Cactus Game Design Message Boards

What is the redemption definition for must? Praises, as an example.

"May" gives you an option.
"Must" does not and the ability must be carried out if possible.

I would say yes. Anything that doesn't have a may, is a must.

"May" gives you an option.
"Must" does not and the ability must be carried out if possible.

• Errata: Disease selected Hero and decrease Hero 1/1 per turn until */1. While Hero who is Lacking Sleep is in battle, player must allow the opponent to play the first enhancement in battle. • Play As: Disease a Hero. Decrease that Hero 1/1 per turn until */1. When this Hero is blocked, opponent may play an enhancement. • Identifiers: NT, Disease • Verse: II Corinthians 6:5 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Rare)



Is this just poorly worded? Or is a definition not agreed upon?

In hindsight, that should be considered an errata. You're not allowed to concede init if you're losing BTN, so the "must" version wouldn't allow you to play, whereas the "may" version would. Also, if must is as Justin defined, then my opponent could opt not to play an enhancement and I'd be unable, as then they wouldn't be playing the first.

Wouldn't that still be an errata? Or is Justin's definition wrong?

This all stemmed from trying to make Jacob's Ladder useful....

Right I understand that point, but don't the current errata and play-as for it play differently, meaning the current play-as should be considered an errata?

I ra with a 1/1 hero lacking sleep. Opponent blocks with Goliath. If I play it, and with the current errata I "must allow opponent to play the first enhancement in battle". According to Justin's definition, I have to carry out that ability if possible. No special ability allows me to carry it out (or does "must allow opponent blah blah blah" give away initiative?), and numbers do not allow me to carry it out, therefore it is not possible to carry it out. So, even if my opponent wants to play an enhancement, I get init barring a dominant.

Whereas if we play it with the current play-as, "opponent may play an enhancement". So he can play an enhancement, if he wants, in this scenario.

or am I missing something totally obvious?

Yes. Special abilities overrule game rules all the time. Which is why it is possible to restrict your opponent from drawing cards on his draw phase, or it is possible to end your turn with more than 8 cards in your hand (with Tables of the Law). Thus, it is possible for you to allow your opponent to have initiative even when the numbers wouldn't allow you to, because the SA says you can.

Does Jacob's Ladder grant access, then? Or is "holder must have access" clarifying unlike Lacking Sleep?

At the beginning of battle, choose which Lost Soul is to be rescued during holder's rescue attempt. Holder must have access. Restrict holder from rescuing any other Lost Soul.

Lacking Sleep says "player must allow the opponent to play the first enhancement in battle"
Jacob's Ladder says "holder must have access".

Why does Lacking Sleep allow me to give away init but Jacob's Ladder doesn't give access? Both are telling me I must do something that otherwise isn't possible, without specifically saying I have the power to do them in the SA.

I RA with a 1/1 hero that is lacking sleep. Opponent blocks with a 10/10 ec. Why does lacking sleep allow me to allow my opponent to play the first enhancement? Nowhere on the card does it give me that ability, unless "must do X" does. In which case, Jacob's Ladder should give me access.