Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Reduced=decreased. There, it's defined. 

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on September 05, 2009, 09:20:57 AM

Under any standard definition removing something completely (negating it) is a form of reducing it.

Is "Reduced" defined in Redemption?

No, "reduced" is not defined in Redemption. By this I mean it is not listed as a definition in the REG. Nor does  the word "reduce" appear in the section on Increase or Decrease Abilties cards, where it is made clear that the discussion is centered on numeric abilities solely.

"Reduce" is a special ability that lowers the number abilities of a character, right?

That's the working definition I always used, but that was back when the word "abilities" standing by itself meant numeric abilities only.  Now that it was made clear that "abilities" means numeric + special abilities, my original working definition would appear to be incorrect.

So then, I Am Sustainer doesn't do anything, since "reduced" is not defined?

Given that the default was always that words that don't have a special Redemption definition were assumed to use the standard English definition, I am not sure what this claim is supposed to mean.

No one has given me a reason that "abilities" can't apply to both numerical and special abilities, given that we define "reduce" as I did above.

Are there any other cards that would cause concern?

I thought the big push for the past few years has been to get away from issuing rulings on a card-by-card basis. Are we really pushing to go back to that?

well i suppose self and fallen warrior just got a whole lot more powerful, seeing as how 'abilities' now blankets 'special abilities' as well. i guess those parenthesis arent really there for a reason.

I thought about Fallen Warrior before I posted I Am Sustainer. I don't think he is a very good example, however, because the parenthetical aside (*/*) makes is clear what "abilities" are referring too. Although if Fallen Warrior was reinterpreted in this way, we we would never have to hear the black is weak, ever again. 

Parmenas should be able to draw three cards if The Branch was placed on him ahead of time, however.

and thats what i came across almost every time in the card list: either 'abilities' referring strictly to numbers, or 'abilties (*/*)'.

if 'abilities' = (*/*), then the parenthetical text is redundant and irrelevant, leaving just 'abilities'. and now, if abilities = special abilities as well, then fallen warrior and self just became more useable. or wait, that probably wasn't as 'intended'. or 'designed'. or these cards only do what the people that 'know' they do.

whatever. be consistent. either change the REG or errata ttl, thats all im saying.

The Branch? Wow, where'd you pull that one from?

I'm probably not supposed to let the cat out of the bag--but what the heck...

The Branch played a major role in The Guardians's T2 Strength in Weakness deck.   

David Easterling's Redemption Guide said that they remained decimal numbers (5/4 + 2.5/2 = 7.5/6).

I'm probably not supposed to let the cat out of the bag--but what the heck...

The Branch played a major role in The Guardians's T2 Strength in Weakness deck.   

Can't believe you betrayed my trust like that...