Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: LordZardeck on March 18, 2012, 11:37:19 PM
-
Is it true that SoG can't rescue from sites, and that it can't rescue the N.T or */4 ls? What about in combination with NJ?
-
SoG can indeed rescue from Sites, but it can't rescue ^/4 or NT. NJ can't rescue Female Only.
-
Haha, sorry. My personal text is a joke Alex made when we were playing in RTS yesterday. It cracked me up for some reason.
-
I'm hilarious.
-
So hilarious he killed POTW
-
Though to be fair, Son of God shouldn't be able to rescue from sites if it can't rescue the NT, etc. How exactly is it getting access? It's brigade-less and can't use any site to gain access.
-
Alex does make a good point, especially when you consider the new rescue rules. Since Son of God can't rescue any LS anymore, an argument could be made.
-
At this rate, you won't be seeing SoG or NJ in very many decks any more
-
Can we save that thread for next month? There's already been too many 2+ pagers.
-
Can we save that thread for next month? There's already been too many 2+ pagers.
Not until justice has been served. I'm actually serious now. Why can SoG rescue from sites? It makes no sense.
-
SOG is multicolor
I
I
V
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSon%2520of%2520God%2520%28AL%29.gif&hash=46fa49017c4d72452fcfc78269c50d2ee2d05da8)
-
Can we save that thread for next month? There's already been too many 2+ pagers.
Not until justice has been served. I'm actually serious now. Why can SoG rescue from sites? It makes no sense.
While I like my SoG rescuing in sites, I do agree with this
-
You know, being multicolor, I'd almost say that implies brigades. Which in turn would imply that a hero would need to be in play to play a good dom. ::)
-
Except that the rules let you play Doms at any time.
-
SOG is multicolor
I
I
V
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSon%2520of%2520God%2520%28AL%29.gif&hash=46fa49017c4d72452fcfc78269c50d2ee2d05da8)
That's not multi-brigade any more than fortresses are multi-brigade.
-
SOG is multicolor
I
I
V
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fredemptionreg.com%2FREG%2FLinkedDocuments%2FSon%2520of%2520God%2520%28AL%29.gif&hash=46fa49017c4d72452fcfc78269c50d2ee2d05da8)
Son of God (G)
Type: Lamb • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Rescue any Lost Soul in play. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Revelation 1:12-13 • Availability: G Deck
No.
-
Obligatory reg is wrong, followed by obligatory it's right because it supports my argument. The color behind the lamb is the same as on multicolor heroes and enhancements. Therefore, multicolor
-
This thread has been averaging a post per minute since inception...oh goodness.
And maybe I'm old-school, but I read "May rescue any Lost Soul" to mean...well, ANY Lost Soul. Guess I misread that part of The Commandments...
Let's not make "ANY" mean "anything...EXCEPT for XYZ" anymore than it already is please.
And Doms and Forts have no brigade. Which is why Philetus works really well.
-
This thread has been averaging a post per minute since inception...oh goodness.
And maybe I'm old-school, but I read "May rescue any Lost Soul" to mean...well, ANY Lost Soul. Guess I misread that part of The Commandments...
Let's not make "ANY" mean "anything...EXCEPT for XYZ" anymore than it already is please.
And Doms and Forts have no brigade. Which is why Philetus works.
So SoG can rescue the NT Lost Soul and from our own territories?
-
Obligatory reg is wrong, followed by obligatory it's right because it supports my argument. The color behind the lamb is the same as on multicolor heroes and enhancements. Therefore, multicolor
You are wrong. You are welcome to get the ruling on if Zadok Anoints Solomon can search for Son of God. The answer is no. Because it doesn't have a brigade.
-
So SoG can rescue the NT Lost Soul and from our own territories?
If I had my way >:(
Luckily for everyone, I don't control the rules of this game ;)
-
You are wrong. You are welcome to get the ruling on if Zadok Anoints Solomon can search for Son of God. The answer is no. Because it doesn't have a brigade.
I am also going to go with no, because SOG is N.T. and Zadok Anoints Solomon searchs for an OT card.
-
You are wrong. You are welcome to get the ruling on if Zadok Anoints Solomon can search for Son of God. The answer is no. Because it doesn't have a brigade.
I am also going to go with no, because SOG is N.T. and Zadok Anoints Solomon searchs for an OT card.
Fine. Angel of the Lord, New Jerusalem, any fort, etc.
-
You are wrong. You are welcome to get the ruling on if Zadok Anoints Solomon can search for Son of God. The answer is no. Because it doesn't have a brigade.
I am also going to go with no, because SOG is N.T. and Zadok Anoints Solomon searchs for an OT card.
Fair. Ask the question with NJ then and you'd get my answer.
-
I'mma let him do it - But only because you're the one arguing against it Olijar ;)
But in all seriousness - Son of God can't be searched for via a brigade specific card.
As to whether or not it can rescue from sites, I'll leave that for somebody more qualified to answer the specifics, and simply state the status quo ruling that it can.
-
As to whether or not it can rescue from sites, I'll leave that for somebody more qualified to answer the specifics, and simply state the status quo ruling that it can.
I understand the status quo ruling. It's just wrong. Who even made you an elder? ;)
-
I would argue that it can. The icon tells me that dominants are multibrigade. There is nothing in the rulebook that says one way or the other and I don't trust the REG.
Second point, there is nothing in the rules that says dominants NEED access. Sites only require heroes to have access, therefore does not apply to doms
-
Trust me then when I tell you that Dominants do not have brigades.
-
And what of the second point? What would even require a dominant to have site access since sites only restrict heroes?
-
And what of the second point? What would even require a dominant to have site access since sites only restrict heroes?
Find me a quote from the REG that says that sites only restrict heroes.
-
This is the only quote in the REG or rulebook I can find that says anything about needing site access to rescue a soul and it specifically says heroes. I do not need to provide a quote that says it doesn't apply to dominants, as it specifically says heroes and nothing else.
Access to a Site
To rescue a Lost Soul in a site, a Hero must have access to the site. If a Hero does not have access to a Lost Soul, then the battle is a battle challenge. A Hero has access to a site if:
the Hero’s icon box contains a matching brigade color in the icon box of the site, or
a special ability gives the Hero access to the site, or
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.
-
If the only evidence you can find is that doms aren't mentioned (an oversight in the REG? never!), then I'm forced to conclude that we have a real case here.
-
No you don't. Lampy says protect from evil cards, it doesn't say don't protect from good cards, So are they protected from good cards too? No. it's the same situation, it specifically says heroes, it doesn't not to state what it DOESN'T restrict when it specifically says what it restricts. It's in the REG, in the rulebook, and that's how we've been playing it. You have not even the smallest sliver of evidence to support that dominants need site access, you have no case, your argument has zero merit, and you are grasping at straws AGAIN. The rulebook does not need to list all the things a card does not protect from when it says what it does, it is perfectly safe to draw the conclusion that if it doesn't say it's protected than it's not protected. And if you want sites to have to specifically NOT restrict doms then you are, by direct correlation, demanding that EVERY SINGLE CARD THAT DOES ANYTHING to be errata'd to also say what it does not do.
-
Trust me then when I tell you that Dominants do not have brigades.
+1
This is the only quote in the REG or rulebook I can find that says anything about needing site access to rescue a soul and it specifically says heroes.
+1
-
To rescue a Lost Soul in a site, a Hero must have access to the site.
Is that worded correctly? Does "a Hero" mean "rescuing hero"?
-
To rescue a Lost Soul in a site, a Hero must have access to the site.
Is that worded correctly? Does "a Hero" mean "rescuing hero"?
Yes.
-
To the elders,
I am certainly aware of the status quo ruling. I am curious as to the rationale behind that ruling. Obviously Son of God can be restricted (by NT soul, by */4 souls), so why don't sites restrict it?
-
Because it specifically says that sites restrict heroes, therefore things that it does not say are restricted are not restricted.
-
Because it specifically says that sites restrict heroes, therefore things that it does not say are restricted are not restricted.
Son of God functions essentially as a hero using rescuer's choice rules. I don't see it as being any different. Are there rules in place for Son of God that are different than rules for hero that don't have to do with the fact that one is a dominant and one is a hero?
-
If SOG functions essentially as a hero than their is no reason that it shouldn't be able to rescue the NT only. No their aren't such rules as they would be unnecassary and redundant.
-
If SOG functions essentially as a hero than their is no reason that it shouldn't be able to rescue the NT only. No their aren't such rules as they would be unnecassary and redundant.
Actually, there is, because the NT only specifies NT Hero. Son of God isn't an NT Hero.
-
Because it specifically says that sites restrict heroes, therefore things that it does not say are restricted are not restricted.
Son of God functions essentially as a hero using rescuer's choice rules. I don't see it as being any different. Are there rules in place for Son of God that are different than rules for hero that don't have to do with the fact that one is a dominant and one is a hero?
Yeah.
-Heroes have to make a rescue attempt
-Heroes are blocked by EC's
-Heroes are an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CARD TYPE
This is like saying Grapes and ANB should have the same rules applied to them because they both shuffle.
-
Because it specifically says that sites restrict heroes, therefore things that it does not say are restricted are not restricted.
Son of God functions essentially as a hero using rescuer's choice rules. I don't see it as being any different. Are there rules in place for Son of God that are different than rules for hero that don't have to do with the fact that one is a dominant and one is a hero?
Yeah.
-Heroes have to make a rescue attempt
-Heroes are blocked by EC's
-Heroes are an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CARD TYPE
This is like saying Grapes and ANB should have the same rules applied to them because they both shuffle.
The root question I am asking is what makes a rescue different when it is by a hero vs. by a dominant?
-
If SOG functions essentially as a hero than their is no reason that it shouldn't be able to rescue the NT only. No their aren't such rules as they would be unnecassary and redundant.
Actually, there is, because the NT only specifies NT Hero. Son of God isn't an NT Hero.
And sites only specifies heroes, which SOG is not. What is so hard about this?
-
To the elders,
I am certainly aware of the status quo ruling. I am curious as to the rationale behind that ruling. Obviously Son of God can be restricted (by NT soul, by */4 souls), so why don't sites restrict it?
There is no rule that says "Lost Souls in Sites can only be rescued by Heroes with access to that site". The only rule given is that in order for a Hero to rescue a LS in a site, that hero must have access to the site.
NT and */4 stop SoG via a Protect ability. Sites do not have any sort of inherent protect ability.
-
If SOG functions essentially as a hero than their is no reason that it shouldn't be able to rescue the NT only. No their aren't such rules as they would be unnecassary and redundant.
Actually, there is, because the NT only specifies NT Hero. Son of God isn't an NT Hero.
And sites only specifies heroes, which SOG is not. What is so hard about this?
That rule has been in place under the assumption that SoG can't be restricted. We have now determined it can be ( to be fair we did awhile ago but I hadn't thought about sites ). Therefore, I think we seriously need to revisit if SoG should be able to rescue a soul from a site. I am trying to make the game more consistent. It's pretty inconsistent to have different rules for the same function between different card types. Wouldn't it be easier if you just said "You can't rescue from sites unless your card has the same brigade as the site". It would be more consistent and easier to explain.
To the elders,
I am certainly aware of the status quo ruling. I am curious as to the rationale behind that ruling. Obviously Son of God can be restricted (by NT soul, by */4 souls), so why don't sites restrict it?
There is no rule that says "Lost Souls in Sites can only be rescued by Heroes with access to that site". The only rule given is that in order for a Hero to rescue a LS in a site, that hero must have access to the site.
NT and */4 stop SoG via a Protect ability. Sites do not have any sort of inherent protect ability.
I'm pretty sure 90% of this forum would suggest the first rule you posted in this response was actually the rule. I realize that it is not the rule, but that's how pretty much everyone states it.
How don't sites have an inherent protect ability? Game rule as stated grants them an inherent protect ability. There's no reason why that shouldn't extend to dominants (other than arbitrarily believing old language left over from Womens, which seems stupid seeing how much inconsistent language and poorly expressed rules we have from olden times still).
-
No you don't. Lampy says protect from evil cards, it doesn't say don't protect from good cards, So are they protected from good cards too? No. it's the same situation, it specifically says heroes, it doesn't not to state what it DOESN'T restrict when it specifically says what it restricts. It's in the REG, in the rulebook, and that's how we've been playing it. You have not even the smallest sliver of evidence to support that dominants need site access, you have no case, your argument has zero merit, and you are grasping at straws AGAIN. The rulebook does not need to list all the things a card does not protect from when it says what it does, it is perfectly safe to draw the conclusion that if it doesn't say it's protected than it's not protected. And if you want sites to have to specifically NOT restrict doms then you are, by direct correlation, demanding that EVERY SINGLE CARD THAT DOES ANYTHING to be errata'd to also say what it does not do.
You know what Alec, I enjoy "grasping for straws" and arguing for obscure rulings and arguing against the status quo. I think it helps force people who pay attention to these sorts of threads to reexamine different rules and rulings and look at why some rules are the way they are. You, yourself, learned something in this thread by discovering that dominants and fortresses don't have brigades, which you apparently believed, considering how vehemently you argued that they did. Last time, in the Split Altar thread, we actually ended up uncovering a pretty huge inconsistency with the rules, and I'd call that a major victory, even if the Elders have refused to do anything about it. So if I want to argue for rulings like this, I'll do it, because it's certainly not doing any harm to the forum, and every once in a while some visible good comes of it. I'm sorry if it annoys you, but you're free to just ignore my posts if they really bother you so much you feel the need to argue with me half the time I post.
-
In the split altar thread you had a point, one that was ignored and that's been beaten to death, but you had one. In this thread you don't. I didn't believe SOG had brigades before hand. That was a stale tactic until I could find better evidence, which I did in that sites only restrict heroes not dominants.
-
In the split altar thread you had a point, one that was ignored and that's been beaten to death, but you had one. In this thread you don't. I didn't believe SOG had brigades before hand. That was a stale tactic until I could find better evidence, which I did in that sites only restrict heroes not dominants.
So what you were doing was arguing just to argue, even though you didn't really believe in the argument you were trying to present? Isn't that more-or-less the thing I do that makes you so angry?
-
I was stalling until I could find better evidence, although I didn't think that dominants had brigades I also didn't inherently think they didn't. I wasn't using something I knew was false I was using something that was flimsy but might have worked, I didn't believe it was going to but it was worth a shot. This is different from bringing up a resolved beaten to death issue that already has several rulings and a cult following.
-
I'm pretty sure 90% of this forum would suggest the first rule you posted in this response was actually the rule. I realize that it is not the rule, but that's how pretty much everyone states it.
Then you could tell those 90% that if that were the case, then you couldn't rescue a Lost Soul from a site with Son of God. And most of them would be like: "Oh. That makes sense."
How don't sites have an inherent protect ability? Game rule as stated grants them an inherent protect ability. There's no reason why that shouldn't extend to dominants (other than arbitrarily believing old language left over from Womens, which seems stupid seeing how much inconsistent language and poorly expressed rules we have from olden times still).
Because nothing has "inherent" special abilities of any kind. There are merely game rules that dictate how cards are played, and the game rule for sites simply says that a Hero must have access to a site in order to rescue a LS from the site. That's it. If sites had any sort of inherent protect ability, what would stop Iron Pan from giving access to all sites for all heroes?
Yes, old language/rules are often inconsistent and poorly expressed. But Sites have worked just fine since 1997 without any restriction on Son of God, so if that part of the old rules don't need to be changed, then they shouldn't be.
You know what Alec, I enjoy "grasping for straws" and arguing for obscure rulings and arguing against the status quo. I think it helps force people who pay attention to these sorts of threads to reexamine different rules and rulings and look at why some rules are the way they are. You, yourself, learned something in this thread by discovering that dominants and fortresses don't have brigades, which you apparently believed, considering how vehemently you argued that they did. Last time, in the Split Altar thread, we actually ended up uncovering a pretty huge inconsistency with the rules, and I'd call that a major victory, even if the Elders have refused to do anything about it. So if I want to argue for rulings like this, I'll do it, because it's certainly not doing any harm to the forum, and every once in a while some visible good comes of it. I'm sorry if it annoys you, but you're free to just ignore my posts if they really bother you so much you feel the need to argue with me half the time I post.
The problem with arguing points that you know are not going to make a difference (like this one--obviously SoG/NJ will be able to rescue from sites as they always have) is that your persistence necessitates involvement from those of us who are supposed to be ruling authorities, which takes our time away from other pursuits that may be more helpful to the community.
-
The problem with arguing points that you know are not going to make a difference (like this one--obviously SoG/NJ will be able to rescue from sites as they always have) is that your persistence necessitates involvement from those of us who are supposed to be ruling authorities, which takes our time away from other pursuits that may be more helpful to the community.
Neither Alex and I believed we really had any kind of a legitimate argument until RDT responded and noted that he couldn't come up with a good reason beyond the status quo. At that point, I think our argument did gain some legitimacy for a while there. Your second post in this thread convinced me that we had no traction, but up to that point, the only argument we really had against us was, "Doms totally have brigades. Like, totally." Nobody in this thread asked for an Elder ruling (unless Alex did at some point and I missed it), but I apologize for wasting your time then.
I was stalling until I could find better evidence, although I didn't think that dominants had brigades I also didn't inherently think they didn't. I wasn't using something I knew was false I was using something that was flimsy but might have worked, I didn't believe it was going to but it was worth a shot. This is different from bringing up a resolved beaten to death issue that already has several rulings and a cult following.
Then if you don't have a substantial argument against an opinion you don't like, don't argue it. This is a message board, not a debate club. It's not as if all of the Elders would have gotten together and gone, "Great Scott! He's right!" and changed the rule if you waited 30 minutes to actually find a legitimate argument. That's talking just to make your voice heard.
-
I do have have a substantial argument against it, sites only restrict heroes, you have no substantial argument for it yet you continue to argue it. Hi Pot, I'm Kettle nice to meet you.
-
I do have have a substantial argument against it, sites only restrict heroes, you have no substantial argument for it yet you continue to argue it. Hi Pot, I'm Kettle nice to meet you.
I haven't argued for it since two Elders posted disagreeing with me. In fact, in my previous post, I specifically noted that Jordan's second post (which detailed exactly why the ruling worked, and did a better job of understanding our argument and explaining why it didn't work) had convinced me that there's no weight in our argument.
-
I apologize for wasting your time then.
Don't worry, I waste plenty of my time all by myself on these forums. But I may not always be in the mood to procrastinate from my other responsibilities, and when that occurs, it's nice to be able to spend the time I do have addressing more pressing issues. Like how we can make sure to design a card from the new set that everyone complains about and still builds decks from anyway. Yeah, I remember when I suggested: "Hey, if we're reprinting Judges, I think Samuel could use a reprint!" ::)
-
I apologize for wasting your time then.
Don't worry, I waste plenty of my time all by myself on these forums. But I may not always be in the mood to procrastinate from my other responsibilities, and when that occurs, it's nice to be able to spend the time I do have addressing more pressing issues. Like how we can make sure to design a card from the new set that everyone complains about and still builds decks from anyway. Yeah, I remember when I suggested: "Hey, if we're reprinting Judges, I think Samuel could use a reprint!" ::)
Don't forget to make sure that such cards never actually win March Madness (Thad, Sam, etc).
-
Don't worry, we'll make him a Silver Hero that can be the cornerstone of a deck that The Strong Angel will fit in as an alternative win strategy. So clearly TSA will beat him in the Silver category.
-
Nah, we have The Angel Under the Oak rocking March Madness this year. If he doesn't win, I'll be more than a little angry.
-
Oh! Oh! Oh! Can we get a new card that will make Doubt super-playable and uberpowerful? I would love to see what you'd have to go through to make that happen...
-
That's something I haven't thought of. With the new dom cap, Cactus can start printing new doms with little complaint.
-
Ok, point I haven't seen made yet....
From a biblical standpoint, does it even make sense that there would even be a site or person that the Son of God (Jesus) would have access to? NT only and */4 only notwithstanding, it seems to make good sense anyway that SoG would have access to LS in sites, because who can withstand Him?
-
Ok, point I haven't seen made yet....
From a biblical standpoint, does it even make sense that there would even be a site or person that the Son of God (Jesus) would have access to? NT only and */4 only notwithstanding, it seems to make good sense anyway that SoG would have access to LS in sites, because who can withstand Him?
Altar of Ahaz can. Oh, and Lost Souls in your own territory. They can too.
-
Prior to the new rules you could have made that argument, but now that you can't rescue your own LSs with SOG that argument is nerfed.
-
Prior to the new rules you could have made that argument, but now that you can't rescue your own LSs with SOG that argument is nerfed.
Not really. From a theology standpoint, it doesn't make ANY sense for there to be 2 Sons of God in a game, and yet virtually every game does (yours and mine). The logical explanation is that your offensive side of the game and my offensive side of the game are like they are in different universes, and thus you can have a Son of God in your side of the game and so can I.
This same logic would indicate that it would make sense for my SoG to be able to rescue all LSs in your LoB (because those are the ones that are in His universe so to speak), while your Son of God could rescue all the LSs in my LoB (because those are the ones that are in His universe so to speak).
Of course we all know that the NT only and */4 only can NOT be rescued by SoG, but I just wanted to point out that Maynid's argument DOES have some logic behind it :)
-
Son of God can change universes via Thievery of Judas. Like that really old serial of Doctor Who, Inferno.
-
your Son of God could rescue all the LSs in my LoB
No it can't, not until Rob prints a way to recur SoG. ;)
-
Not really. From a theology standpoint, it doesn't make ANY sense for there to be 2 Sons of God in a game, and yet virtually every game does (yours and mine).
Actually this does make perfect sense, it's not like the good sides are fighting each other (in general) so maybe at one point in time Jesus decides to save one lost soul for one side and later he decides to rescue another one for the other side, the really confusing part is why would he usurp a rescue from a hero (when you used it to rescue your own) not that he couldn't do it, but that it would be counterproductive.
Of course all of this is a moot point anyway since it is, after all, a game and occasionally illogical things happen in games.