Cactus Game Design Message Boards

The original reason given for DoN being unable to negate LotS, was that the negate SA (second sentence) was worded in such a way that its target was defined by the discard SA (first sentence). Since LotS cannot be the "one active artifact in play" by definition of Protect the non-specific word "Artifact's" in the second sentence is undefined.

In changing this ruling, it appears that TPtB are breaking this coupling. Is that the correct interpretation of the update ruling?

Given the clear precedent of DoN versus LotS (which was a much discussed and well known ruling from back in the Priests), why were people playing "more recent cards" such as Joseph Before Pharoah incorrectly?

I am certainly concerned with these types of rulings for two main reasons:

1. Players from outside PtB playgroups get to high level tournaments to find out that cards are being ruled differently and it has a detrimental effect on their deck.

2. Players from outside PtB playgroups get to high level tournaments to find out that cards they originally included in their decks were ruled against them (so they took them out) and are now being used by others in the way they had originally wanted.

In light of this thread: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-market/2016-nats-full-art-promos/, winning at Nationals has become quite lucrative, so these are the kind of problems we should not be having 20 years into the game.

Change =/= problems. Growth is a good thing but comes with change. The game is still growing after 20 years. That's awesome!

Regarding concern #1 & 2, if those players are aware of rulings then they are privy to the online community. If they're privy to the online community then they should be able to find the new rulings we've announced. We're making more effort than ever to communicate rules changes and updates. We've created a new sub forum to make them easier to find. There are plans to announce / discuss some of them on Land of Redemption. There are plans to distribute a news letter to tournament hosts highlighting things they need to know. It's never been easier to find out about changes than it is right now. If there are more things we can do to continue to improve the communication channels we're open to suggestions.

Winning Nationals isn't lucrative. Nobody is making money off it. As someone who won 2 events and took 2nd in another event I'm probably the most qualified to say that. Are the prizes better than they have ever been before? Absolutely! Can they be sold to recoup a portion of the cost of traveling to the tournament? Sure. That's not a problem. That's something this game's largest tournament has sorely lacked. If you want to win a big tournament and have it be lucrative there are many other collectible games you can play. Redemption is not one of them.

Given the clear precedent of DoN versus LotS (which was a much discussed and well known ruling from back in the Priests), why were people playing "more recent cards" such as Joseph Before Pharoah incorrectly?

That is a good question. Whether it is because most people never really thought about it, or they understood CBN as different than protect, in that the thinking is that you can still target a CBN ability with a negate, just without negating it. As YMT points out, Love isn't quite in the same boat, but it was our discussion of that card that got us thinking about how multiple abilities with the same target work. We now benefit (at least some would say that, some may disagree) with one of the largest, and most active playtest/elder teams we have ever had. So we discussed the implications of this ruling a lot?

So we had one of two options, as more and more similar cards were being printed (and some had other qualifiers, such as Foreign Sword). We saw how the majority of them were being played (in general, although I am curious YMT...have you ever ruled that Joseph Before Pharaoh could not underdeck/capture a CBN card? Just want to make sure I understand what you meant above). We realized that the DoN/LotS ruling was the odd one out. So we could either stick with that ruling, and change how the other cards were being played, or change the DoN/LotS ruling. It was not done flippantly, but we simply thought it was better for the game to go that way. Are we correct? Perhaps, perhaps not.

As to YMTs point about literal translations, I'd say that due to the variety of wordings that have been employed throughout the years, we can't possibly be completely consistent one way or another, and maintain a balanced game. The only way we could is to prohibit the use of older cards with poor/outdated wording, which is not a direction we are going at this point (for various reasons, several of which Rob has stated over time). Its unfortunate, but it is precisely because 20 years worth of cards have to be considered when making rulings one way or the other. So we do the best we can, and iron out inconsistencies (or attempt to) as they arise. There is a project in the works to create an easily-referenced document to show how all cards should be played, that will be especially useful for older cards with outdated wording. This is where DoN will have a Play As that says "Discard and negate an Artifact," which should make it fairly simple to rule what is now the correct ruling.

FTR, we do (at least I can speak for myself) appreciate constructive concerns/criticism regarding any decision that is made. We believe the changes we make improve the game, but ultimately it is the hosts/playgroup leaders that we are trying to improve it for, so please continue to provide your feedback. We have been making a concerted effort to solicit community feedback when making big changes to the game. This didn't seem like a big change to us when discussed, but perhaps since it was such a long-standing ruling, it would have been better to have other input.

Regarding concern #1 & 2, if those players are aware of rulings then they are privy to the online community. If they're privy to the online community then they should be able to find the new rulings we've announced. We're making more effort than ever to communicate rules changes and updates. We've created a new sub forum to make them easier to find.

I mean no disrespect by pointing this out, as I am aware I might have missed any announcements regarding the forum as I've been busy with work, but the only reason I knew your ruling announcement forum existed much less found it, was because of this thread. If MJB had not asked his question I would have gone on thinking, and ruling, that DoN could not touch LotS. Just because we are here on the forums, even actively here, doesn't mean we are able to find the new rulings if we don't know to look for them...

A little Oracle told me that there is the Redemption equivalent of mapping the Genome underway right now. When that is finished, the process of repairing the Argos will be complete and all time will be able to be spent on moving forward!