Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: EmJayBee83 on July 21, 2011, 07:45:37 AM
-
Can the blocker bring a site into battle? Reading over the relevant portion of the Rule Book, I do not see anything that would prevent this...
An unoccupied site is placed in battle with the Hero and the icon box on the unoccupied site contains a matching brigade color in the icon box of the occupied site. The unoccupied site can be added at any time during the battle, but it must come from the player’s territory. If the Hero is defeated in battle, the site returns to the owner’s territory. The special ability on a multi-colored site is active only when the site is in battle and being used to give a Hero access to a site.
-
Can the blocker bring a site into battle? Reading over the relevant portion of the Rule Book, I do not see anything that would prevent this...
An unoccupied site is placed in battle with the Hero and the icon box on the unoccupied site contains a matching brigade color in the icon box of the occupied site. The unoccupied site can be added at any time during the battle, but it must come from the player’s territory. If the Hero is defeated in battle, the site returns to the owner’s territory. The special ability on a multi-colored site is active only when the site is in battle and being used to give a Hero access to a site.
This is all I'm seeing that would prevent it. However, forgive me for asking, but what exactly would you gain by sending a site into battle as defense?
-
It would allow you to bypass nazareth on defense, phillys might like that :)
-
It would also allow you to give a hero site access to a LS that wouldn't normally be able to get to. If you were feeling generous (or for other purposes ;) ).
-
I would say "no:"
Ongoing Special Abilities > Access to Sites > How to Use
Sites must be placed in the Field of Battle to gain access to your opponent’s sites.
-
If that's the case, then does that mean that people cannot put their own sites into battle during their rescue attempt unless they are providing access to their opponent's sites? For example, I can't choose to put Nazareth into battle to allow me to deactivate its ability unless it will give me access to a Lost Soul held by my opponent?
-
Based on the REG quote and the first sentence of the quote from the rulebook given in MJB's first post, I would say that you cannot bring an unoccupied site into battle unless your opponent has an occupied site of matching brigade.
-
Based on the REG quote and the first sentence of the quote from the rulebook given in MJB's first post, I would say that you cannot bring an unoccupied site into battle unless your opponent has an occupied site of matching brigade.
And since we already know that that has been ruled the opposite way, where do we go from here?
-
The REG quote doesn't say that using it for access is the only way to place sites into battle. The emphasis is on site access. To have site access you need a site in battle. Although the part of the rulebook part that allows you to put a site in battle even when you don't need it is outdated wording. There is no reason why that should work. All they have to add in is "during a rescue attempt a site...." That would keep the integrity of the old system without creating loop holes for sites like nazereth.
As for adding sites defensively, YMT is right, the quote does imply that placing sites into battle is a function of the rescuer. Also the quote you gave early, Matt, mentions hero in almost every sentence. The only one its doesn't is in the second. I think its safe to assume that all the sentences are referring to the good side of the battle.
-
Ongoing Special Abilities > Access to Sites > How to Use
Sites must be placed in the Field of Battle to gain access to your opponent’s sites.
This doesn't seem to be limiting the way to use sites. It is just talking about how to use sites for site access. For that purpose they must be placed in the Field of Battle. However, sites obviously can be used for other purposes (ie. capturing a hero to put in Herod's Dungeon), and those don't require sites to be placed in the Field of Battle.
An unoccupied site is placed in battle with the Hero and the icon box on the unoccupied site contains a matching brigade color in the icon box of the occupied site. The unoccupied site can be added at any time during the battle, but it must come from the player’s territory. If the Hero is defeated in battle, the site returns to the owner’s territory. The special ability on a multi-colored site is active only when the site is in battle and being used to give a Hero access to a site.
This also doesn't seem to be a limiting rule as much as it is also an explanation of how sites are added to battle to give site access. I am not making an official ruling here, just thinking out loud. But it seems to me that neither of these quotes would prohibit sites from being added to battle while blocking.
At the same time, the precedent has definitely been that you can NOT add sites to battle while blocking. So are there other passages from the REG or Rulebook that prohibit it? Or is this just something that is "the way we've always done it"?
-
This doesn't seem to be limiting the way to use sites.
I would argue that it does. Sites that are in territory are governed by rules of territory (which are ultimately governed by rules for Prep and Discard Phase). Adding sites to battle must follow the rules of the Battle Phase. Nowhere do the rules allow a site to be added to battle except for site access.
The age-old "it doesn't say I can't" argument is getting, well....., old.
And since we already know that that has been ruled the opposite way, where do we go from here?
LOL. We both know the answer to that question. ;)
-
Site access is site access. That's all. For instance, I could add a site to battle that gives my male hero access to my opponent's site containing the female-only LS. I still don't have access to the LS, but I can still add my site to gain access to my opponent's site in case I gain access to the LS another way.
As such, you can add as many empty sites during the battle phase regardless if you are rescuing, blocking, or in a side battle.
Good find, MJB. :)
-
So, in a multiplayer game between players A,B,C, and D (in order of seating):
1. B RAs with female hero against A.
2. A has two LSs - one in a site and the Female-only not in a site.
3. C has no female heroes, but has site access and is close to winning.
Can player D add a site to the battle between A & B to give B site access? If not, then what is the justification?
-
At the same time, the precedent has definitely been that you can NOT add sites to battle while blocking. So are there other passages from the REG or Rulebook that prohibit it? Or is this just something that is "the way we've always done it"?
As a follow-up, is this any more or less justified than the new-fangled, "I can add as many sites as I like into battle?" This was (at least for me) a major change from "the way we've always done it."
And since we already know that that has been ruled the opposite way, where do we go from here?
LOL. We both know the answer to that question. ;)
As long as STAMP doesn't join in we should be OK. ;)
Good find, MJB. :)
Dang! ;D
-
So, in a multiplayer game between players A,B,C, and D (in order of seating):
1. B RAs with female hero against A.
2. A has two LSs - one in a site and the Female-only not in a site.
3. C has no female heroes, but has site access and is close to winning.
Can player D add a site to the battle between A & B to give B site access? If not, then what is the justification?
In my honest opinion, player D could add a site to battle to give player D access. I realize that's not much help to A or B. A site in battle is basically just a 'key".
Signed,
Epstein's mom's third wheel ;)
-
We need an update to this outdated rule on how sites work. It is understood that sites were only used for access because that was what they were origionally intended to do. As Redemption gameplay progressed, new ways on how sites interacted with gameplay purposes were created. aka lepers colony, roman prison, pergenum, kir, herod dungeon, and protect sites.
-
As Redemption gameplay progressed, new ways on how sites interacted with gameplay purposes were created. aka lepers colony, roman prison, pergenum, kir, herod dungeon, and protect sites.
These only suggest that sites were intended to do more in territory. The question being raised is an attempt to get sites to do something that they were never intended to do, now or then.
-
Herod's dungeon is part of the problem. The rule used to be sites only activated when they were occupied. That way you would either benefit from the sites or they would do nothing. They had to change it though so that you could actually use Herod's Dungeon.
-
They could have just made the rule that sites are only active while occupied unless stated otherwise. Would make all of the annoying protect sites MUCH less obnoxious.
-
They could have just made the rule that Single Brigade sites are only active while occupied unless stated otherwise. Would make all of the annoying protect sites MUCH less obnoxious.
Fixed.
-
Deceipt of Sapphira and Rizpah's Sackcloth, ftw! ;)
-
Adding my two cents, I got ruled against when I tried to do this at nats 2010. (I think it was Byron?)
-
Adding my two cents, I got ruled against when I tried to do this at nats 2010. (I think it was Byron?)
I agree with Bryon. ;)
-
Has this been decided for certain on how it will be ruled at Nationals?
-
Although I don't agree with Bryon, he gets to make the rules. So unless he wants to correct SomeKittens recollection or has a change of heart, I am guessing you cannot do this. :(
I was also informed privately by an elder that there is a darn good reason for going with Bryon's ruling and that I would understand when I see the new set.
-
I thought adding my Promised Land to give him access to my site guard was pretty neat. Nope!
/Then again, I thought the fact that I could recur AoCP was also pretty neat.