Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Drrek on February 22, 2012, 09:00:46 PM
-
I have a (hopefully) quick question about RBD. When does it target the card being drawn for discard, is it when it is part of deck, when it is a part of hand or an area in between?
Rain Becomes Dust (Pi)
Type: Curse • Brigade: Gray • Ability: 1 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: All cards that an opponent draws because of a special ability used by that opponent are revealed instead. Place all revealed Lost Souls in opponent’s territory. Discard the rest. • Play As: If an opponent activates a draw ability, reveal the cards instead. Place all revealed Lost Souls in opponent’s territory and discard the rest. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Deuteronomy 28:24 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Uncommon)
-
When it is part of deck.
-
When it is part of deck.
good to know, thanks.
-
When it is part of deck.
So Simon the Zealot can stop RBD then.
-
When it is part of deck.
So Simon the Zealot can stop RBD then.
Yup. 4DC will stop the discard, but not the reveal.
-
The upshoot is that RBD stops the draw even if the deck is protected. The only thing that would let you draw through RBD is something that protects the deck entirely, or something that protects it from revelation.
-
That's strange, I asked the same question at a tourney here and they said neither, its not in Deck or Hand, so it goes around Simon the Zealot.
-
The upshoot is that RBD stops the draw even if the deck is protected. The only thing that would let you draw through RBD is something that protects the deck entirely, or something that protects it from revelation.
I am not sure if this is true, Simon protects the deck from your opponents cards, doesn't that mean RBD cannot even target the deck to negate the draw? Protection means you cannot be targeted.
-
RBD is an instead ability, so it targets the draw, not the deck. That's why it can't get Fishing Boat.
-
RBD is an instead ability, so it targets the draw, not the deck. That's why it can't get Fishing Boat.
ProfA just ruled that the location for a draw is the deck, therfore it cannot be targeted for negation.
-
SK is correct. Instead abilities always target the ability they are insteading, nothing else. Draws may target deck, sure, but that doesn't affect RBD in the slightest.
-
SK is correct. Instead abilities always target the ability they are insteading, nothing else. Draws may target deck, sure, but that doesn't affect RBD in the slightest.
I believe his ruling is saying that draws do not target deck, but are part of the deck. The location of the draw is the deck, so it is protected. Otherwise how can the discarded be protected when it is drawn. If the act of drawing counts as removing the card from the deck, then Simon should not protect it since it is outside of the deck. Since it was just ruled that Simon does protect the discard, then the draw must be taking place under his protection and should not be targetable by any opponets cards by definition of protection. Intead being the ability doesn't matter if the target of the instead is protected.
I think the point we seems to be disagreeing on is the "location" of the draw ability. I interpret the ruling here to say that the location of draw is the deck. If that assumption is wrong ProfA or another elder can correct me.
-
Simon cannot stop RBD because RBD isn't affecting your deck. RBD is insteading whatever ability you played that draws (Reach of Desperation, for example) and causing the ability of that card to change from "Draw X" to "Reveal X, put Souls in play, discard the rest."
If you had an ongoing ability that said "Protect your good enhancements from evil cards" THAT would stop RBD because then RBD couldn't target Reach for insteading.
Hopefully this explains it better.
-
Ok I think I am coming to an understanding, Then All Simon does is stop the discard of RBD, not the entire ability of RBD. I need to better define in the future what I mean when I say Simon 'stops' RBD. I meant completly, not partially. Hence my confusion.
-
I am 100% certain that the cards are still revealed if Simon's ability is active.
I am 85% certain that RBD carries out completely even if Simon's ability is active. Since RBD is changing the effect of the draw ability, not actually affecting the cards from deck itself, Simon's ability does nothing as it is your own ability (albeit a changed ability) that is doing the reveal/discard.
-
I am 100% certain that the cards are still revealed if Simon's ability is active.
At this point I would agree with you.
I am 85% certain that RBD carries out completely even if Simon's ability is active. Since RBD is changing the effect of the draw ability, not actually affecting the cards from deck itself, Simon's ability does nothing as it is your own ability (albeit a changed ability) that is doing the reveal/discard.
I am 60% sure that this wrong because of What ProfA just said. The location of the Cards at the time of the reveal is the deck, which is protected. Which brings me to believe that with Simon active RBD does nothing but stop the draw. Let me try to lay this out:
1. I attempt to draw via SA
2. RBD tries to reveal instead of drawing.
3. The location of the card being revealed is the deck which is protected from all opponent's cards by Simon.
4. The reveal cannot happen, which means the discard cannot happen for the Same reason.
Is this right?
-
Your number 2 is incorrect, which is what I've been trying to say. RBD is not doing the revealing, it is changing the ability of the draw card you played. That's all it does. Think of instead abilities as rewriting the ability you're trying to use.
Example: I have RBD up, you play Reach of Desperation. RBD targets Reach, and what it does is change Reach's ability from "You may interrupt the battle, [draw 3], and play next" to "You may interrupt the battle, [reveal the top 3 cards of deck, put Souls in play, discard the rest], and play next." RBD is now finished and does nothing else. Reach then resolves with its newly changed special ability. Since Reach is the card now revealing/discarding from your deck, Simon doesn't protect against it (because it's your card).
-
Your number 2 is incorrect, which is what I've been trying to say. RBD is not doing the revealing, it is changing the ability of the draw card you played. That's all it does. Think of instead abilities as rewriting the ability you're trying to use.
Example: I have RBD up, you play Reach of Desperation. RBD targets Reach, and what it does is change Reach's ability from "You may interrupt the battle, [draw 3], and play next" to "You may interrupt the battle, [reveal the top 3 cards of deck, put Souls in play, discard the rest], and play next." RBD is now finished and does nothing else. Reach then resolves with its newly changed special ability. Since Reach is the card now revealing/discarding from your deck, Simon doesn't protect against it (because it's your card).
And that is not how I understand instead to work, The source of the instead is the opponents card.
-
I may be wrong, but that's how it has always been demonstrated/explained to me, and that's how I've seen it ruled.
-
I think this is a bit of a grey area. It's a fact that insteading targets the insteaded card and changes its ability, but I don't think it's ever been fully discussed as to whether the new effect is now being sourced from the original card or the insteading card. I've used Herod's Temple with my 4DC up many times with no issues, so I would say the precedent is in favor of Browarod's interpretation.
-
In your scenario you are assuming the instead effect is not being sourced by the original card but by the insteaded card, correct? So then wouldn't simon still protect from rbd because the instead (RBD) is the source (and an opponent's card) as opposed to Simon not getting around RBD if the origional card (Reach) is the source (your card)?
-
In your scenario you are assuming the instead effect is not being sourced by the original card but by the insteaded card, correct? So then wouldn't simon still protect from rbd because the instead (RBD) is the source (and an opponent's card) as opposed to Simon not getting around RBD if the origional card (Reach) is the source (your card)?
basically yes.
-
Instead
Cards that use the word "instead" replace an effect with a different effect. When a card has a new effect applied to it "instead", it is not considered to have the original effect applied to it in any way. As such, "instead" implies a "would be" condition for the original effect (e.g. "if your character [would be] discarded...")
Sometimes a card selects a different target(s) and applies an effect to that instead. If this is not the case, the new effect is applied to the same card(s) targeted by the old effect. Also, the ability may have conditions that indicate only some of the cards have the new effect applied.
Example: if a card says "… blue Heroes that would be discarded are returned to territory instead" and a mixture of Heroes are discarded from battle, the blue Heroes have the withdraw effect applied, while other Heroes have the discard effect applied.
If a card is immune or otherwise protected from the new effect, the original effect is still applied. If a card is immune or otherwise protected from the original effect, the card is not affected at all.
Example: "… blue Heroes that would be discarded are returned to territory instead", with two other active effects: "N.T. Heroes are protected from withdraw abilities" and "O.T. Heroes are protected from discard abilities". Because the blue N.T. Heroes are protected from withdraw, they are discarded as normal. Because the blue O.T. Heroes are protected from discard, they are unaffected.
If a single card uses "instead" to apply two or more effects to the same group of cards, the combination of applied effects resolves the special ability for that card.
Example: if Herod's Temple would discard more than one card from draw pile, and at least one is a Lost Soul put in play "instead", the combined total of discarded cards and Lost Souls put in play count toward the total required by Herod's Temple. However, if the card discarded from hand has a different effect applied "instead" by a different card, the ability is not properly resolved.
Nothing in here leads me to believe that "instead" is in and of itself an ability, or that it has to target other cards/other abilities. It is merely a definition, the only ability associated with "instead" cards is the triggered ability that is triggered by the ability being insteaded. It is a specialized triggered ability, in that it replaces the trigger with the new ability, but I see no reason why "instead" is restricted to targeting abilities/cards in play by default, etc. The ability that follows instead only targets the card(s) that the follow up ability applies to. I.e. Herod's Temple targets hand, deck, and the character being saved, by it doesn't target the discarding card. RBD only targets the top X cards of a deck, where X is the number of cards that would be drawn; it doesn't target the actual drawing cards. Chamber/D&A only targets the Angel/Job being discarded/defeated, it doesn't target the card doing the discarding/defeating.
There is no entry in the REG for an instead ability, only a definition of what happens when a card uses the word instead. I know that many are probably confused, and I hope some other elders can confirm this (or at least bring this up for discussion) but the above is how I've always understood, played, and ruled on instead.
In summary,
1. RBD will reveal and discard cards that would be drawn by Fishing Boat.
2. Simon will stop RBD from doing anything. Cards are drawn as normal.
3. RBD does not change the ability of Reach in the slightest; it just changes the outcome of Reach having been played.
-
Do you want to see lp in a Tebow Jersey or not?
-
So apparently a month ago I had exactly the opposite opinion that I've been expressing in this thread so far. I'm not exactly sure what changed in the last month that I'm suddenly thinking reverse.... *scratches head and walks away confused*
EDIT: It was this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/chaldeans-29213/) and it doesn't seem like the issue (regarding what exactly Instead abilities target, and how that affects the "defaults to play" rule) was ever fully resolved.
-
Regardless of the reasoning (which I'm not entirely sure I agree with), I like the way Jordan described the scenario, and I believe that that is how RBD should be played. It's much, much simpler.
-
Do you want to see lp in a Tebow Jersey or not?
??? I don't get it
-
It seems even more complicated than the way I've always understood it. Having an ability that doesn't actually target anything sounds really weird, like we'd be intentionally designing an entire ability that works like HHI. There is no problem with the understanding of instead abilities targeting the card with the ability being insteaded, and it's no more complicated than "it just changes the result."
-
But "instead" isn't an ability. It is a word that has a Redemption definition, much like "your", that might differ slightly from its English definition. It is defined in the section I posted. So the word instead doesn't need to target anything, it just specifies that an ability will target something. I guess I do find the idea that anytime something happens in the game described by the trigger ability of an instead card that the second ability of the card can target what it should to be simpler than essentially changing what abilities say. I also feel like the REG supports my position, and would need to be changed again in order to accomodate the other position.
-
I think Instead, if it's not currently an ability, should become one, since that seems to simplify things considerably. In the same breath though, I think RBD should target the deck, not the draw, which also simplifies things, and rebalances it slightly.
-
I also feel like the REG supports my position, and would need to be changed again in order to accomodate the other position.
I think the REG supports both positions due to the different ways of reading "replace an effect with a different effect." You're thinking position replacement: that the instead card activates in place of the other ability. Pol is thinking literal replacement: that the instead card literally changes the ability of the other card.
Both seem like equally valid interpretations of the quoted passage, to me. :2cents:
-
I think Instead, if it's not currently an ability, should become one, since that seems to simplify things considerably. In the same breath though, I think RBD should target the deck, not the draw, which also simplifies things, and rebalances it slightly.
I don't see how making instead an ability would simplify anything.
-
Because it functions as an ability. "Your" doesn't describe an action, "instead" does. Furthermore, most people see it as an ability, and I'm frankly surprised it's come up now that at least one of the elders doesn't see it as an ability since I've been describing the way it works as I understood it since last year with no objections.
-
Hey,
Professoralstad is right. Instead is not an ability, it's just a keyword. (All abilities are verbs, instead isn't a verb.) Normal triggered abilities respond to abilities being carried out, they don't kick in until the ability that triggered them completes. An instead triggered ability responds to abilities declaring their targets, and kicks in immediately before the ability that triggered them completes. Thus the ability that triggers the instead triggered ability is in progress when the instead ability is implemented. Rather than creating a new effect to be carried out, the instead triggered ability modifies the "in progress" ability that triggered it, or replaces the "in progress" ability that triggered it with something else.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
That is complicated as mess. Given that Prof A was open to the change and you're very prone to stating your opinion as if it were fact, I'd like to hear that this is actually something the elders at large have determined.
-
Something we've determined.
-
There are no words to express how deeply disappointed I am that that whole paragraph is what was determined to be the best, most simple way to describe "instead."
-
There are no words to express how deeply disappointed I am that you can't seem to get past Tim's long-winded manner of speaking to see that it's actually not that complicated.
'Instead' language on a card allows that card to modify the ability of a card before that card's ability completes.
That better?
-
So...it is changing the SA?
Either Malay misunderstood what the Professor said and he does not agree with him, or he didn't mean what you thought he meant, or the ruling is still too confusing to be expressed succinctly. Which is it?
-
Oh, he meant what I thought he meant, I just didn't restate it simply that well.
Redemption is a complicated game, we're going to have some complicated situations, Instead is one of them.
My best understanding of 'Instead', which I think is similar to Tim and Jordan, and plays out all the scenario's the same is that Instead is a modifier for Triggered Abilities that allows them to insert themselves before the ability that triggered them completes.
-
Ok, but that still doesn't answer the question of whether an insteaded ability is originating from the insteading or the original card (the easier question) or how protection works with it. Prof's declaration that RBD doesn't do anything with Simon active doesn't make much sense.
Also, I don't believe there is a consensus of you are relying on your understanding, and what it is you believe others' understandings to be. If you've reached an agreement, why are you still only a certain as having a best understanding that is similar to others'?
-
So abilities that have instead still default to in play?
-
So abilities that have instead still default to in play?
Welp.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F28.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lrgxkvrYWQ1r0ojhto1_500.gif&hash=20d58e899715db390a713d796248b828f2048fb9)