Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: browarod on November 01, 2011, 11:49:11 PM
-
If I have Rachel banded to Jacob (who was set aside with Journey to Egypt which gives him site access) making a rescue attempt, can I rescue a Female-only LS in a non-blue site?
Abilities not important so not posted.
-
Yes.
Rachel is female. Jacob's ability is active. Jacob gives you access, but Rachel makes the rescue. Banded Heroes act as a combined force.
-
I agree with the above. Heroes banded into battle can use their combined abilities and identifiers.
-
I agree with Lux and SK.
-
Awesome, thanks everyone! ^_^
-
I disagree. It seems to me that Journey to Egypt only gives site access to Jacob, and he can't rescue the female LS. Rachael is a female, but doesn't have site access, so she can't get to the LS.
I think this would just be a battle challenge.
-
When Characters are banded, though, they act as a combined force.
-
Banded heroes don't work together?
-
Banded heroes don't work together?
It depends.
Imagine you attack with Tribal Elder banded to Jacob and play RTC to ignore your opponents brigade of defense. Then your opponent plays Christian Martyr on Jacob. At that point he can now block with his defense because RTC specified that it only affected Genesis heroes and Tribal Elder is NOT from Genesis.
Similarly, Journey to Egypt specifies that is only grants site access to the character who is set aside by it. Therefore, it does NOT give access to another character banded in battle with that character.
-
If I band Tribal Elder to Isaiah, and win with Two Bears, can I access a blue site?
-
@ Prof. Underwood: See, here's my problem with this:
In your example, you removed Jacob from battle. So yes, RTC won't work, because the conditions of the special ability are not being met. In the Jacob/Rachel thing, however, both requirements are being met: the rescuing party of Jacob and Rachel has Site Access and consists of a female. Thusly, this should be a valid rescue attempt.
It's like Jacob has the key to the Site that allows the rescuing characters inside.
-
If I band Tribal Elder to Isaiah, and win with Two Bears, can I access a blue site?
How you win the battle is unrelated to site access. First you win the battle (in this case with Isaiah), then after that's over you look at the LSs to see what you can take. If there is a LS in a blue site and you have Tribal Elder in battle and there are no remaining ECs in battle, then sure you can take the LS out of the blue site.
But if the LS had a SA of "May only be rescued by a prophet.", then I would think that you could NOT rescue it from a blue site.
It's like Jacob has the key to the Site that allows the rescuing characters inside.
I understand what you are saying, but I just don't think it works that way. I'm not 100% sure, and would appreciate having another elder confirm that I'm seeing this correctly.
-
That'd be nice.
-
I'm not an elder, but I agree with Prof U.
There's also this in a previous version of the REG:
One of your Heroes in battle must have access to the Lost Soul and the site it is in.
-
journy to egypt says only that hero has site access, so only jacob can get into the site. it doesn't say he can get other heros into the site, only him, so rachael can't rescue the LS. that is how i've seen it ruled in the past
-
I agree with the good Professor. Jacob has access to the Site, but not the LS. Rachel has access to the LS, but not the Site. It is a battle challenge.
-
I'm not an elder or anything, but I've always heard it said the way Lux is saying, that a hero with access to the site basically has a key for that site and allows access to it (as long as they're in battle) and then the soul can be accessed by another hero if it has a requirement.
-
Actually, as is always the case, Polarius is totally right and, upon explaining it, it now makes perfect sense.
It'd be the same thing if Angel in the Path was banded to Elders of Jerusalem and the only Lost Soul in play was in a Site and Arrest in Gethsemane was active. Angel in the Path has access to the Site, but he's still an angel, regardless of Elders of Jerusalem being in battle as well. Elders of Jerusalem doesn't himself have access to the Site, so he doesn't have access to the Lost Soul anyway.
That's too bad, but that's totally right. Thank you, Polarius. You tend to solve everything, and we are all very grateful.
-
It's sad what the internet has done to me. I am now more inclined to assume that Luxumbra is a troll alt of someone who doesn't like me than I am to be flattered by the proposed gratitude.
-
journy to egypt says only that hero has site access, so only jacob can get into the site. it doesn't say he can get other heros into the site, only him, so rachael can't rescue the LS. that is how i've seen it ruled in the past
The question is, does game rule allow Jacob to give Rachel access? I say yes, but INE.
-
So far the only piece of actual cited rules says no, but it's from the old REG.
-
So far the only piece of actual cited rules says no, but it's from the old REG.
Leading to the question: Is the new REG simply an errata disguised as Play-As?
-
I would say that, like Polarius said, Rachel would access the Lost Soul, but she herself was never given access to the site. Journey to Egypt gave Jacob access to the Site, but since he isn't female, he himself does not get access to the Lost Soul.
Although I liked the idea of Heroes helping each other out, it would seem that it wouldn't work that way.
And no hard feelings, Master Polarius.
-
...Minister, Master... tomayto, tomahto, Master works, too, lawlz...
-
As further confirmation, there are cards that specifically give access to more than one of a certain kind of Hero in battle. Namely, Promo Elijah: (Purple; 5/7; May band to Elisha. Protect Elijah from evil discard abilities. If Elijah's Mantle is active, ALL Prophets in battle have access to all Sites.) In all honesty, there would be little need to give Site Access to anyone but Elijah or maybe Elisha, but it specifically gives Site Access to ALL Prophets.
-
You're new, so you probably don't know that multi-posting is very much frowned upon here on the forum. If you have something to add and nobody's posted after you, just use the Modify button.
Also, Elijah may as well just be giving himself access since if he leaves battle the prophets lose access anyway.
As for the "heroes don't work together" argument, I've never had anyone argue that banded, non-priest heroes who rescue a lost soul from Mildewed House don't all get set aside even if only one of them actually had the site access. How exactly does that reconcile with your argument?
-
What I'm saying is that the "Heroes helping each other out" argument does make sense to me, but it would seem that that isn't the case.
And as for Elijah, here's the thing, though. If you had Elijah, and Elijah's Mantle, and also somehow managed to band Philip's Daughters into play, a female Prophet, you would have access to the "Female Only" Lost Soul in a Site even though Elijah would not because Philip's Daughters would have access to the Site AND access to the Lost Soul, whereas Elijah would have access to the Site but not the Lost Soul.
-
I agree with Prof U and Pol that the Two heroes each having one part isn't enough to get access to the soul. However, I've never actually liked the rule.
-
I feel the same, Red Dragon.
I would like the "Heroes help each other out" thing, but that is not the case.
-
Not that I don't trust you guys (though I do dislike the ruling as you've stated it), but is this somewhere in the rules or REG for future reference?
-
In the current REG (Gain Access > How to Play):
If an ability gives access to one or more sites, the defender selects which site will be accessed. However, a site holding a Lost Soul that the character cannot access may not be selected.
I'm not entirely sure, but I think this is just the extension of Defender's Choice to sites. But I don't know how it fits with banded heroes.
-
Not that I don't trust you guys (though I do dislike the ruling as you've stated it), but is this somewhere in the rules or REG for future reference?
Now that RDT has confirmed my ruling, it actually is official at this point (unless another elder comes in and disagrees).
However, you are correct that it would be good for this to be clarified in the new REG. I'm glad that this was brought up for discussion, and I appreciate all the input from everyone about their thoughts on the matter :)
-
Not that I don't trust you guys (though I do dislike the ruling as you've stated it), but is this somewhere in the rules or REG for future reference?
Now that RDT has confirmed my ruling, it actually is official at this point (unless another elder comes in and disagrees).
Right, I apologize if it came across that I didn't think it was official. My concern was whether or not it was/is in print somewhere not that you and RDT aren't official. :P
-
Right, I apologize if it came across that I didn't think it was official.
No prob, my man :)