle. (i.e. your David attacks and I block to trigger Throne once. David plays AoC promo in regular initiative, I use Gates of Hell to add a demon from my hand and Throne triggers again).

jbeers285 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 19, 2018, 02:31:33 PM »

Shouldn't an enhancement adding a character via a band ability retrigger throne though?

Gabe · « **Reply #8 on:** June 19, 2018, 02:33:01 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on June 19, 2018, 02:31:33 PM

Shouldn't an enhancement adding a character via a band ability retriever throne though?

Only if the EC enters an empty battle field. We cleaned up several definitions with REG 5.0 last fall. Block was cleaned up in part to tone down Throne abuse.

Josh · « **Reply #9 on:** June 19, 2018, 03:54:15 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on June 19, 2018, 02:33:01 PM

Quote from: jbeers285 on June 19, 2018, 02:31:33 PM
Shouldn't an enhancement adding a character via a band ability retriever throne though?

Only if the EC enters an empty battle field. We cleaned up several definitions with REG 5.0 last fall. Block was cleaned up in part to tone down Throne abuse.

The problem with changing rules to decrease the power of individual cards is that almost invariably, the ruling becomes more complex, it deviates further from the "plain English meaning" of the words, and fewer players will understand how the rules actually work.

Ask a random player what it means for an evil character to "block", and you are usually going to get a response similar to the old definition, since it's intuitive that each evil character "blocks" when it enters battle to oppose heroes.

Ask a random player which definition (the old one or the new one) is closer to the English meaning of the word "block" and I bet 90%+ pick the old one. Maybe 100%.

And Throne is still going to be about the same power level after this change. No one ever built a deck that could abuse the "multiple Play abilities" portion of Throne triggering several times, because 1. you need a lot of OT Purple enhancements and playing a bunch of them means you don't have them later for rescue attempts (and you probably played them inefficiently) and 2. you can't control how many ECs will be blocking your rescues. And the draw will probably not be a big difference, as splash defenses and FW will still get the attacker up close to the hand limit with just one trigger.

The problem was not the definition of "block", it was Throne's misworded ability.

It may not seem like a big deal, but when multiple rulings are changed because of how they affect individual cards instead of getting them as close as possible to plain English meanings, the harder and harder the game becomes to explain to new players (and even to seasoned players that don't grasp the rules as well as Elders do).

We (meaning Elders and those that can grasp and memorize vast swaths of information like that contained in the REG) really need to empathize with those that don't have our knowledge, experience, or capacity. If we want people to join the ranks of Redemption players and have the best possible experience Redemption can offer, we need to be willing and able to self-examine possible ways we've been making things more difficult and negatively affecting the average player's experience with the game.

Gabe · « **Reply #10 on:** June 19, 2018, 05:13:31 PM »

Quote from: Josh on June 19, 2018, 03:54:15 PM

The problem with changing rules to decrease the power of individual cards is that almost invariably, the ruling becomes more complex, it deviates further from the "plain English meaning" of the words, and fewer players will understand how the rules actually work.

Ask a random player what it means for an evil character to "block", and you are usually going to get a response similar to the old definition, since it's intuitive that each evil character "blocks" when it enters battle to oppose heroes.

Ask a random player which definition (the old one or the new one) is closer to the English meaning of the word "block" and I bet 90%+ pick the old one. Maybe 100%.

I value your opinion greatly and it would have been extremely helpful to have your input while we were making these decisions.

In REG 5.0 all battle related terms (block, attack, rescue, etc) were cleaned up or defined for the first time. Block was NOT approached only with nerfing TToD in mind, it was addressed with what we found to be a clearer and more intuitive definition (but maybe not for those who already knew the multiple TToD trigger ruling). If you recall (or look back at old posts) there were multiple time that question came up in the past.

Your comments about what people will answer seems speculative and exaggerated. While I agree that people might come to the conclusion you suggest it all depends on how you phrase the question.

When does an EC block? When it enters battle (presumed answer)

When is my Hero blocked? When one or more ECs enter battle (also presumed but based on this very question which was raised multiple times in the past)

The same question presented two different ways has yielded different results.

We want clean rules that allow cards that are intended to trigger once per battle to trigger once per battle. This isn't just about TToD (although it was among the biggest offenders). We didn't make a change only for the sake of nerfing TToD.

SEB · « **Reply #11 on:** June 20, 2018, 10:20:30 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on June 19, 2018, 05:13:31 PM

I value your opinion greatly and it would have been extremely helpful to have your input while we were making these decisions.

In REG 5.0 all battle related terms (block, attack, rescue, etc) were cleaned up or defined for the first time. Block was NOT approached only with nerfing TToD in mind, it was addressed with what we found to be a clearer and more intuitive definition (but maybe not for those who already knew the multiple TToD trigger ruling). If you recall (or look back at old posts) there were multiple time that question came up in the past.

Your comments about what people will answer seems speculative and exaggerated. While I agree that people might come to the conclusion you suggest it all depends on how you phrase the question.

When does an EC block? When it enters battle (presumed answer)

When is my Hero blocked? When one or more ECs enter battle (also presumed but based on this very question which was raised multiple times in the past)

The same question presented two different ways has yielded different results.

We want clean rules that allow cards that are intended to trigger once per battle to trigger once per battle. This isn't just about TToD (although it was among the biggest offenders). We didn't make a change only for the sake of nerfing TToD.

Josh's point resonated with a newly returning player.
In both the questions you pose Gabe, I would have assumed that each time an EC becomes a blocker, the Hero would be blocked. Because each time a hero"attacks" its ability activates and each time an EC blocks its ability activates, therefore each iteration of a character coming into battle would be an attack or block.

The new wording in 5.0 even blurs the line you are talking about "The Evil Characters that blocked are those that are in battle once the block is complete." I understand that the REG goes on to make "Block" a special term, but I agree with Josh that it is not "intuitive." Partially, because in any game (card game or otherwise) when a word is used for a game mechanic, it's locked into that one meaning of the word, here it is not.

The principal issue, when assigning multiple meanings to a word ("block" in this instance, has the (1) normal grammatical usage, (2) a term used to define the action of an EC being a blocker in a block, and (3) a special term for the general blocking of a rescue attempt), is confusion of definitions. The more meanings ascribed to a word, the more miscommunication can happen. Practical example: I told my college roommate to put the pizza in the oven on the bottom and the wings on top. Well, he put the pizza on the bottom wrack and put the wings on top of the pizza and not the top wrack like i had hoped.

I know that the game has been around for a good amount of time, and I think the Elders have really beefed it up in great ways. All CCGs deal with this: language. Words can be very difficult in a game that requires "lawyering;" words can be spun and misused. So, as the English languages changes, as Redemption changes, the necessity to change clarifying words will arise. This is the value of the ORCID and "play as."

In this situation, if you want the keyword "Block" to mean the collective action, during a battle, of one player's effort to stop another player's "Rescue Attempt," it may be helpful to change the action word of "blocking" to "Defending." Now there are two unique ways for players to communicate the status of their EC. Update the ORCID "play as" for cards that improperly refer to a blocking character to a defending character.

All my defending EC(s) are presented in the Block of your hero(s).
vs
All of my (2) blocking EC(s) are (1) blocking your hero(s) except that each of the (1) blocking (2) blockers arent (3) blocking because they were all apart of the (3) block. (a bit of tongue-in-cheek here).

All that being said, I can see why you would want to clean up these abilities, but perhaps cleaning means more than ascribing multiple uses or longer definitions? I would argue unique terms in this situation. Something like: "A Block is the collective forces of Defending Evil Characters."

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 20, 2018, 12:37:22 PM »

Quote from: SEB on June 20, 2018, 10:20:30 AM

The new wording in 5.0 even blurs the line you are talking about "The Evil Characters that blocked are those that are in battle once the block is complete." I understand that the REG goes on to make "Block" a special term, but I agree with Josh that it is not "intuitive." Partially, because in any game (card game or otherwise) when a word is used for a game mechanic, it's locked into that one meaning of the word, here it is not.

What lines are being blurred? The REG already offers a definition for "blocking":

"An Evil Character is blocking if it is defending in a battle begun by a Hero, regardless of the
presence of a Hero in the battle."

So that quote is not defining "block" in terms of itself. And I disagree that there is an intuitive, one-size-fits-all definition for block. Personally, I would think of block as a phase where you present an evil character to battle when an opponent attacks.

In general I have seen a lot of overreaction about the complexity of the rules, ironically from seasoned players who are competent enough to understand these "complex rules". So at this point these complaints are complete conjecture. In general I agree that errata should be the first change before rules, but in this case throne was not the only consideration here. Either way the same amount of complexity added is the same, because if you errata throne people who are just reading the ability have to learn about the errata.

SEB · « **Reply #13 on:** June 20, 2018, 12:42:55 PM »

The "blur" is referencing the definitions. Because one word is being used in multiple senses, even in the REG, it is not intuitive.

I am saying that it would be better to have unique terms for the phase "Block" and the action of placing an EC in that phase (Defend). This way you dont have to use the same word for two different things (block phase and defending).

SEB · « **Reply #14 on:** June 20, 2018, 12:49:20 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on June 20, 2018, 12:37:22 PM

but in this case throne was not the only consideration here.

Just curious, what other cards were considered?

Josh · « **Reply #15 on:** June 20, 2018, 01:09:15 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on June 20, 2018, 12:37:22 PM

In general I have seen a lot of overreaction about the complexity of the rules, ironically from seasoned players who are competent enough to understand these "complex rules". So at this point these complaints are complete conjecture.

You misunderstand me. My complaint is not because I misunderstand the rules. If a rule gets changed, I'll memorize the new one and move on. Simple (for me).

However, this is not easy for most new players to do. They don't have the requisite experience and knowledge that makes this easy for me.

So my point is: When the Elders are faced with the decision to either:

1. Make a rule based on how it affects individual cards OR

2. Make a rule based on plain English meaning and logic

...we need to start using option 2 every time, even if it makes some cards stronger or weaker than intended or desired.

The Guardian · « **Reply #16 on:** June 20, 2018, 01:36:36 PM »

Quote from: SEB on June 20, 2018, 12:49:20 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit on June 20, 2018, 12:37:22 PM
but in this case throne was not the only consideration here.

Just curious, what other cards were considered?

Pretty much all cards that trigger on a "block" or "being blocked." An example besides Throne would be Priests of Christ from RoJ.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 20, 2018, 02:34:28 PM »

Quote from: Josh on June 20, 2018, 01:09:15 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit on June 20, 2018, 12:37:22 PM
In general I have seen a lot of overreaction about the complexity of the rules, ironically from seasoned players who are competent enough to understand these "complex rules". So at this point these complaints are complete conjecture.

You misunderstand me. My complaint is not because I misunderstand the rules. If a rule gets changed, I'll memorize the new one and move on. Simple (for me).

However, this is not easy for most new players to do. They don't have the requisite experience and knowledge that makes this easy for me.

So my point is: When the Elders are faced with the decision to either:

1. Make a rule based on how it affects individual cards OR

2. Make a rule based on plain English meaning and logic

...we need to start using option 2 every time, even if it makes some cards stronger or weaker than intended or desired.

That's what I am saying. You understand the rules but presume that newer players would not. The complaints have mostly come from players who understand the rules; that's my point.

Secondly, I agree that in general it is best to keep the rules as intuitive as possible but again, there is no one-size-fits all definition for block that everyone is going to agree on. Like I said it makes more sense to me to treat blocking as a phase: all ECs that defend initially are considered blocking and any others added later are not. This is intuitive for me but that doesn't make different definitions more or less confusing.

The Guardian · « **Reply #18 on:** June 20, 2018, 02:38:42 PM »

As he said, Josh is coming from the perspective of an experienced player who is trying to help new/returning players understand the game easier.

I think we all agree we want intuitive-ness, but you are definitely correct that one size does not fit all when it comes to what is intuitive. People are going to have different ideas of what is intuitive based on their prior experience in CCGs (or even lackthereof).

News:

Author Topic: Leviathan Triggers? (Read 2664 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13