Author Topic: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question (Read 6313 times)

Wings of Music · « **Reply #50 on:** March 24, 2012, 11:53:20 PM »

OK I guess that makes sense... (I think...)

Redoubter · « **Reply #51 on:** March 25, 2012, 08:31:36 AM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 24, 2012, 11:45:38 PM

TGT's special ability is targeting all cards not in battle and applying the ignore ability to them. ignore is not targeting, TGT is targeting which cards TO ignore. Thus TGT's special ability has a target, but ignore still has none. No contradiction.

Incorrect. TGT defines what cards have Ignore applied to them. The definition of Ignore itself defines what happens to them.

TGT does not say that these cards cannot enter battle, rather that is left to the definition of Ignore. The definition of Ignore states what cards cannot enter battle. It states that the cards must be "not in battle and ignored" to be excluded. Cards in hand are not "not in battle". Therefore, they are not excluded. They only meet one of the required conditions.

TGT is not the issue, but rather Ignore. I can use any Ignore example (Reuben's Torn Clothes, Spiritual Warfare, etc.). In each case, the card defines what is being ignored. However, the definition of Ignore itself is what excludes those cards from battle, and it does not exclude cards from hand. By the definition of Ignore, I can block from hand against any card using Ignore.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #52 on:** March 25, 2012, 10:02:59 AM »

So, are we going to get a second Elder confirmation of ProfessorAlstad's ruling, or any other Elder input? This thread has gone on long enough and needs to be brought to resolution. Either Redoubter needs to be made aware that the current ruling is final, or Elders need to acknowledge his complaint and respond to it.

theselfevident · « **Reply #53 on:** March 25, 2012, 11:08:05 AM »

If you rewrite the 3rd part of the the definition of ignore to "characters not in the field of battle and ignored cannot enter the field of battle" then this all goes away.

Redoubter · « **Reply #54 on:** March 25, 2012, 11:15:14 AM »

Quote from: theselfevident on March 25, 2012, 11:08:05 AM

If you rewrite the 3rd part of the the definition of ignore to "characters not in the field of battle and ignored cannot enter the field of battle" then this all goes away.

Actually, I still think that "not in the field of battle" would go to the same definition as "not in battle". If not, then we'll have two equivalent definitions, one for the first and another for the second, that's not something this game needs more of

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 25, 2012, 10:02:59 AM

Either Redoubter needs to be made aware that the current ruling is final, or Elders need to acknowledge his complaint and respond to it.

Yes please. I honestly don't care about which way it gets ruled (even if I do hate TGT, I don't argue a position based on my likes or dislikes). I just want the rule to be updated or ruled based on the recent changes in definitions. The "not in battle" not including hand decision affected more than just Mayhem and similar situations, that's the point I'm trying to make.

theselfevident · « **Reply #55 on:** March 25, 2012, 11:26:49 AM »

The field of battle is different than "not in battle" by the rewrite of the definition of "not in battle"... Once again, I strongly disagree with the rewrite of the definition of "not in battle"... the reason it was rewritten was due to cards that don't even get used in decks and it caused this issue... made little sense back when it was decided and now it makes no sense to have "not in battle" to consider hand not "not in battle".

Redoubter · « **Reply #56 on:** March 25, 2012, 11:40:23 AM »

Quote

Cards "not in battle" are cards found in (1) territories, (2) set aside areas, and (3) Lands of Redemption.

Quote

The phrase ‘in battle’ or ‘current battle’ refers to any cards in the current battle that can be either the primary battle (rescue attempt or battle challenge) or it can refer to a side battle, NOT BOTH. See also Battle Phase.

The phrase ‘Field of Battle’ refers to any cards in the Field of Battle including primary battle and side battles.

By the definitions in the REG, there is nothing there to say that "not in battle" is not equivalent to "not in the field of battle". They both refer to cards that are in battle (either the current battle or across all battles).

My suggested wording for #3 of Ignore, if there is to be a change to keep the status quo, would be:
"Ignored characters cannot be placed in battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle."

Either that or revert to the old definition of "not in battle" that makes more logical sense.

In addition, when we do get any answer, can we have someone let us know why we are being told Ignore does target the battle (accepted for now, not arguing it) when the REG states "Part (3) above has no target."? Thank you

Redoubter · « **Reply #57 on:** June 12, 2012, 09:10:05 PM »

Bumping this because no Elder has responded to these questions when there is a legitimate concern based on the change in "not in battle". If this is being discussed on the other side, can we be told so that we know what to expect?

I've summed it up in the posts above (short story: Ignore only has a restrict on cards "not in battle" from entering battle, but cards in hand, deck, and discard are not "not in battle" and therefore not excluded), along with a proposed wording change to keep the ability as currently ruled while removing inconsistency.

I'm bringing this up first because States, Regionals, and Nationals are all on top of us, and also because this does need some attention.

Thanks

Professoralstad · « **Reply #58 on:** June 13, 2012, 03:57:37 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 25, 2012, 11:40:23 AM

In addition, when we do get any answer, can we have someone let us know why we are being told Ignore does target the battle (accepted for now, not arguing it) when the REG states "Part (3) above has no target."? Thank you

The best way I can explain it is that "targeting the battlefield" is more of a concept used to describe what happens, and not really a targeting ability in the more traditional sense. When I used the phrase (I think it was me who said it) that was just how I had heard it explained before; it may not necessarily be the best way to phrase it. Another way to state it would be that ignore makes the state of the game to be such that certain EC's cannot enter battle (i.e. it "targets" the state of the game). It could certainly be made more clear, but for now that's how it has been and will continue to be interpreted/ruled, and hopefully clarification will happen eventually.

As for "not in battle", there is a difference between a phrase used in the REG and a phrase used on a card. Phrases on cards have to have certain wording to avoid awkward situations (e.g. "Not in battle" = "any card in the game not in the current battle" would allow Angry Mob getting all Heroes from hands, decks, and discard piles and shuffling them up). However, in the REG, the phrase is used in the more literal sense. I agree that that too could be made more clear, and perhaps making ignore a specialized type of restrict ability would be a way to do it. What I can say is that the way ignore does work (and will work for all of the upcoming tournies this summer) is that it stops players from putting certain characters in battle.

Hopefully that helps for now. I can't promise anything more solid than that is in the works, but at least it should be able to be ruled correctly for now.

Redoubter · « **Reply #59 on:** June 13, 2012, 05:12:23 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 13, 2012, 03:57:37 PM

As for "not in battle", there is a difference between a phrase used in the REG and a phrase used on a card. Phrases on cards have to have certain wording to avoid awkward situations (e.g. "Not in battle" = "any card in the game not in the current battle" would allow Angry Mob getting all Heroes from hands, decks, and discard piles and shuffling them up). However, in the REG, the phrase is used in the more literal sense. I agree that that too could be made more clear, and perhaps making ignore a specialized type of restrict ability would be a way to do it. What I can say is that the way ignore does work (and will work for all of the upcoming tournies this summer) is that it stops players from putting certain characters in battle.

If we're just going to say that "archaic" wording is what makes Angry Mob unable to target hand, deck, and discard, then why did we have an official ruling change to define "not in battle" to exclude those cases? This ruling change would not have been needed if Angry Mob just worked that way already, as that was the card that broke the rule.

The fact is that "not in battle" is on cards that see use, and they have all been treated exactly the same way, whether it was pre rule change or post. When Angry Mob forced a rule change on "not in battle", didn't Lampstand suddenly behave differently too? And all other cards (Royal Protection would've been an issue as well) with that wording were updated because the rule changed.

And if there is a specific change to the wording in that case, when it is used for Ignore, Ignore becomes broken. I challenge your statement that "in the REG, the phrase is used in the more literal sense", because the LITERAL sense of "not in battle" would include hand, deck, and discard. The fact that it was changed proves that it was done because it actually does reference the abilities on cards like Angry Mob. The same wording helps to define Ignore, and that was all well and good before the wording got changed, because then it truly meant 'not in battle'.

My point is that you (the Elders, not you specifically) unintentionally broke Ignore when you changed "not in battle", because as I've shown, it means the same thing as the definition given in the REG and the wording on cards. All I'm asking is that it be corrected in Ignore, because "not in battle" just doesn't mean what it used to, and I would be able to block from hand by the current wording. It's not an actual question of targeting, its a question of the meaning of "not in battle", because cards in my hand are not "not in battle" and therefore have no restriction against entering the field of battle.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #60 on:** June 13, 2012, 06:04:07 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 13, 2012, 03:57:37 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on March 25, 2012, 11:40:23 AM
In addition, when we do get any answer, can we have someone let us know why we are being told Ignore does target the battle (accepted for now, not arguing it) when the REG states "Part (3) above has no target."? Thank you

The best way I can explain it is that "targeting the battlefield" is more of a concept used to describe what happens, and not really a targeting ability in the more traditional sense. When I used the phrase (I think it was me who said it) that was just how I had heard it explained before; it may not necessarily be the best way to phrase it. Another way to state it would be that ignore makes the state of the game to be such that certain EC's cannot enter battle (i.e. it "targets" the state of the game). It could certainly be made more clear, but for now that's how it has been and will continue to be interpreted/ruled, and hopefully clarification will happen eventually.

As for "not in battle", there is a difference between a phrase used in the REG and a phrase used on a card. Phrases on cards have to have certain wording to avoid awkward situations (e.g. "Not in battle" = "any card in the game not in the current battle" would allow Angry Mob getting all Heroes from hands, decks, and discard piles and shuffling them up). However, in the REG, the phrase is used in the more literal sense. I agree that that too could be made more clear, and perhaps making ignore a specialized type of restrict ability would be a way to do it. What I can say is that the way ignore does work (and will work for all of the upcoming tournies this summer) is that it stops players from putting certain characters in battle.

Hopefully that helps for now. I can't promise anything more solid than that is in the works, but at least it should be able to be ruled correctly for now.

100% Support Prof A here. Not in battle is used in a literal sense in the REG. It was not only for Angry Mob that we changed the gameplay definition of Not in Battle - In fact we discussed simply errataing out the archaic language on him, until we realized that there were about a dozen other cards that also used the language, and frankly make a whole lot more sense with the definition change. When we hand out a new or changed ruling after deliberation on our side, we've usually covered all the bases. That's part of the reason that it takes so long sometimes.

Redoubter · « **Reply #61 on:** June 13, 2012, 09:12:12 PM »

You do see my problem here, right? I have no problem with the ruling how it is. In fact I was hoping for it to be the final result.

But you have now defined a very specific term in a very specific way and turn around and say that that exact phrase when applied to this one case means something completely different. That's not only confusing to many players, but it doesn't let the rules stand by themselves, as they should.

Again, I am saying that if this is the way it is supposed to be ruled, then Ignore needs an update to get rid of that "archaic" wording still used to define it. The rules need to be able to stand by themselves, without me having to know 'what was intended' (and we all know how well THAT goes half the time).

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question (Read 6313 times)

Wings of Music

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

Redoubter

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

YourMathTeacher

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

theselfevident

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

Redoubter

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

theselfevident

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

Redoubter

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

Redoubter

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

Professoralstad

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

Redoubter

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

Red Dragon Thorn

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question

Redoubter

Re: Unrevealed Evil Brigades and an ignore question