Author Topic: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2 (Read 3820 times)

Gabe · « **Reply #25 on:** August 15, 2011, 01:11:25 PM »

I just found the Grapes ruling here.

If a shuffle ability doesn't target the deck that's going to get shuffled, then I don't think a "bottomdeck" ability (expect a new keyword next year

) targets the deck, only the card that's being bottom decked. Following that logic a return to hand ability only targets the card being returned.

That all seems very illogical to me but Tim and Bryon both agreed. Those guys wrote a large part of the new REG and have a greater understanding of the rules than I do so I submit to their wisdom.

MitchRobStew · « **Reply #26 on:** August 15, 2011, 01:16:28 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 15, 2011, 01:11:25 PM

I just found the Grapes ruling here.

If a shuffle ability doesn't target the deck that's going to get shuffled, then I don't think a "bottomdeck" ability (expect a new keyword next year ) targets the deck, only the card that's being bottom decked. Following that logic a return to hand ability only targets the card being returned.

That all seems very illogical to me but Tim and Bryon both agreed. Those guys wrote a large part of the new REG and have a greater understanding of the rules than I do so I submit to their wisdom.

Wait so Thadd doesn't protect from Scribe...... That might have cost me another win at Nationals.... Its seems illogical that Scribe and Ahimelek don't have two targets.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #27 on:** August 15, 2011, 01:19:41 PM »

Yeah, I think this needs to be extrapolated to other circumstances. Is there another other example besides Scribe and Thadd that would be relevant? The more examples we see, perhaps the more clear it would be.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #28 on:** August 20, 2011, 10:33:06 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 15, 2011, 01:11:25 PM

That all seems very illogical to me but Tim and Bryon both agreed. Those guys wrote a large part of the new REG and have a greater understanding of the rules than I do so I submit to their wisdom.

Bump for Logic on the ruling.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2011, 01:07:18 AM »

I'd still like to hear the logic on this. Gabe said he felt it was illogical, so I'd like to hear what the elders who actually made the ruling have to say. Thanks.

Bryon · « **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2011, 04:00:12 AM »

"Return a hero to territory" - targets hero, not the territory
"return hero to hand" targets hero, not hand
"Discard a hero" targets hero, not the discard pile
"Set aside a hero" targets hero, not the set aside area
"shuffle/topdeck/underdeck a hero" targets hero, not the deck

These cards target the card that is gettng moved, not the location to which it is moved.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2 (Read 3820 times)

Gabe

Re: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2

MitchRobStew

Re: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2

Alex_Olijar

Re: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2

Alex_Olijar

Re: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2

Alex_Olijar

Re: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2

Bryon

Re: Theoretical Query to theoretically unbreak type 2