Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Does Meal in Emmaus gain the new "implied Search" SA since I have to search my Artifact Pile for a new Artifact to activate? Since Heal is now a Search ability, can I return a healed character to my hand if its destination is not specified as is the default for search abilities? I feel like there may be rules for Healing that conflict and would disallow that, but if Heal is a Search we have to change the rules on one or both so they're not mutually exclusive. Or can we agree that Heal is not a Search?

No, your artifact pile is not an unknown location to you (you literally can pick it up and look at it whenever you want, afaik) so it would not require any kind of search since you already know the order and contents.

No, your artifact pile is not an unknown location to you (you literally can pick it up and look at it whenever you want, afaik) so it would not require any kind of search since you already know the order and contents.

Then it appears that the real conversation we need to have is why we don't allow players to look at their discard pile whenever they want (as in other games). Not allowing the discard pile to be accessible only gives players with a good memory an advantage over people like me who forget things seconds after they do them.

Then it appears that the real conversation we need to have is why we don't allow players to look at their discard pile whenever they want (as in other games).

I honestly don't know why we can't, tbh. It would make things a lot simpler (and would undo a lot of the "implied searches" that people are so up-in-arms about).

And the second question? Also, I put things in the Discard pile, so the contents and order *are* known to me, especially if I have an unusually good memory.

For the first question, but it is an implied "look at" ability, then, since the player is looking at face-down cards because of a special ability? If we're giving a special ability other special abilities because they perform the action described by the English word "search" (yes, when you heal you technically "search" your Discard, but Heal and Search used to be two distinct, well-understood abilities in Redemption), should we not make every ability a look at ability when it looks at an unrevealed card? Doesn't Search have an implied "look" ability since you have to look at the cards while you're searching?

Congratulations on having a better-than-average memory, but in the game of Redemption the discard pile is not considered a known location, regardless of any individual player's ability to remember what is in there and/or the order.

Only insomuch as reviewing the cards in your own hand would be a "look at" ability (which, spoiler alert, it's not). There are certain locations in the game that are public knowledge, some that are individual player knowledge, and some that are hidden. For all locations that you are allowed to know what cards are contained there you don't need a special ability or game action to review them. Heal, Search, and Look at are still distinct, well-understood abilities, the recent ruling hasn't changed that.

All this conflation of Healing does is add completely unnecessary convolution with no positives.

Unless we get to change the rule to allow players to look in their discard pile.... that would be a positive. 

Honestly? I'm all for heal not being at all considered a search, as that is a lot simpler. I'm just pointing out why/how it was ruled that way.

Well, if we keep implied searches, there really isn't any way to make heal not have a search without making an exception for heal. That would just make it even more complicated which I'm not really sure is a good idea. I know that it seems like heal not being a search makes more sense intuitively, but with the current state of implied searches and the definition of heal, it doesn't make sense. Heal brings back a hero from the discard pile, which means you are searching through it, according to the current definitions. I would totally be fine with heal not having a search, but there would either need to be an exception to implied searching, or the definition of heal needs to change for that. I don't know whether either of those, or just keeping it the same would cause more confusion.

Removing implied search would mean that heal and exchange don't have a search, but that's a different issue.

without implied search the new confusion literally does nothing

Spoiler (hover to show)

Remove from the Game
Default Conditions
Targets must be ‘in play.’

it does not say search on the card lol 

it doesn't even say reveal or look, just remove from the game.. it's kind of one of those moments where you know the intention, but it's lost in whoever's benefit it's working toward xD

i mean i have never heard of nazareth NOT protecting from exchange to deck beside Browa saying it and Pol mentioning that Exchange is it's own ability, as always having played exchange as having an implied search ability

No, your artifact pile is not an unknown location to you (you literally can pick it up and look at it whenever you want, afaik) so it would not require any kind of search since you already know the order and contents.

This is actually incorrect, so a lot of the thread after this point may need to be revisited by those who posted:

A search ​ability targets the deck, discard pile, or Artifact pile viewed by the player who used the ability, as well as the card(s) that the player performs the action with.
...
An ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes an implied search​of the pile for the target.

Meal is a search of artifact pile by the definition of search.

There are no "implied" special abilities, there never have been.

This isn't true, it's listed in the REG under Search (as well as the most common culprit, Exchange):

An ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes an implied search​of the pile for the target.

An exchange ​ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes a search​of the pile for the target.

The phrase "implied search" is not new, and the concept is not new either.  It was realized that it also applied to Heal, because Heal targets a card in discard pile that is not a specific location (such as "top card of discard pile"); by definition, that is a search, hence the ruling.

In fact, Nazereth has not stopped Exchange from working since it came out.

Also not true.  2015 and 2014 for some recent threads, but since I doubt that will satisfy everyone, we can go all the way back to 2010 (with different Judges).  That's always been the ruling.

"Implied search" is a brand new phrase that serves no positive purpose and reverses decades of easy, problem-free understanding of how Heal works, again, for no reason.

You're set on the "heal" part of this, but the phrase is not new at all.  Looks like it was in the old REG (1.0.2), and was also used as the basis of the ruling above back in 2010.  It has been around for a long, long time, it just was not applied properly to Heal (there also wasn't a whole lot of healing going on until recently, comparatively).

so uzzah is a search ability which would also trigger music leader

If he targets Artifact Pile, then yes.  He can also target hand, which is not a location for Search and so would not trigger ML.

I don't know if I agree with this. Let's discuss.

Meal targets a card in Artifact Pile, which is not in a specific location in that pile, so by the current rules it is a search.  It meets the definition that is currently being used, so unless that changes, it has to be a search right now.

Quote from: Redoubter on May 15, 2016, 10:39:51 PM

Meal targets a card in Artifact Pile, which is not in a specific location in that pile, so by the current rules it is a search.

This right here specifically is what I disagree with.

Actually, I went back to reread the ability (since I thought I remembered the precise wording and did not), and it is just an Activate an Artifact (allows the player to do an activation, doesn't actually target the artifact itself, which I thought it did).  So I'd have to agree with you in this case.

Would have been nice if you had pointed to me precisely what it was you thought was different about the rule in this case so I didn't have to try to figure out what you meant   But thanks for catching my mistake.