Author Topic: Implied Search (Read 7767 times)

Redoubter · « **Reply #50 on:** May 17, 2016, 10:31:25 PM »

To the point you made Praeceps, as I pointed out, we're not talking about the same thing. "Discard abilities" means one thing, defined as "abilities that discard." "Search abilities" means another, defined as "abilities that search." Exchange to deck is included among "abilities that search." Can that ruling change? If we change the REG, yes, but we would only do so after extensive research and testing into what that means for the game (is exchange too strong then, for instance). I address that more in an earlier post, so I won't rehash the whole thing here.

Praeceps · « **Reply #51 on:** May 17, 2016, 10:48:36 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 17, 2016, 10:31:25 PM

To the point you made Praeceps, as I pointed out, we're not talking about the same thing. "Discard abilities" means one thing, defined as "abilities that discard." "Search abilities" means another, defined as "abilities that search." Exchange to deck is included among "abilities that search."

So you are saying here for purposes of this discussion that exchange doesn't have an implied search ability, it just is a search ability that also does something more? Because if not I don't see how exchange can both be a search ability and not a search ability... (unless this is another "a captured character is a character that is captured he's just not a character" thing)

Redoubter · « **Reply #52 on:** May 17, 2016, 11:02:17 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on May 17, 2016, 10:48:36 PM

So you are saying here for purposes of this discussion that exchange doesn't have an implied search ability, it just is a search ability that also does something more? Because if not I don't see how exchange can both be a search ability and not a search ability... (unless this is another "a captured character is a character that is captured he's just not a character" thing)

I really don't follow you, can you try to rephrase and restate what you're trying to get at?

Praeceps · « **Reply #53 on:** May 17, 2016, 11:16:55 PM »

Are you saying that Exchange is an ability with a search component but is not a search ability? Or is Exchange a Search Ability that has a secondary component (i.e. the actual exchange) tacked on to it?

If the former, then how does Naz Protect against it when it only Protects against Search Abilities?

If the later, then why the insistence that exchange and search are separate abilities? Is there some monkey wrench that gets tossed into the works by Exchange being classified not as a separate ability but an ability that is just a subset of Search?

Or are we missing something else?

Redoubter · « **Reply #54 on:** May 17, 2016, 11:24:44 PM »

I think I might be understanding what you are saying, but why can there not be two abilities tied into the same effect? Look at Negate, for example; there, you have an Interrupt component, and a Prevent component, but that Prevent component isn't actually there on every Negate, correct? We have the same here. Not every Exchange is a Search, but when it meets the definition of a Search (that is, it targets a card not in a specified location in deck, discard, or artifact pile), then it is also a Search in addition to the normal components governing Exchange, the same way that Negate has an ongoing Prevent if it can target abilities on cards not yet activated.

Exchange is not Search, however, just like Negate is not Prevent, they do different things. They intersect at times, yes, but they are different abilities with different outcomes and different defaults and different conditions.

Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. But every square is still a square, and every rectangle is still a rectangle. Hopefully this makes a little more sense then? Or I've gotten closer to understanding what you mean?

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #55 on:** May 17, 2016, 11:28:01 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 17, 2016, 11:24:44 PM

I think I might be understanding what you are saying, but why can there not be two abilities tied into the same effect? Look at Negate, for example; there, you have an Interrupt component, and a Prevent component, but that Prevent component isn't actually there on every Negate, correct? We have the same here. Not every Exchange is a Search, but when it meets the definition of a Search (that is, it targets a card not in a specified location in deck, discard, or artifact pile), then it is also a Search in addition to the normal components governing Exchange, the same way that Negate has an ongoing Prevent if it can target abilities on cards not yet activated.

Exchange is not Search, however, just like Negate is not Prevent, they do different things. They intersect at times, yes, but they are different abilities with different outcomes and different defaults and different conditions.

Every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square. But every square is still a square, and every rectangle is still a rectangle. Hopefully this makes a little more sense then? Or I've gotten closer to understanding what you mean?

Quote from: Justin

#Geometry

Praeceps · « **Reply #56 on:** May 17, 2016, 11:37:54 PM »

Okay so the reason Naz stops Exchange (and thus ML would fire off of Exchange) is that in order to start the exchange the Exchange Ability first fires off its own Search ability in order to do what it needs to do when it targets deck, discard or Artifact pile (as long as it's not specifically the top/bottom card) and thus Exchange and Heal's "implied Search" is essentially them firing off their own Search ability in order to do what they are trying to do. Correct-ish?

If the above is pretty much correct, then I think most of us would be happy leaving Heal and Exchange as is (thus negating the necessity of an AUtO related meltdown of Redemption) if we could make the discard pile a Known Location thereby meaning that heal and exchange would no longer need a Search ability to interact with that pile. Would this be a more acceptable solution to the Redemption Leadership for the complaints raised by (some of) the Player Base?

browarod · « **Reply #57 on:** May 17, 2016, 11:39:50 PM »

So I think I may have realized what I was confused about. Based on your last post, Redoubter, it seems like Exchange is simply just Exchange. However, depending on where the Exchange is trying to target there is also a Search ability that happens. Nothing about Exchange changes, it's simply an additional component on top of Exchange. Is that right?

If that's the case, I would simply say that I dislike this for the same reason I dislike that "add to battle" is sometimes also a band if it adds a character to a side that already has a character but sometimes not. I think it's confusing and weird that some abilities are sometimes other abilities (or sometimes additionally have other abilities attached) but sometimes not. If this is the best way the Elders have been able to make things work, then that's fine. But I feel like it would be a lot simpler if all abilities were just separate and didn't contain, or have attached, other abilities unless specified on the card. That's my personal opinion, nothing more.

*instaposted by Praeceps

I'm in full agreement with his second paragraph.

kram1138 · « **Reply #58 on:** May 17, 2016, 11:49:08 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on May 17, 2016, 11:37:54 PM

If the above is pretty much correct, then I think most of us would be happy leaving Heal and Exchange as is (thus negating the necessity of an AUtO related meltdown of Redemption) if we could make the discard pile a Known Location thereby meaning that heal and exchange would no longer need a Search ability to interact with that pile. Would this be a more acceptable solution to the Redemption Leadership for the complaints raised by (some of) the Player Base?

I believe is essentially correct. I never really had any complaint, but I would be quite happy with this change as well.

I think it makes sense as it is now, since, for example exchange let's me get a card from my deck. When I get a card from my deck, I have to pick the deck up, look through it, find the card and remove it. I would call this searching my deck for that card. The exchange directly caused the searching of my desk, so it's a search ability. It just seems intuitive to me. Same with add to battle/band. When an ability directly makes you do another, it makes sense that it would also be that ability.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #59 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:22:06 AM »

Quote

Exchange is not Search, however, just like Negate is not Prevent, they do different things. They intersect at times, yes, but they are different abilities with different outcomes and different defaults and different conditions.

Why are you able to use this logic far enough to get to the status quo, but not as far as the three people above me have gone into just recognizing the Heal is a different ability, Search is a different ability, and Exchange is a different ability, and while they may be looking at and moving cards around in overlapping piles at various times, are not actually subsets of or tacked onto each other. Certainly not if they're sometimes other abilities.

I will concede that this is sort of awkward in exactly one situation: add to battle and banding. It would seem odd that you could add a character to battle without actually using a banding ability...yet side battle, choose the rescuer/blocker (especially when the original character is protected from withdraw...because CTB/R has an implied withdraw probably?), and things like Unknown Nation have long been able to add characters to battle without it being a band. The only difference (much of the time) is that there were already characters there, turning Unknown Nation into a sometimes banding card, yet always unable to be negated by cards that negate banding cards until its been chosen to be used while a character is in battle at which point it's too late to negate because it's in the discard pile. Since the status quo is already a logic error plain and simple, would it be so bad to not have "add to battle" abilities not be "banding" abilities even if they do add additional characters to battle?

Maybe the second paragraph is a bridge too far, although it makes sense to me, but the first one is the one I really care about.

The Guardian · « **Reply #60 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:45:17 AM »

Quote

choose the rescuer/blocker (especially when the original character is protected from withdraw...because CTB/R has an implied withdraw probably?)

Not to get off on a tangent, but just wanted to point out that CtB/CtR does not work against a character protected from withdraw.

Quote from: REG "Choose Opponent"

If any character in battle cannot be withdrawn by the choose opponent ability, then no character can be presented via that ability.

I'm not debating your assessment of the awkward nature of add to battle and banding, just pointing out that one of your examples isn't actually awkward.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #61 on:** May 18, 2016, 02:29:46 AM »

It is awkward, though, because it's another sometimes ability. CTB/R is a Withdraw if there are already characters in battle, but not a Withdraw if there are not. In fact, it seems to be arcanely coded as a "withdraw to add to battle" cost/benefit ability and not, as I originally assumed, a "withdraw and add to battle" ability. None of that vaguery would exist if CTB/R were just their own abilities and didn't "Withdraw" even though the characters were moved from battle to territory. Maybe that sounds a little gamey, but in practice it's easy to explain to a kid "I'm just choosing a new person for you to be using."

kram1138 · « **Reply #62 on:** May 18, 2016, 08:51:42 AM »

To me, it's more intuitive that CtB/R has a withdraw, because that's what you are doing. To choose a new blocker, you have to get rid of the original one first by withdrawing it.

Josh · « **Reply #63 on:** May 18, 2016, 11:04:52 AM »

Quote from: kram1138 on May 18, 2016, 08:51:42 AM

To me, it's more intuitive that CtB/R has a withdraw, because that's what you are doing. To choose a new blocker, you have to get rid of the original one first by withdrawing it.

Unless you define CtB/R as their own ability.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but since Redemption makes its own rules, it could just define each unique "ability" as a unique ability. I.e. Exchanges are not Searches, because they are Exchanges. Heals are not Searches, because they are Heals. CtB is not a Withdraw, because it is a CtB. Sure, parts of some of these abilities do the same thing as other abilities, but if Redemption wanted, it could define each ability separately and, by default, declare that abilities are individualized and therefore do not contain other abilities; they just "are".

kram1138 · « **Reply #64 on:** May 18, 2016, 11:57:45 AM »

But for CtB/R, you are still "withdrawing" the character. Whether it counts as a withdraw ability or not, you are still performing the action of withdrawing. I'm not saying that if wouldn't work to have them as separate abilities, I just think it makes a bit more sense that when an ability does a withdraw (not the ability, the action) it counts as the withdraw ability.

The Guardian · « **Reply #65 on:** May 18, 2016, 12:06:38 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on May 18, 2016, 11:04:52 AM

Quote from: kram1138 on May 18, 2016, 08:51:42 AM
To me, it's more intuitive that CtB/R has a withdraw, because that's what you are doing. To choose a new blocker, you have to get rid of the original one first by withdrawing it.

Unless you define CtB/R as their own ability.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but since Redemption makes its own rules, it could just define each unique "ability" as a unique ability. I.e. Exchanges are not Searches, because they are Exchanges. Heals are not Searches, because they are Heals. CtB is not a Withdraw, because it is a CtB. Sure, parts of some of these abilities do the same thing as other abilities, but if Redemption wanted, it could define each ability separately and, by default, declare that abilities are individualized and therefore do not contain other abilities; they just "are".

That would require a huge overhaul...not saying it's a bad idea by any means, but it would drastically change so many things. Something to ponder indeed...

browarod · « **Reply #66 on:** May 18, 2016, 12:11:14 PM »

Quote from: kram1138 on May 18, 2016, 11:57:45 AM

But for CtB/R, you are still "withdrawing" the character. Whether it counts as a withdraw ability or not, you are still performing the action of withdrawing. I'm not saying that if wouldn't work to have them as separate abilities, I just think it makes a bit more sense that when an ability does a withdraw (not the ability, the action) it counts as the withdraw ability.

I have less issue with abilities that always include a component of another ability than I do with abilities that only sometimes contain other abilities. The former is consistent and clear, the latter is not.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #67 on:** May 18, 2016, 12:46:24 PM »

Quote from: Browa on May 18, 2016, 12:11:14 PM

Quote from: kram1138 on May 18, 2016, 11:57:45 AM
But for CtB/R, you are still "withdrawing" the character. Whether it counts as a withdraw ability or not, you are still performing the action of withdrawing. I'm not saying that if wouldn't work to have them as separate abilities, I just think it makes a bit more sense that when an ability does a withdraw (not the ability, the action) it counts as the withdraw ability.
I have less issue with abilities that always include a component of another ability than I do with abilities that only sometimes contain other abilities. The former is consistent and clear, the latter is not.

Welcome to the English language.

But on a more serious note, I love this thread because it is so challenging and fun to try to understand the other side. I think both major opinions are being very well represented. I would say that I fall on the side of the argument and it is more intuitive for the way my mind works that when any ability involving a search of a location (i.e. exchange, heal, etc.) being affected by cards that affect search. I understand the desire for cards that use specific abilities to only matter with cards that mention those specific abilities, but that is simply not how I learned from the beginning.

I have heard the proverbial "new player" argument used that basically say that one way is easier or more difficult for a beginner to learn. I really don't think that argument is very often true. I think that Redemption (along with most other CCGs) is very nuanced and there is a steep learning curve. What hurts the new players is either an inconsistent application of current rules or the resulting "change" to rules as they were understood.

All of that to say that I really think we need to work on putting together a training for hosts/judges to help them be more well equipped to teach the game and make rulings in a more consistent way. I would not foresee that it would cost anything other than time and I would be willing to sweeten the pot a bit by offering incentives for anyone who makes their way through each level (perhaps 5 levels including Host, Level 1 Judge, Level 2 Judge, Level 3 Judge, and Elite Judge).

Thoughts?

(Feel free to split this off to it's own thread if you feel it is appropriate to.)

Xonathan · « **Reply #68 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:33:35 PM »

I think teaching people to host/judge is a great idea. When I started playing redemption I learn many things that proved to be wrong later. Joining this forum, reading LoR articles, and playing on lackey have taught me so much about the game that it's almost entirely different from what I learned. This game can get a bit confusing sometimes.

jesse · « **Reply #69 on:** May 18, 2016, 01:55:54 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on May 18, 2016, 11:04:52 AM

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but since Redemption makes its own rules, it could just define each unique "ability" as a unique ability. I.e. Exchanges are not Searches, because they are Exchanges. Heals are not Searches, because they are Heals. CtB is not a Withdraw, because it is a CtB. Sure, parts of some of these abilities do the same thing as other abilities, but if Redemption wanted, it could define each ability separately and, by default, declare that abilities are individualized and therefore do not contain other abilities; they just "are".

I really like this idea! It's so straightforward and simple. We would just need to print counters for things like exchange, add to battle, etc. – but that's fine! And Nazareth and Hezekiah Signet Ring would not be as powerful, which I personally think is a good thing.

Redoubter · « **Reply #70 on:** May 18, 2016, 05:20:31 PM »

Just going back briefly to the discard pile "being known" thing, I don't think that we would keep Discard out of the list of things that "are searched," due to the way that cards constantly do "search" that pile. I'd more easily see Artifact Pile taken out instead, as there simply is not as much interaction and that could make more sense; we do search Discard, though, so even if it were viewable, we'd have Search remain the same for now (where it specifies that as one location that is "searched").

Redemption abilities do have overlap, and that's the case for a lot of things. Negate and Prevent, Add-to-Battle and Band, Choose-The-Opponent and Withdraw + Present, and yes, Exchange/Heal/Others and Search. It is the way the game is designed to work, and fiddling with it actually doesn't work as well as we'd like.

How do I know? You can ask all of the other Judges who had to show me how things would break when I tried to simplify, remove, or redefine abilities. I headed the last REG update, and there was a lot I wanted to change with these abilities that "did not make sense" to me at the time. It is only when these seasoned players showed me why things were built the way they were in the first place, or what ripples it would cause, that I could actually see the problem with just trying to overhaul things to the way I thought was "correct."

I've touched on that a bit already in this thread about Search and those ripples, which just cannot be ignored. All of the other 'overlap' cases have similar issues, and as much as I'd like to change them all right now (and tried...), it just doesn't work that way when you have an entire game to keep balanced and working.

So keep your feedback and suggestions coming, but know that just because something isn't done (especially right away) doesn't mean we haven't been discussing it. Not everything works out the way the suggester thinks it should, even when that person is the one trying to write the rules up...

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #71 on:** May 18, 2016, 05:29:30 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on May 18, 2016, 12:46:24 PM

I would be willing to sweeten the pot a bit by offering incentives for anyone who makes their way through each level (perhaps 5 levels including Host, Level 1 Judge, Level 2 Judge, Level 3 Judge, and Elite Judge).

For those of us stuck in the past and who are consistently wrong, you could also have: Level -1 Judge, Level -2 Judge, Level -3 Judge, and Pathetic Judge.

Quote from: Xonathan on May 18, 2016, 01:33:35 PM

This game can get a bit confusing sometimes.

LOL. Try teaching the game to bunches of middle schoolers each year...

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on May 18, 2016, 12:46:24 PM

All of that to say that I really think we need to work on putting together a training for hosts/judges to help them be more well equipped to teach the game and make rulings in a more consistent way.

In all seriousness, I definitely agree with this idea.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #72 on:** May 18, 2016, 06:22:55 PM »

In the thread about healing being an implied search the distinction was made that healing is not a search ability, and therefore music leader would not trigger when a character was healed. Why does music leader fire off an exchange?
The reason why CTR works with Agrippa is that Agrippa says if a hero withdraws, not if a withdraw ability is used. Yet I don't think anyone would rule that lies is able to be cbn off Praetorium.

If "discard" and "discard ability are different" then "search" and "search ability" should be too.

Redoubter · « **Reply #73 on:** May 18, 2016, 06:53:12 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on May 18, 2016, 06:22:55 PM

In the thread about healing being an implied search the distinction was made that healing is not a search ability, and therefore music leader would not trigger when a character was healed. Why does music leader fire off an exchange?
The reason why CTR works with Agrippa is that Agrippa says if a hero withdraws, not if a withdraw ability is used. Yet I don't think anyone would rule that lies is able to be cbn off Praetorium.

If "discard" and "discard ability are different" then "search" and "search ability" should be too.

To the first part, not sure if you got to that part of the threads, but we were working off a mistaken remembrance of how certain abilities were worded and how things ought to be ruled. ML should be triggering off of Heal that also Searches.

To your second part there, about discard and discard ability, I address that earlier in this thread. Comparing discard and search in those cases is not the same.

The Schaefer · « **Reply #74 on:** May 18, 2016, 07:31:51 PM »

What is the difference between looking and selecting a card and a search? Is it just the contents are made known to you by looking first? I'm just curious since that what searching in essence does.

News:

Author Topic: Implied Search (Read 7767 times)

browarod

browarod

TheHobbit13