Author Topic: Matching?  (Read 5654 times)

Offline Kevinthedude

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1856
  • Yo
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2019, 11:01:52 PM »
0
As for the Soul token, it would have no testament since Majestic Heavens never specifies a testament as an attribute of the token and the rules don't contain any default attributes for a Lost Soul token.

Did you notice the identifier on Majestic Heavens? If yes, and you still don't think it indicates the LS attributes, what do you take it to mean?

I completely skipped the identifier! I thought I must have missing something given the question. Having finally noticed that, this is one that I don't feel has a strong answer. The rest of the questions I feel are pretty well covered by existing rules but this one is slightly unclear to me. My feeling is that in the case of Humble the token would be both testaments. If it said "testaments" instead of "testament" in the identifier, then I would say it's clear both but with the current wording I wouldn't fault someone for ruling that you got to pick a single testament.

Offline TheJaylor

  • Trade Count: (+18)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3121
  • Fortress Alstad
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Redemption with Jayden
Re: Matching?
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2019, 11:26:55 PM »
+1
The rules have stated for a long time that if a convert ability does not specify a brigade, that the default is to the brigade of the card that is doing the conversion. The rules state though that Multi is not a specific brigade and cannot be used. Therefore, when someone is converted from a multi brigade card that does not specify a brigade, the player gets to choose from the brigades on that card.
Throughout most of this thread I was thinking it would be dual testament until I got to this argument that changed my mind. I'd say the token creator gets to pick and it doesn't have to be the same testament as the topdecked card. My thinking is based on the reasoning that the token would still match Humble's testament given the general consensus of the first two questions and the REG's definition of "Matching", and that I don't think "dual-testament" should be considered an actual testament. It should just be a pseudonym for cards that have both old and new testament reference, similar to dual-icon and dual-brigade cards even though those have been used in abilities now.

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2019, 11:44:03 PM »
0
I had always assumed the testament of the token matched the topdecked card, but I completely agree with goalieking's reasoning that the token LS can have either testament, but cannot have both testaments.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline thejambi

  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 170
  • Programmer & Sound Guy
    • -
    • Midwest Region
    • BurnSoftware
Re: Matching?
« Reply #28 on: March 25, 2019, 02:13:16 AM »
0
1. Yes, as commonly stated
2. Yes, as commonly stated
3. If 1 and 2 above are true, that would require you to be able to topdeck either NT or OT card from reserve (I.e. it would not have to be dual alignment). Otherwise for 1 above you would need to discard two cards that are both clay and purple, and for 2 you would need to have all ECs that are both gold and crimson.

As for the Lost Soul token, since it matches the LS placed in the site and is not dependent on what card is topdecked, then it could be either OT or NT (NOT DUAL ALIGNMENT). First, I believe that is also consistent with numbers one and two above. However, I would compare even more to rulings on conversion.

The rules have stated for a long time that if a convert ability does not specify a brigade, that the default is to the brigade of the card that is doing the conversion. The rules state though that Multi is not a specific brigade and cannot be used. Therefore, when someone is converted from a multi brigade card that does not specify a brigade, the player gets to choose from the brigades on that card.

^ Convinced me. I agree that it's comparable to the convert and should work similarly.
-Zach
Titus 1:9

Offline 777Godspeed

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Breathe redemption into wasted life, Breathe deep
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #29 on: March 25, 2019, 10:03:11 AM »
+2
While I agree with most arguments put forth here (both ways being viable), I can see the difficultly the Elders are facing and appreciate them reaching out to the Redemption Community. I think we may need to look at it from a different angle. With the introduction of Majestic Heavens is it possible that we now have a new mechanic, Create? Tokens are new to Redemption and the wording on Majestic Heavens may have inadvertently spawned a new mechanic that has similarities to existing rules/mechanics, but should be treated and defined on its own. Maybe we should take a long, hard and in-depth look at what the ramifications may be of trying to shoehorn a, possibly, new mechanic of Create into existing similar rules/functions/mechanics, as opposed to defining it to be unique unto itself in Redemption. Just throwing this out there after giving it some further thought.

Godspeed,
Mike 
Divine mental biopsy reveals you need psychosurgery
When in doubt  D3.
I support Your Turn Games.

Offline Sean

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #30 on: March 25, 2019, 10:39:34 AM »
0
I feel like Humble LS should be NT only, would that not solve the issue?
May you prosper greatly!
Daniel 4:1b

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #31 on: March 25, 2019, 10:45:24 AM »
0
While I agree with most arguments put forth here (both ways being viable), I can see the difficultly the Elders are facing and appreciate them reaching out to the Redemption Community. I think we may need to look at it from a different angle. With the introduction of Majestic Heavens is it possible that we now have a new mechanic, Create? Tokens are new to Redemption and the wording on Majestic Heavens may have inadvertently spawned a new mechanic that has similarities to existing rules/mechanics, but should be treated and defined on its own. Maybe we should take a long, hard and in-depth look at what the ramifications may be of trying to shoehorn a, possibly, new mechanic of Create into existing similar rules/functions/mechanics, as opposed to defining it to be unique unto itself in Redemption. Just throwing this out there after giving it some further thought.

Godspeed,
Mike

That would be an excellent thing to add to the REG.

Quote
Create a Token
Last Updated:
Released: 6/11/2018 (v5.1.0)
How to Play
● A create a token effect creates a token of a specified card type and puts it in a location.
● A card with a create a token effect may have a "Token" identifier that describes the attributes of the created
token beyond the card type. The identifier only applies to the creation of a token, not to any other targeting of a
token on that card.
● Unless otherwise specified, tokens are created in the territory of the player controlling the card with the create a
token effect.
● Create a token effects are instant

Oh look, there it is.  ;)
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2019, 10:47:41 AM »
0
I feel like Humble LS should be NT only, would that not solve the issue?

That would require issuing an errata when I am fairly convinced goalieking gave us a correct and consistent interpretation already.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline Sean

  • Trade Count: (+6)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4024
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #33 on: March 25, 2019, 10:59:42 AM »
+1
I don't think the use of parenthesis would dictate that Humble is/can be OT.  Not saying we need to change it but seemed like an easy way to solve a potentially difficult issue.

Quote
Parentheses are generally used for clarification to make an only semi-relevant side note. They are sort of like footnotes within a text (usually used in works that don't use footnotes).
Quote
Brackets (parentheses) are punctuation marks used within a sentence to include information that is not essential to the main point.
May you prosper greatly!
Daniel 4:1b

Offline The Guardian

  • Playtester, Redemption Elder
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+96)
  • *****
  • Posts: 12344
  • The Stars are coming out...
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2019, 11:07:09 AM »
0
That's a fair point, but I believe that ship has sailed in Redemption terms. Cards other than Humble were specifically designed to be dual-testament and were given the "reference (reference)" treatment, and to change that would be a fairly drastic change.
Fortress Alstad
Have you checked the REG?
Have you looked it up in ORCID?

Offline 777Godspeed

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1985
  • Breathe redemption into wasted life, Breathe deep
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #35 on: March 25, 2019, 01:00:16 PM »
0
While I agree with most arguments put forth here (both ways being viable), I can see the difficultly the Elders are facing and appreciate them reaching out to the Redemption Community. I think we may need to look at it from a different angle. With the introduction of Majestic Heavens is it possible that we now have a new mechanic, Create? Tokens are new to Redemption and the wording on Majestic Heavens may have inadvertently spawned a new mechanic that has similarities to existing rules/mechanics, but should be treated and defined on its own. Maybe we should take a long, hard and in-depth look at what the ramifications may be of trying to shoehorn a, possibly, new mechanic of Create into existing similar rules/functions/mechanics, as opposed to defining it to be unique unto itself in Redemption. Just throwing this out there after giving it some further thought.

Godspeed,
Mike

That would be an excellent thing to add to the REG.

Quote
Create a Token
Last Updated:
Released: 6/11/2018 (v5.1.0)
How to Play
● A create a token effect creates a token of a specified card type and puts it in a location.
● A card with a create a token effect may have a "Token" identifier that describes the attributes of the created
token beyond the card type. The identifier only applies to the creation of a token, not to any other targeting of a
token on that card.
● Unless otherwise specified, tokens are created in the territory of the player controlling the card with the create a
token effect.
● Create a token effects are instant

Oh look, there it is.  ;)

Doh! :o

Yes, exactly, but even with this we are still considering how to handle Humble currently and subsequently how to proceed with Create a Token of X in the future. Further definng what attributes/abilities are chosen, how they are chosen, if they are chosen may be of help to simplify now rather than try to "make it work" later. Do we anticipate including something like a copy effect of abilities or identifiers with Create a Token of X? Are Create and Copy similar enough in outcome to be interchangeable mechanics-wise? Just wondering. I do not doubt how much forethought went into the Create a Token mechanic and definition, I guess I am just looking for it to be additionally refined, defined, streamlined in anticipation of issues that could arise. Instead of alluding to rules for other actions to govern Create a Token, possibly look at adding another bullet point or two so Create a Token is defined how indentifiers, alignment, special abilities, scripture reference are resolved.
Bleh, what a ramble on my part.

Godspeed,
Mike
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 03:41:15 PM by 777Godspeed »
Divine mental biopsy reveals you need psychosurgery
When in doubt  D3.
I support Your Turn Games.

Offline thecoolguy

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 417
  • Pagan sailors is the best
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2019, 11:19:35 AM »
0
To clear up confusion I propose that if you put a card in play and it says matching on it. Then I think you could choose one of the brigades to match it with. Like example- you put the outsiders with ( matching this characters brigade) you could have an identifier saying choose eaither crimson or gold. And with magesitic heavens you can choose OT or NT. So that the confusion isn’t there. That’s my opinion on it.
If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love I am nothing.

Offline thejambi

  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 170
  • Programmer & Sound Guy
    • -
    • Midwest Region
    • BurnSoftware
Re: Matching?
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2019, 12:40:08 PM »
0
I don't think that would be necessary, and would break the possibilities that these cards are designed for. These examples are not confusing, it's just that they lack clarity in the rules at the current time.
-Zach
Titus 1:9

Offline Josh

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2019, 01:21:43 PM »
+1
The question really comes down to, does "matching brigade" mean "1 brigade is identical" or "ALL brigades are identical"?  I think it might be as simple as a few extra characters for clarification:

   1. "A matching brigade to Card A" means Card B has at least 1 brigade that is also on Card A (additional brigades on Card B don't matter)

   2. "Matching brigades to Card A" means all brigades on Card A are also on Card B (additional brigades on Card B don't matter)

   3. "Identical brigades with Card A" means all brigades on Card A are also on Card B, and all brigades on Card B are also on Card A

Outcasts is clearly intended to be Option 1.  The problem is, the Unity definition was designed to name an identifier that all cards of the chosen subset have (i.e., are "unified" by).  Using a matching brigade identifier creates a comparison (between Outcasts and the other cards of the chosen subset) within the identifier description itself.

*****

I should point out that Shibboleth! is another great example for this discussion.  It doesn't use the word "matching", but it should:

"If an Evil Character is in battle, discard all Evil Characters in opponent's territory whose brigade is not in battle."
If creation sings Your praises so will I
If You gave Your life to love them so will I

Offline thejambi

  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 170
  • Programmer & Sound Guy
    • -
    • Midwest Region
    • BurnSoftware
Re: Matching?
« Reply #39 on: March 27, 2019, 03:19:37 PM »
+1
I don't think it's a problem with being used with Unity at all though. Unity is "if all your [card type] meet condition [this condition]", right? Having an"or" in the condition is perfectly compatible and understandable.
-Zach
Titus 1:9

Offline Josh

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #40 on: March 27, 2019, 04:53:01 PM »
0
I don't think it's a problem with being used with Unity at all though. Unity is "if all your [card type] meet condition [this condition]", right? Having an"or" in the condition is perfectly compatible and understandable.

I agree with you.  I'm not saying that Outcasts can't have the Unity identifier that was intended for it; I just think it would be cleaner to use Unity the way it was intended.  Something like:

Unity:  Evil characters (Gold and/or Crimson)

This is written in the form "Unity:  Subset Of Cards A (identifier or identifiers that must be present on every card in Subset Of Cards A)"

*****

If I tried to write this using the definitions of "matching" I proposed above, it would look like this:

Unity:  Evil characters (A matching brigade to this card)

But this is still awkward, because "matching" (by definition) is defining a Group Of Cards B by their relationship to Card A.  Yet in the Unity clause, both Group Of Cards B and Card A are contained within the larger subset of cards that are being Unified.
If creation sings Your praises so will I
If You gave Your life to love them so will I

Offline thejambi

  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 170
  • Programmer & Sound Guy
    • -
    • Midwest Region
    • BurnSoftware
Re: Matching?
« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2019, 07:34:53 PM »
0
Agreed that just putting the Unity on Outcasts that way would have been better. But it's done, and I think it still works as long as it's clear that matching brigade to that card does just mean "Gold and/or Crimson". Which I think it does currently, honestly. I don't think it's awkward. Written either way, you'd have to ask "does this card match itself?" and the answer is an easy yes.
-Zach
Titus 1:9

Offline RedemptionAggie

  • Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+38)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Matching?
« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2019, 07:55:01 PM »
+1
One thing using "matching" in The Outcasts Unity is it makes him stop working if he's converted, as the ECs can't match his good brigade.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal