Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Chronic Apathy on December 17, 2011, 12:00:38 PM
-
How does Samuel pull David out from the draw pile if there's already a David in play? We've been discussing this at the Chambersburg Regional for a while now, and we haven't made any progress. DOesn't game rule dictate that if an actual cannot be fulfilled (in this case, because there's a David already in play), that the card would be placed in hand? Why would the original David in play get discarded?
Samuel (RA2)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Green/Yellow • Ability: 4 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate play abilities. You may search deck for King Saul or David and put it in play to draw 2. May band to a male I Samuel Hero. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Judge, Prophet • Verse: I Samuel 7:16-17 • Availability: Rock of Ages Extended booster packs (None)
-
A "You may" that has an "and" in the sentence has always been ruled as "You may... and you may..." therefore you should be able to search and put in hand, then choose to not put him in play (in which case you could not draw two).
-
It's like Reach. You may draw, may interrupt, and may play indepedendantly of the other actions. In this case, you may search and may play to d2. If you choose to only search, defaults say David goes to hand.
-
That's not quite the question though. We are trying to understand if you can force discard your own character by another copy? Say I had a david with Deceiving Sin on it in play and I use samuel to search for another David. Can I get rid of the one that has Deceptive Sin?
-
That's not quite the question though. We are trying to understand if you can force discard your own character by another copy? Say I had a david with Deceiving Sin on it in play and I use samuel to search for another David. Can I get rid of the one that has Deceptive Sin?
Yes. You get to choose which David you want to discard. Sam's ability works because his SA is causing the duplicate Davids to be in play. If a SA is forcing duplicates to be controlled by the same player, that player must discard one of the duplicates. However, you can not put down a duplicate character from hand if you already have one in play, as you, not a SA, are causing yourself to control duplicates.
-
However, you can not put down a duplicate character from hand if you already have one in play, as you, not a SA, are causing yourself to control duplicates.
Why would you not be able to do that? The only thing that you are not allowed to do is "cause [duplicates] to fight each other."1 In the scenario you are talking about, you are not allowed to control duplicates, so you discard one.
I guess you could argue that David is fighting himself for a place in your territory, kind of like Flynn and Clu from Tron. ;)
1 Quoted from the REG Glossary.
-
However, you can not put down a duplicate character from hand if you already have one in play, as you, not a SA, are causing yourself to control duplicates.
Why would you not be able to do that? The only thing that you are not allowed to do is "cause [duplicates] to fight each other."1 In the scenario you are talking about, you are not allowed to control duplicates, so you discard one.
I guess you could argue that David is fighting himself for a place in your territory, kind of like Flynn and Clu from Tron. ;)
1 Quoted from the REG Glossary.
If you look in the REG under Duplicate Cards it states: "No player may control duplicates of a unique character."
-
That's not quite the question though. We are trying to understand if you can force discard your own character by another copy? Say I had a david with Deceiving Sin on it in play and I use samuel to search for another David. Can I get rid of the one that has Deceptive Sin?
Yes. You get to choose which David you want to discard. Sam's ability works because his SA is causing the duplicate Davids to be in play. If a SA is forcing duplicates to be controlled by the same player, that player must discard one of the duplicates. However, you can not put down a duplicate character from hand if you already have one in play, as you, not a SA, are causing yourself to control duplicates.
Exactly, except if there is a may, then you may not. In this case Samuel says may. You're never forced to do something if the SA contains may.
-
If you look in the REG under Duplicate Cards it states: "No player may control duplicates of a unique character."
Yes, which is why you have to discard one. It does not say that you may not cause two duplicates to be in play at the same time. It only says you cannot cause duplicates to fight each other.
-
You can't force yourself into control of a second copy of a unique character.
-
You can't force yourself into control of a second copy of a unique character.
Where does it say that in the REG?
-
You can't force yourself into control of a second copy of a unique character.
Where does it say that in the REG?
It says you can't control two of the same unique character. Since when can you intentionally violate game rules unless specifically stated in the ability?
-
You can't force yourself into control of a second copy of a unique character.
You can do it, as long as you're not bringing said character into battle, and it's the use of a special ability.[1]
[1] game against ProfAlstad
-
The issue of duplicates isn't clearly defined in the REG, but maybe this thread will help:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/tas-and-duplicate-characters/msg248306/#msg248306 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/tas-and-duplicate-characters/msg248306/#msg248306)
-
Exactly, except if there is a may, then you may not. In this case Samuel says may. You're never forced to do something if the SA contains may.
I agree with STAMP. Reach says I may draw 3 cards, but if I'm already at hand limit, I can't draw 3 and then discard down.
-
Precisely my argument as well Wraith, the hero is stuck there until your opponent does something about it...when a character is put into play I always thought you personally could not remove it from the game or play. Your opponent had to cause it to happen...
-
I think we need an Elder ruling here. Clearly there are differing opinions about this situation. I have always ruled that you can play a character to discard the same unique character already in your territory. The REG does not say you cannot do that, but it does specifically say what you cannot do - bring a duplicate into battle. If you are not allowed to bring into play at all, then the REG needs to say so specifically just like the other situation that is not allowed.
-
I remember when i was first introduced to this type of ruling. Opponents were trying to band to each other's Captain of the Host with one in thier own territory. In Type 2 with multiple unique characters in a deck, Dungeon of Malachi was great play to wreck a player's day as they were not allowed to place the same unique character in territory. Go, go Headquarters at Riblah!
-
Yea, it was quite irritating w/ capturing. But I thought u can't play a Unique Character if another one is in play. So I'd say it would go to hand, but I'm not a Redemption Elder,
-
Thats a good point. Does anyone have the definition for playing a card handy? Here we go-
Play
A card is considered "played" (1) when its special ability activates or (2) when it is put into play – except by a "place" special ability or a "holds" identifier.
-
My assumption is Samuel's "put in play" SA is a play ability, not a place ability. Is that safe to say?
-
That doesn't resolve anything. The REG does not say "you cannot play duplicates."
-
That doesn't necessarily mean anything either. I've always been under the impression (until recently) that cards, if they could not be placed where they normally should (for whatever reason) defaulted to hand. It's only in recent convention, with the wide use of Sam, that I've seen this contested at all.
-
That doesn't resolve anything. The REG does not say "you cannot play duplicates."
The REG does say "You cannot control more than one of a unique character.", which is basically the same thing.
-
That doesn't resolve anything. The REG does not say "you cannot play duplicates."
The REG does say "You cannot control more than one of a unique character.", which is basically the same thing.
No, it is not. Why be specific in one case but not another? All that "You cannot control more than one of a unique character" says to me is that if I do put one in play, then the other needs to be discarded.
-
I would argue that the first one cannot be put in play regardless of the special ability of a card, and should instead be placed in hand.
-
I would argue that the first one cannot be put in play regardless of the special ability of a card, and should instead be placed in hand.
I'm OK with having a set default, but either way it needs to be consistent and clear in the REG.
-
I would argue that the first one cannot be put in play regardless of the special ability of a card, and should instead be placed in hand.
I'm OK with having a set default, but either way it needs to be consistent and clear in the REG.
Good luck with that one. It seems my understanding of how unique characters work is way off...
-
I think the ruling in both situations has more to do with the way its been rather than a clear cut ruling. You have always been able to force yourself to control duplicates via SA (e.g. I capture your TSA with one in my territory) except in cases of adding a character to battle, and you have never been able to control duplicates by putting them in play (I.e. you cannot put another David from hand in your territory from hand if you have a captured David).
Whether or not those two ideas are consistent is a matter of opinion and probably needs clarification, but those principles have been around the game at least as long as I have.
-
So what exactly are we saying?
-
So what exactly are we saying?
1. That a SA can force you to control duplicates, except in battle. If the dulicates are unique, you must discard one of them.
2. That you can not control duplicates due to you putting them in play, such as from hand.
-
That it is the status quo, but there has been no justification for such a ruling other than "that's the way we've aways done it." We have to move past such things. Those types of rulings are only known by those who attend Nationals. People like me are unaware of such rulings, so I rule them differently. If this is the "official" ruling, then it needs to be in the REG.
And you wonder why the Florida meta is so weird..... ;)
-
agreed, but sam is not forcing anything. It's a may condition. As such you can only complete the task of putting something into play IF it is legal..but another copy is already in play so you cannot use the SA to force another out...that's my issue...If may wasn't in the ability I would concur that SA overrides gamerule...but not in this case...
-
1. That a SA can force you to control duplicates, except in battle. If the dulicates are unique, you must discard one of them.
agreed, but sam is not forcing anything. It's a may condition. As such you can only complete the task of putting something into play IF it is legal..but another copy is already in play so you cannot use the SA to force another out...that's my issue...If may wasn't in the ability I would concur that SA overrides gamerule...but not in this case...
I agree with both of the above.
-
agreed, but sam is not forcing anything. It's a may condition. As such you can only complete the task of putting something into play IF it is legal..but another copy is already in play so you cannot use the SA to force another out...that's my issue...If may wasn't in the ability I would concur that SA overrides gamerule...but not in this case...
Since when does gamerule only override "may?"
-
agreed, but sam is not forcing anything. It's a may condition. As such you can only complete the task of putting something into play IF it is legal..but another copy is already in play so you cannot use the SA to force another out...that's my issue...If may wasn't in the ability I would concur that SA overrides gamerule...but not in this case...
Since when does gamerule only override "may?"
Since handlimit.
-
But cards can override other game rules (like end of turn limit + Death of Hades). Why is this one special?
-
From my point of view, Death and Hades and Tables of the Law are the exceptions. They specify that they are changing things though. Also, you still haven't solved why you can't continue drawing even after you hit handlimit, so long as you discard.
If a card said "Discard a card in opponent's territory", then you still couldn't discard a face down card because it is a gamerule that facedown cards cannot be targeted.
-
Ok, so my question is more this: why do some cards get to override and others don't?
-
Ok, so my question is more this: why do some cards get to override and others don't?
That was explained a while ago in this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/off-topic/all-kittens-grow-up-eventually/).
-
Ok, so my question is more this: why do some cards get to override and others don't?
Because they specify it.
-
I would argue that, even though it's been played this way for a while now (since the game's conception, apparently), that it's overly complicated. I fully expect to be overruled and yelled at for this suggestion, but would it not be much simpler to just say that a player cannot have more than one unique character in play/set-aside, and if a special ability specifies a search, it defaults to hand instead?
-
As much as I would like to see Sam's wings clipped, allowing control of multiples and forcing discard (except in the case of banding or playing from hand) isn't complicated at all. Bringing a character under your control directly (by putting him into your territory or adding him to your side of the battle) is obviously different than having a character brought under your control indirectly (a search-and-play ability, capture, exchange, etc.).
The other thing to look at is capture. Capture is the most punished, protected-from, and usually-negatable ability in the game. It doesn't need to take another hit when you can't Head of Gold your opponent because you have most of the same characters in play. It would also lead to plays such as using Flax to give your opponent characters which then become protected from capture on your end.
-
As much as I would like to see Sam's wings clipped, allowing control of multiples and forcing discard (except in the case of banding or playing from hand) isn't complicated at all. Bringing a character under your control directly (by putting him into your territory or adding him to your side of the battle) is obviously different than having a character brought under your control indirectly (a search-and-play ability, capture, exchange, etc.).
Saying, "you cannot have more than one unique character in play/set-aside at a time" is a lot less complicated than circumstances that allow it, but force a discard right away.
-
Saying "you can have more than one unique character at a time, but have to discard one" is more complicated, but not a lot more complicated. Oversimplification of rules at the expense of gameplay is not a good thing.
-
I'd argue that it is a lot more complicated. Saying "this can't happen, and if something tries to make it happen, it just goes to hand" is much easier than, "well it can, but only under this circumstance, and then you have to discard it or something else." This claim of mine is evidenced by the fact that intelligent people that have been playing the game for years, such as Brad, don't fully understand why it works the way it does. In the meantime, while I agree that oversimplification of the rules at the expense of gameplay is bad, this is a pretty logical way to rule it, and if Sam gets a minor hit in the meantime, then all the more reason to consider it.
-
I'd argue that it is a lot more complicated. Saying "this can't happen, and if something tries to make it happen, it just goes to hand" is much easier than, "well it can, but only under this circumstance, and then you have to discard it or something else." This claim of mine is evidenced by the fact that intelligent people that have been playing the game for years, such as Brad, don't fully understand why it works the way it does. In the meantime, while I agree that oversimplification of the rules at the expense of gameplay is bad, this is a pretty logical way to rule it, and if Sam gets a minor hit in the meantime, then all the more reason to consider it.
I've actually been under the impression that Chris' idea is how its always been.
-
Up until reading Chris' posts, I had no idea it was played that way.
/And we live in the same region. Yeesh.
-
I didn't know it was played that way until the advent of Sam decks, and I started seeing people (including several Elders) playing it that way with the duplicate Davids. Brad outright didn't believe me when I told him that was how it was played.
-
Exactly. I wasn't understanding how Sam decks could be so strong without causing hand clog...unless I wanted to discard those extra duplicates of heroes and then get them back via Chariot of Fire I suppose...It just doesn't make sense why we are almost midway into the season and that at a random district this discussion is brought up...and three weeks later and we have no consensus or CLEAR answer on why if it the ruling is contrary to my logic why it is...I will reserve further comments until a true decision has been made with what I hope will be very clear points of reasoning and not just because we wanted to make a card combo work so that's the way we play it...
-
Can we get some confirmation that the PTB/Elders are working on it on the other side of the boards? I know it's the Christmas season and all, but could you at least stick a placeholder over there to get to come January?
-
Ok, so my question is more this: why do some cards get to override and others don't?
I think the real question is why do some gamerules get overridden by cards SA's and others don't. The answer is "I don't know". I think it has to do with a combination of:
a - that's the way it's always been
b - that's the way that is the least confusing
c - that's the way that doesn't break the game
d - that's the way that the PTB decided for unknown reasons
e - that's the way that messes up ANB the most :)
I still think that the ruling should be that any card that has a "may" ability that would cause you to break the duplicate game rule should NOT be carried out (at least not the part that would break the gamerule).
-
hmm well coming from a magic background i tend to disagree cause a card can be designed to be an exception to a game rule to get the effect though you have to be playing that card
-
After reading through this post (first time I've been able to, and I'm sorry to everyone that it was my game at that district that led to all this questioning...), some key points jump out at me:
1. Capturing really would change (and become next to useless in T2), as pointed out above. "You mean I can't capture that disciple because I already had one of his copies of that card captured?" is not something I've ever heard discussed before this thread. Even if it was ruled that any card with 'may' did not allow them to coexist and one to be discarded, then every card with "You may capture..." would still encounter that problem.
2. We've discussed what happens when we have a 'put in play' ability like Sam, but what about exchanges? Would Armorbearer not be able to exchange with a unique character if a copy was already in your territory? What would happen in that case, or the many other exchanges out there? Would having your character captured to your territory stop you from ever getting them out again, basically?
3. Everything we're discussing involves 'in-play'...what about set-aside? Does 'control' default to 'in-play', and if so, what happens if you try to bring (by SA) a character into your territory that is already in your set-aside?
4. If something is NOT a 'may' ability, like both of the Midwives cards, would duplicates be discarded, or would they never enter play?
Midwives (Wo)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 7 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: Each time Midwives enter the Field of Battle, return to Field of Play all Green Brigade Male Heroes from all discard piles. • Play As: Search all discard piles for all green brigade male Heroes. Return them to owner's territories. • Identifiers: Generic OT Female Human, Egypt • Verse: Exodus 1:17 • Availability: Women booster packs (Uncommon)
I also agree with the sentiment that we should have a ruling based on rules and not 'this is how it's always been' because that's how newer players like me get confused. I had seen everyone in RTS do what is being described with Samuel, and then when I asked if I could hypothetically do XYZ in the district, Brad looked at me like I had horns growing out of my skull. (It was a very funny look and response)
Could a suggestion for the rule be, "No player may put a unique character in play or set-aside that is already in that player's in-play or set-aside areas. No unique character may band or enter a battle that involves another copy of that unique character. If a unique character is put in play or set-aside by a special ability and causes a player to control multiple copies, that player chooses copies to be discarded until only one remains in that player's in-play or set-aside areas."
Wordy? Yes. And I obviously don't know how to write in Redemption-rules-speak. Just trying to understand where this is going and how to play with this situation in the future.
-
That's what the rule already is, just way wordier. The way to word the rule most succinctly would be
"Any time a player controls multiple copies of a unique person, he must discard all but one. Players may not play or add a character to battle if that would create the previous situation."