"Type"?

[browarod]

What exactly constitutes a "type"? Does it mean of the same identifier (Pharisee or Sadducee)?

Doctrine Like Leaven (RA)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black/Gray • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Set aside a Pharisee or Sadducee and decrease it 0/1 per turn. Each upkeep phase, search your discard pile for a generic Evil Character of the type set aside. Place it in your territory.

[Professoralstad]

In this case it means the same identifier. I think the only other times the word "type" is used in Redemption is game type (1 or 2) and card type (dominant, Hero, EC, etc.). I don't think it has a specific Redemption definition when used by itself, so in this case it just means the English word type, which can have several meanings. It probably would have been clearer if type was replaced by "religious sect" but I guess it was hoped that "type" would be understood.

[browarod]

Alright, that's what I thought. Thanks! ^_^

[Minister Polarius]

Does it have to have all of the same identifiers, or would the "human" identifier qualify? That would allow for easy recursion of any and all generic human EC's (such as Creeping Deceiver). If it has to be all the same identifiers, you'd need to set aside a generic Phar/Sad for this card to do anything.

[YourMathTeacher]

Does it have to have all of the same identifiers, or would the "human" identifier qualify? That would allow for easy recursion of any and all generic human EC's (such as Creeping Deceiver). If it has to be all the same identifiers, you'd need to set aside a generic Phar/Sad for this card to do anything.

I disagree. The first sentence says "a" Pharisee or Sadducee, so it does not have to be generic. However, the second sentence specifies the same type (Pharisee or Sadducee) has to be generic.

There really is no need for nitpicking. The card is plenty clear, since there are no non-human Pharisees or Sadducees.

[SomeKittens]

ProfessorAlstad just made it abundantly clear that's how the card's played.  No need to go off on a technicality.

[Minister Polarius]

That's clearly how it was intended. But since "type" isn't defined, and it appears to be referring to identifiers, the question of whether it means all or some applies.

[SomeKittens]

Appearances can be deceiving.  ProfAlstad said that, in this case, it's referring to Phar/Sadd.

[Alex_Olijar]

Appearances can be deceiving.  ProfAlstad said that, in this case, it's referring to Phar/Sadd.

Ok. Prof Alstad is an elder, yes, but unless Elders are now infallible, Pol is welcome to present his side and try to get the rule changed/more defined.

[Minister Polarius]

That would be a logical assumption for this particular card. However, the word "type" shows no indication of referring to Phar/Sad. In fact, the elder who posted on this thread says it means identifiers.

Oh, and would you please stop following me around attempting to dig at me whenever you see an opportunity?

[SomeKittens]

Appearances can be deceiving.  ProfAlstad said that, in this case, it's referring to Phar/Sadd.

Ok. Prof Alstad is an elder, yes, but unless Elders are now infallible, Pol is welcome to present his side and try to get the rule changed/more defined.

He's absolutely welcome to.  I just pointed out what an Elder said.

[Minister Polarius]

And elder said "same identifier." Which one? We assume "phar/sad" because that was obviously the intent, but that's not what the card actually says.

[YourMathTeacher]

Alex and Polarius are correct. In fact, I think we should have the playtesters of this card hung, drawn and quartered for using the word "type" in a special ability. Their heads should then be mounted on a stick and placed at the entrance to every Regional tournament as an example to any would-be future playtesters.

Rob Anderson should be tarred and feathered, then paraded around each Regional tournament so we can all mock him for allowing a card with "type" in the SA to even get to print.

Every copy of Doctrine Like Leaven should be marked with a scarlet letter so we can scold anyone who is foolish enough to use a card with the word "type" in the SA in an actual game. Then, at next year's Nationals, we should burn every copy of the card at the stake.

[The Schaef]

We assume "phar/sad" because that was obviously the intent

and that assumption is correct.

/discussion