Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: The Guardian on July 25, 2017, 12:08:50 PM
-
Open forum with two guidelines:
--Please be specific, clear and concise. Walls of text are not needed.
--Understand that this is NOT a "What rules should we change?" forum or a place to debate rulings--this is an effort to look for things that we can better convey in updates to the rulebook and the REG.
If you agree with a previously posted answer, feel free to simply quote it and add a +1.
-
Rules that seen counterintuitive, or rather that you need to have a rule book open to know that they exist. I find it best when you can just read a card and know exactly how it works without having to know defaults/other rules. An example of this is David the Shepard can add the hero he searched for to play, but not to battle, which is in play, because of the default that says in play doesn't mean in battle
-
That's a good example though I think the bigger issue with that particular scenario is that we should have used "put in territory" instead of "play."
Keep in mind though that having default conditions allows us to keep abilities short, which can allow for more versatile abilities. Perhaps the best example of this was the change to Lost Souls being discarded from deck so that we didn't have to keep using "Put Lost Souls in play instead" every time we wanted to have a deck discard ability.
-
I agree that card could have been fixed by changing the word, it was the only one that came to mind. I was considering putting the LS example you shared actually as well. I know keeping wordings short is also very important, but it makes it harder for people to pick up the game when the cards don't function they way the appear to read on the card. A balance is important
-
Example: Cards granting CBN are inherently CBN.
Reason: Seems illogical to have a special ability that inherently gains CBN when it states it no where on the cards that they are. Although this is easy to "understand" once you know it, it still makes no sense and is not really clear to a player of the game.
-
What gets me is cards that grant CBP or CBI becoming CBN. to me if they grant CBP/CBI, they should be CBP/CBI themselves, not CBN
-
Example: Cards granting CBN are inherently CBN.
Reason: Seems illogical to have a special ability that inherently gains CBN when it states it no where on the cards that they are. Although this is easy to "understand" once you know it, it still makes no sense and is not really clear to a player of the game.
An important distinction--phrases such as "Cannot be interrupted," "Cannot be prevented," and "Cannot be negated" are not actually special abilities. They are classified as "modifiers." That is something spelled out in the REG that most likely will be added to the updated rulebook.
However, because they appear right alongside special abilities it is certainly logical to think that they are special abilities. I'm not sure if there's a way to make that readily apparent on the cards themselves, but it's worth looking into.
-
What gets me is cards that grant CBP or CBI becoming CBN. to me if they grant CBP/CBI, they should be CBP/CBI themselves, not CBN
That's a fair point, and perhaps that is not the way it should be worded.
As I mentioned above, those "abilities" are actually modifiers so the fact that they cannot be negated is really just a function of the fact that they aren't special abilities at all, and because interrupt/prevent/negate targets abilities (not modifiers) that is why they become inherently CBN.
Would it make more sense for a "Modifiers" entry to simply say that they are not special abilities and therefore are not affected by interrupt/prevent/negate abilities?
-
Example: Cards granting CBN are inherently CBN.
Reason: Seems illogical to have a special ability that inherently gains CBN when it states it no where on the cards that they are. Although this is easy to "understand" once you know it, it still makes no sense and is not really clear to a player of the game.
An important distinction--phrases such as "Cannot be interrupted," "Cannot be prevented," and "Cannot be negated" are not actually special abilities. They are classified as "modifiers." That is something spelled out in the REG that most likely will be added to the updated rulebook.
However, because they appear right alongside special abilities it is certainly logical to think that they are special abilities. I'm not sure if there's a way to make that readily apparent on the cards themselves, but it's worth looking into.
Correct, I agree that they need to be easily spelled out because they are literally special ability text. Maybe an icon besides those abilities? That adds to the point because making that distinction makes it easy to see that you cannot negate a card which grants CBN.
The UI/UX development side of me sees special ability text on a card and as a user I understand that everything within that text must be a special ability. An icon or perhaps making the text colored differently/different font might clarify the point to everyone.
-
1. Mandatory triggers abilities persist until the end of the phase but when optional triggered abilities leave play they fizzle. What about a card leaving play assumes that you choose not to use it?
2. It was mentioned before that the trigger section's language should be cleared up and moving away from "activate". Moreover, it is not clear that triggered abilities are a type of ongoing ability, more accurately "like" an ongoing ability. From the ongoing ability section: "Ongoing abilities are abilities that have an ongoing effect on the game or specific cards." Since the triggered ability does not have an ongoing effect when it activates, but only the trigger, it follows that triggered abilities are not a type of ongoing ability.
3. You can heal any hero of poison, paralysis,..etc but not discard.
4. I think step 3 of battle resolution could be more clear, it doesn't hurt to make it painfully obvious that it follows through on the determinations in 1 and 2. In 3 it says to do relevant abilities then it could leave some people hanging ---> "All unaffected cards are treated under normal gameplay rules (such as discard,
return to territory, Land of Redemption, etc)".
5. "play" ---> "activate" in the "cannot gain Cb I/P/N" retroactively rule
-
It would be nice if abilities and modifiers relied less on wording for distinction and more on the design of the card. like Zerutul suggested some sort of icons or divided text or something that gave more precise meaning besides trying to decipher a cards wording. perhaps even divide the ability of a card into instant/ongoing abilities etc...
-
Also, no one likes to read, and this is true in any game. Partially the confusion comes from having to read the REG in full to actually win the game of Redemption. (Because you are heavily at a disadvantage if you don't) No game should depend so exclusively on having to read a giant document to actually be "good" at the game with deck building. This really stinks because when you think you have a win condition and someone says "Nah, even though the card says that its not what it means" makes you not want to play the game.
-
I agree that card could have been fixed by changing the word, it was the only one that came to mind. I was considering putting the LS example you shared actually as well. I know keeping wordings short is also very important, but it makes it harder for people to pick up the game when the cards don't function they way the appear to read on the card. A balance is important
I'd like to +1 and add: It can make for abilities to work differently then intended or just defeat the purpose like Creeping Deceiver, High Priest Ananias, ...etc and being inconsistent with what gets "may" before draw and what doesn't. I can't believe that all the mandatory draws are for balancing. Use your words lol!
-
To be very honest, I played MTG which is an incredibly in depth card game with tons of variety. It's taken me more time to understand the real rules of a game I played when I was 10 (redemption) then to understand a card game that has 1000's of more cards then it (MTG).
-
I can't believe that all the mandatory draws are for balancing. Use your words lol!
You're right that not all of them are for balancing...a lot of them were quite intentional. ::)
-
The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.
There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".
-
The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.
There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".
+1
I agree that card could have been fixed by changing the word, it was the only one that came to mind. I was considering putting the LS example you shared actually as well. I know keeping wordings short is also very important, but it makes it harder for people to pick up the game when the cards don't function they way the appear to read on the card. A balance is important
+1
-
The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.
There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".
+1
And to add to that: "these characters are not considered to have entered battle this turn" or something, just to be painfully clear.
-
The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.
There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".
+1
And to add to that: "these characters are not considered to have entered battle this turn" or something, just to be painfully clear.
If that's accurate that's yet another part of cascade negate I didn't even know existed after playing this game almost 10 years.
-
The entire concept of cascade negation exists as a single line in the REG and I couldn't even find it just now when I went to look for it to quote here. It isn't under the negate section or the band section.
There should be an entry (preferably under band) that says something along the lines of "if a band ability is negated, all characters banded into to battle by the negated ability are negated as well".
+1
-
Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO
-
Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO
I absolutely agree but I've brought up that subject before and it doesn't seem there is any chance of that happening.
I did manage to find the REG quote that is supposed to address cascade negation: "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and it keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing."
Also from a previous thread I made on this topic, I was told this will be changed in REG 5.0 to "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and any ability activated because of the negated ability. A negate ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing."
As far as I'm concerned this is an acceptable general level clarification although I think it should be redundantly added to the ability description of every ability that can be cascaded (Band, Use Any Enhancements, Search, and Draw are all that come to mind) so that it can be found when people go to that ability's entry looking for it.
-
I just had a flash back to the "Cheribum to ET to Protection of Angels blocked by TFG" thread... hold me :'(
-
Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO
Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO
I absolutely agree.
+1
-
I just had a flash back to the "Cheribum to ET to Protection of Angels blocked by TFG" thread... hold me :'(
Could you give a brief synopsis of what happened in that thread?
-
no haha but essentially the thread was way back before it was commonly understood that negate targets abilities and not characters.
-
Territory class characters blink when they enter battle, but enhancements don't.
-
Territory class characters blink when they enter battle, but enhancements don't.
The simple explanation for that is to remember that characters innately are only active in battle while enhancements are innately active anywhere you can put them on the table. Territory class on a character is what makes its ability active while territory class on an enhancement just enables you to put it down on the table and is not needed for its ability to be active.
-
perhaps even divide the ability of a card into instant/ongoing abilities etc...
Intriguing...
Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO
Cascade negate creates loops and shouldn't exist anyways. IMO
I absolutely agree.
+1
+1 wholeheartedly.
PS- I copied this whole thing in the hopes that this agreement cascades.
-
i like cascade negate it makes sense i think implied abilities and things just not being all in one place(come to think of it cascade negate is kind of an implied ability) brings more questions to the boards along with unique situations. some things in the rule book could fit into the reg and the reg is already really great for navigating with its contents listed and linked. maybe the ten rules of redemption in it? that seems to be a great resource for entry level play
http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/the-ten-commandments-of-redemption/ (http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/the-ten-commandments-of-redemption/)
i mean maybe this being in the reg would make a lot of things clear. #5 and #7 people seem to forget or not know to begin with
#5 - Negates Cascade; Any Cards That Take Effect as the Result of a Negated Card, are Also Negated
#7 - Rock (protect/immune/ignore) beats scissors (cannot be negated); scissors beats paper (interrupt/prevent/negate); paper beats rock.
-
i like cascade negate it makes sense i think implied abilities and things just not being all in one place(come to think of it cascade negate is kind of an implied ability) brings more questions to the boards along with unique situations. some things in the rule book could fit into the reg and the reg is already really great for navigating with its contents listed and linked. maybe the ten rules of redemption in it? that seems to be a great resource for entry level play
http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/the-ten-commandments-of-redemption/ (http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/the-ten-commandments-of-redemption/)
i mean maybe this being in the reg would make a lot of things clear. #5 and #7 people seem to forget or not know to begin with
#5 - Negates Cascade; Any Cards That Take Effect as the Result of a Negated Card, are Also Negated
#7 - Rock (protect/immune/ignore) beats scissors (cannot be negated); scissors beats paper (interrupt/prevent/negate); paper beats rock.
There is a big difference between the cascade wording of the commandments and the proposed new REG entry for cascade. The commandment wording would indicate that abilities that triggered off a negated ability are also negated (Dull trigger off a negated search) which is not how I've understood it to work.
-
There has been no change to commandment #5.
-
I think CountFount is still confused about why people always beat him with his own decks ???
-
There has been no change to commandment #5.
I wasn't referring to a change in the commandment I was referring to the change of the REG entry about negating effects of negated cards. But after looking at it again the answer to this question still isn't clear to me.
Do effects of triggered abilities that triggered off negated abilities (Such as negating a search that triggered a Dull soul) get negated as well? Also if an opponent uses a search ability for the first time that turn, it completes, but then gets negated, is that player still considered to have "used a search ability" for the purpose of cards like Fire Foxes?
-
There has been no change to commandment #5.
Do effects of triggered abilities that triggered off negated abilities (Such as negating a search that triggered a Dull soul) get negated as well? Also if an opponent uses a search ability for the first time that turn, it completes, but then gets negated, is that player still considered to have "used a search ability" for the purpose of cards like Fire Foxes?
Yes
No, but if you protect with fire foxes I think you could negate their search but still have protected souls
-
I also propose to experiment with Icons/Symbols for modifiers - maybe not inside the SA text but somewhere else at the card. But this need to be thoroughly checked during card creation and playtesting.
One other thing I came across when checking for Reserve definition I mentioned here (http://www.cactusforums.com/ruling-questions/question-to-reserve-part-of-deck-building-rules/) - but maybe this is just according to my understanding of the English language.
-
I think the biggest things have been implied abilities, cascade negates, and clarifying the differences of things like "played", "activated", "used", etc. and making sure that entries properly utilize terminology as to try to mitigate confusion. I know our playgroup had some confusion with things like placed enhancements, weapons, and when/how certain artifacts could be used because of things like these. I think the more we can shift towards layman's terms the better in general.
-
I think the biggest things have been implied abilities, cascade negates, and clarifying the differences of things like "played", "activated", "used", etc. and making sure that entries properly utilize terminology as to try to mitigate confusion. I know our playgroup had some confusion with things like placed enhancements, weapons, and when/how certain artifacts could be used because of things like these. I think the more we can shift towards layman's terms the better in general.
Played and used are the same. Used is just what character is playing it. Play is putting it on the table which means the effect resolves. Activating effects are either when it's played or when an effect is triggered.
-
I think the biggest things have been implied abilities, cascade negates, and clarifying the differences of things like "played", "activated", "used", etc. and making sure that entries properly utilize terminology as to try to mitigate confusion. I know our playgroup had some confusion with things like placed enhancements, weapons, and when/how certain artifacts could be used because of things like these. I think the more we can shift towards layman's terms the better in general.
Played and used are the same. Used is just what character is playing it. Play is putting it on the table which means the effect resolves. Activating effects are either when it's played or when an effect is triggered.
Played and used mean very different things.
-
I think my point on played vs used vs activated vs etc. is pretty well demonstrated via recent threads and playgroup experiences. Personally I would say I'm comfortable enough to make sense of most situations with them all but, overall there seems to be plenty of confusion on these. Mostly I'm just saying better codification and wording is needed within the rulebook to address this. Mainly for newer players or players who don't really check the boards.
And just to clarify I'm not saying I'm personally struggling with these topics. I'm saying that these topics seem to be what I've seen others get tripped on in actual game functionality.
-
I think my point on played vs used vs activated vs etc. is pretty well demonstrated via recent threads and playgroup experiences. Personally I would say I'm comfortable enough to make sense of most situations with them all but, overall there seems to be plenty of confusion on these. Mostly I'm just saying better codification and wording is needed within the rulebook to address this. Mainly for newer players or players who don't really check the boards.
And just to clarify I'm not saying I'm personally struggling with these topics. I'm saying that these topics seem to be what I've seen others get tripped on in actual game functionality.
+1
-
I think my point on played vs used vs activated vs etc. is pretty well demonstrated via recent threads and playgroup experiences. Personally I would say I'm comfortable enough to make sense of most situations with them all but, overall there seems to be plenty of confusion on these. Mostly I'm just saying better codification and wording is needed within the rulebook to address this. Mainly for newer players or players who don't really check the boards.
And just to clarify I'm not saying I'm personally struggling with these topics. I'm saying that these topics seem to be what I've seen others get tripped on in actual game functionality.
+1
-
I think the biggest things have been implied abilities, cascade negates, and clarifying the differences of things like "played", "activated", "used", etc. and making sure that entries properly utilize terminology as to try to mitigate confusion. I know our playgroup had some confusion with things like placed enhancements, weapons, and when/how certain artifacts could be used because of things like these. I think the more we can shift towards layman's terms the better in general.
Played and used are the same. Used is just what character is playing it. Play is putting it on the table which means the effect resolves. Activating effects are either when it's played or when an effect is triggered.
Played and used mean very different things.
Played is putting the card on the table or when it's effect activates. Used is what character is using it. That's not a huge difference.
-
I think the biggest things have been implied abilities, cascade negates, and clarifying the differences of things like "played", "activated", "used", etc. and making sure that entries properly utilize terminology as to try to mitigate confusion. I know our playgroup had some confusion with things like placed enhancements, weapons, and when/how certain artifacts could be used because of things like these. I think the more we can shift towards layman's terms the better in general.
Played and used are the same. Used is just what character is playing it. Play is putting it on the table which means the effect resolves. Activating effects are either when it's played or when an effect is triggered.
Played and used mean very different things.
Played is putting the card on the table or when it's effect activates. Used is what character is using it. That's not a huge difference.
It seems we're talking about the two different kinds of use. "Used by" is what you're talking about and yeah that is basically interchangeable with "played by" and actually that should probably be changed in the REG. The definitional use of "use" (which is what I was talking about) refers to completing an ability, not activating it.
Looks like this is another case where an already defined word is used for something else. All instances of "used by" should be changed to "played by" to allow "use" to refer exclusively to the entry "Use an ability".
-
I think the biggest things have been implied abilities, cascade negates, and clarifying the differences of things like "played", "activated", "used", etc. and making sure that entries properly utilize terminology as to try to mitigate confusion. I know our playgroup had some confusion with things like placed enhancements, weapons, and when/how certain artifacts could be used because of things like these. I think the more we can shift towards layman's terms the better in general.
Played and used are the same. Used is just what character is playing it. Play is putting it on the table which means the effect resolves. Activating effects are either when it's played or when an effect is triggered.
Played and used mean very different things.
Played is putting the card on the table or when it's effect activates. Used is what character is using it. That's not a huge difference.
It seems we're talking about the two different kinds of use. "Used by" is what you're talking about and yeah that is basically interchangeable with "played by" and actually that should probably be changed in the REG. The definitional use of "use" (which is what I was talking about) refers to completing an ability, not activating it.
...I don't know where your gettin that as I've never seen it in REG and it mentions that "Play" and "Use" are interchangeable. "Activate" is an effect attempting to complete.
-
...I don't know where your gettin that as I've never seen it in REG and it mentions that "Play" and "Use" are interchangeable. "Activate" is an effect attempting to complete.
"Use" and "Play" are not interchangeable. "Used by" and "Played by" are in the way most people use those phrases. When describing how something like Creeper Deceiver works, people often explain "he can't be negated by enhancements either because enhancements are used by characters". In that sentence, "Used by" is incorrect and should instead say "played by" because enhancements are played not used. Cards are played; abilities are used.
-
The biggest problems about the rules is the fact, that there are 3 different documents that are relevant for the rules
- 10th Edition Rulebook (Site rules etc.)
- 4th Rulebook
- REG
These documents even contradict each other. I would find it easier for new players if there would be a recent Rulebook-REG document with the actual version of both the Rulebook and the REG.
The second problem is that some of the rules are hard to find or even not defined in any of this documents.
For example in neither of these three documents you may find a definition of a good brigade (or evil or neutral).
The documents even state under Brigade only that Heros and Evil Characters have brigades but don't state that Sites or enhancements or Covenants or Curses would have brigades. You have to search for that info elsewhere. So the definitions are not complete. The documents even mislead you with the definition that the brigades of sites are Hero brigades which associates a player with good brigades.
But, you new player, the Hero brigades on Sites are neutral brigades, as Sites are neutral cards.
So, I would find a complete Rulebook-REG document with complete definitions and complete glossary a good starting point.
One more unnatural rule is the rule that cascade negate may negate the things that were a cascade result of a CBN ability. It seems more natural to understand that everything behind CBN would stay untouched from the cascade negate. So that's one of the rules that I've found hard to understand.
Sometimes, the wordings on cards are misleading, and even the newer prints of that cards have the same wording (e.g. you buy a CoW display packs, and the old editions cards are not printed with the Errata applied). Maybe it would make sense to reprint cards with updated Errata and updated design (they still have the old design with abilities printed over the card picture). The worst example of the problem mentioned above are the Site icons on Fortress Cards (As Erratas made the Sites be Fortresses).
Also there is a Noah-like wording problem about an adjective referring to multiple nouns which various players understand on various ways.
-
An updated rulebook is one of the projects being worked on. Keep in mind that it is a team of volunteers that do these things.
One more unnatural rule is the rule that cascade negate may negate the things that were a cascade result of a CBN ability. It seems more natural to understand that everything behind CBN would stay untouched from the cascade negate. So that's one of the rules that I've found hard to understand.
I'm not sure where you heard this rule, but that is not the case. If a CBN ability is activated, it "sticks" and cannot be negated directly (by a negate card) or indirectly (cascade negated). Example: I attack with Tribal Elder and band to Abraham who searches deck for Isaac and bands to him (CBN). If you negate Tribal Elder, then Abraham leaves battle, but Isaac remains because he was banded in by a CBN ability.
Sometimes, the wordings on cards are misleading, and even the newer prints of that cards have the same wording (e.g. you buy a CoW display packs, and the old editions cards are not printed with the Errata applied). Maybe it would make sense to reprint cards with updated Errata and updated design (they still have the old design with abilities printed over the card picture). The worst example of the problem mentioned above are the Site icons on Fortress Cards (As Erratas made the Sites be Fortresses).
It is only the most recent sets (starting with The Early Church) that can be reprinted. Previous sets are not done with the print on demand system and Rob already has all the cards on hand from those sets were printed.
-
To my understanding we have several topics which will keep rules hard to know by heart and prevent from instinctive and intuitive play:
What I mean are all the different categories of:
- Characters who fought in earthly battles
- Heavenly Temple Artifacts
- ...
I am not such bible proof but IMHO even the maybe the fittest bible knowing person will not know at once whether something or a character fits into a certain category.
-
Rest assured we will not be using "Fought in an earthly battle" ever again in a special ability. :P
For Heavenly Temple artifacts, all of those have the Heavenly Temple identifier (except for WA & K versions of Ark of the Covenant).
We are also taking a hard look at some other "obscure" identifiers (i.e. "connected with demons") that only matter to a handful of old cards (that rarely see play and mostly in booster draft) and exploring ways to modify them (or even errata the cards) so that they are not needed in the REG.
-
I'm not sure where you heard this rule, but that is not the case. If a CBN ability is activated, it "sticks" and cannot be negated directly (by a negate card) or indirectly (cascade negated). Example: I attack with Tribal Elder and band to Abraham who searches deck for Isaac and bands to him (CBN). If you negate Tribal Elder, then Abraham leaves battle, but Isaac remains because he was banded in by a CBN ability.
The ruling about CBN cards sticking has confused me before because when you negate Tribal Elder you are not negating Abraham's ability. Now negating tribal elder undoes whatever happened by his ability....but I think this is where a limited vocabulary isn't helpful because the logic to my understanding of why cbn sticks is: negating the band undoes everything afterwards, and since undoing something is negating, the cbn card sticks by definition. Observing that negate undoes effects is accurate but that does not mean that whenever I undo an effect it was negated, yet in Redemption it does because there is not something else in place to describe undoing effects. Going further, after Tribal Elder is negated, Abraham may be banded into battle later on because he never entered battle. But if Abraham was never in battle how is his ability still active? Very opposite from intuitive.
-
Very opposite from intuitive.
As opposed to letting a CBN ability be undone by a negate? :scratch:
When you think about it, the very concept of "negate" will never truly be intuitive because for the most part we (as humans) have very linear thinking.
-
Very opposite from intuitive.
As opposed to letting a CBN ability be undone by a negate? :scratch:
When you think about it, the very concept of "negate" will never truly be intuitive because for the most part we (as humans) have very linear thinking.
It's not negating Abrahams ability though, it would be as if it never occurred because he was never actually brought into battle due to a negate. I think that's what's confusing. The negate effects what brought Abraham into battle in the first place.
-
Very opposite from intuitive.
As opposed to letting a CBN ability be undone by a negate? :scratch:
When you think about it, the very concept of "negate" will never truly be intuitive because for the most part we (as humans) have very linear thinking.
It's not negating Abrahams ability though, it would be as if it never occurred because he was never actually brought into battle due to a negate. I think that's what's confusing. The negate effects what brought Abraham into battle in the first place.
That's exactly what negating is though, making something to have never occurred. "Cannot be negated" means it cannot be made to have never occurred once it happens, whether that's directly or indirectly.
-
Very opposite from intuitive.
As opposed to letting a CBN ability be undone by a negate? :scratch:
When you think about it, the very concept of "negate" will never truly be intuitive because for the most part we (as humans) have very linear thinking.
It's not negating Abrahams ability though, it would be as if it never occurred because he was never actually brought into battle due to a negate. I think that's what's confusing. The negate effects what brought Abraham into battle in the first place.
That's exactly what negating is though, making something to have never occurred. "Cannot be negated" means it cannot be made to have never occurred once it happens, whether that's directly or indirectly.
Correct, but the card is not negating Abraham's ability. It's negating the ability that brings him in making him never able to do anything (Like search for Isaac or band to him). I'm just saying it's literally confusing for no reason it feels like. Why would Isaac be able to band if Abraham literally was never there in the first place. All I'm saying is I agree that it's confusing and saying it's not is just ignoring the point of this thread.
-
Very opposite from intuitive.
As opposed to letting a CBN ability be undone by a negate? :scratch:
When you think about it, the very concept of "negate" will never truly be intuitive because for the most part we (as humans) have very linear thinking.
I just don't think negating the band means that you are literally negating everything that came into battle after it. Functionally you are undoing everything that happened but negate undoes the effect of something and treats it as if it never occurred. In this case that something is Tribal Elder, which is consistent with ruling that Abraham was never in battle. Maybe I mixed my terms and should have said "Very opposite of logical", because within the rules of cbn sticking is not consistent, but I think you knew what I meant ha. You can make pretty much make every counter-intuitive rule you could think of and still have the interactions makes sense if you are consistent.
-
I just don't think negating the band means that you are literally negating everything that came into battle after it.
That's exactly what it means.
-
I feel like when you negate Tribal Elder you undo the band that's all you're negating, but it has implications because the band never happened. If the band never happened, it follows that Abraham never entered battle. If Abraham never entered battle then his ability never activated. So, because I negated the band, Abraham's ability did not activate. I don't see where the negation of Abraham's ability is happening. Nothing is being interrupted or prevented. So all I am in saying is it is confusing to me, and maybe to other people as well. A cbn card cannot be cascade negated, that's the rule and I am not disputing that; however, I don't think its consistent with the definition of negate, which makes it confusing to me ha
-
I feel like when you negate Tribal Elder you undo the band that's all you're negating, but it has implications because the band never happened. If the band never happened, it follows that Abraham never entered battle. If Abraham never entered battle then his ability never activated. So, because I negated the band, Abraham's ability did not activate. I don't see where the negation of Abraham's ability is happening. Nothing is being interrupted or prevented. So all I am in saying is it is confusing to me, and maybe to other people as well. A cbn card cannot be cascade negated, that's the rule and I am not disputing that; however, I don't think its consistent with the definition of negate, which makes it confusing to me ha
When I made a thread a while back basically ranting about cascade negate, John brought up the change they were planning on making to the negate entry to better include the concept of cascade negating. The exact quote is:
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and any ability activated because of the negated ability. A negate ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing
The new definition specifically applies the language of negate to abilities of activated because of a negated ability (In this case, Abraham). There aren't any mysterious extra "implications" or "undoings" that are being applied to the banded cards, it's just a simple extension of the original negate. When a band is negated, all characters banded in are definitionally negated by that same negate.
-
@Kevinthedude:
But doesn't this still leaves the illogical part of the problem. If the initial SA is negated than according to REG: "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability...". Nothing is stated here how subsequent abilities are treated. Maybe this should be extenden then? Like for example: "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability and all subsequent completed abilities if they are not CBI resp. CBN ..." or wouldn't this be more clearly?
-
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and any ability activated because of the negated ability. A negate ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing
[/quote]
It's perfectly fine to redefine negate but doing so doesn't necessarily make it less confusing or more consistent, because "any ability activated because of the negated ability" does not follow from "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability".
-
@Kevinthedude:
But doesn't this still leaves the illogical part of the problem. If the initial SA is negated than according to REG: "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability...". Nothing is stated here how subsequent abilities are treated. Maybe this should be extenden then? Like for example: "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability and all subsequent completed abilities if they are not CBI resp. CBN ..." or wouldn't this be more clearly?
From the answer I got to my old cascade negate thread, the elders thought that saying the effect was undone implied subsequent abilities were also negated. They recognized it would benefit from clarity and said they planned to include something that is basically the same as what you just suggested. Refer to the quote from Red Dragon Thorn in my last post.
-
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and any ability activated because of the negated ability. A negate ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing
It's perfectly fine to redefine negate but doing so doesn't necessarily make it less confusing or more consistent, because "any ability activated because of the negated ability" does not follow from "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability".
The elders agree which is precisely why they are updating the entry, see the aforementioned quote from John.
-
i am definitely in agreement with clarity of intention rather than manipulation of existing wording for exploitative purposes
some things just make sense though for example heal not having a search component, banded characters from hand returning to hand if the band is negated, etc. that said i don't always agree with some rulings, but at least presenting an argument for a reason i would see a certain rule a certain way for the sake of increased clarity overall is a positive thing regardless of whether the rule is changed or maintained in hopes that future players will be able to easily recognize those distinctions without having to do a ton of digging on the boards or in multiple sources
-
One more unnatural rule is the rule that cascade negate may negate the things that were a cascade result of a CBN ability. It seems more natural to understand that everything behind CBN would stay untouched from the cascade negate. So that's one of the rules that I've found hard to understand.
I'm not sure where you heard this rule, but that is not the case. If a CBN ability is activated, it "sticks" and cannot be negated directly (by a negate card) or indirectly (cascade negated). Example: I attack with Tribal Elder and band to Abraham who searches deck for Isaac and bands to him (CBN). If you negate Tribal Elder, then Abraham leaves battle, but Isaac remains because he was banded in by a CBN ability.
I understood the cascade negate rule so that if your character A bands a CBN character B who bands a non-CBN character C who bands a non-CBN character D and then your character A gets negated:
- his band ability would be negated (I still don't know what happens to the character B)
- the CBN band ability of the character B can't be negated - therefore character C stays in battle
And here one would think the CBN ability would stop the cascade negate in negating the character C and D
But, as I understood it, the cascade negate goes behind the CBN ability and negates it's results...
Therefore:
- character C gets negated but stays in battle - therefore the banding of the character D doesn't occur
- character D gets negated and out of the battle
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This ability is a monster for me to understand...
-
You are correct on all counts. Character B would be kicked out of battle though his ability "sticks" which is why Character C stays in battle.
-
What is the rule for "respond to your own actions" and what all does it involve?
-
Let's face it if your deck or hand are protected your opponent should not be able to manipulate them at all in any way(no return to, reveal, look, shuffle, take, underdeck, etc)
I know there is some justification for the hypocrisy, its just a bad rule.
"Deck is protected from shuffle abilities" they play grapes and shuffle your protected deck. That is just a bad rule Deck and shuffle are in the same sentence it is a real stretch of the imagination to say deck isn't involved here it is in fact a variable of the ability
Thematically if I have four living creatures or self control why in the world should I become hypocritical because of my opponents hypocrisy? Same goes for grapes I mean it makes sense if you want it to but if something is protected from your opponents cards this seems like a thin window of exploitation
-
Let's face it if your deck or hand are protected your opponent should not be able to manipulate them at all in any way(no return to, reveal, look, shuffle, take, underdeck, etc)
I know there is some justification for the hypocrisy, its just a bad rule.
"Deck is protected from shuffle abilities" they play grapes and shuffle your protected deck. That is just a bad rule Deck and shuffle are in the same sentence it is a real stretch of the imagination to say deck isn't involved here it is in fact a variable of the ability
Thematically if I have four living creatures or self control why in the world should I become hypocritical because of my opponents hypocrisy? Same goes for grapes I mean it makes sense if you want it to but if something is protected from your opponents cards this seems like a thin window of exploitation
Protection abilities protect from abilities that specifically target the targets of the protect ability. Hypocrisy/Grapes/Underdeck, do not target the deck/hand as it's target. The target of these cards are the cards being returned/shuffled/stuff. Don't see why this is so illogical.
-
Is target defined? Could it not just as easily be variable?
Does it make sense for you to become hypocritical while using self control? Just saying target seems arbitrary when there is in fact inclusion
-
Is target defined?
A shuffle ability targets the cards that are to be shuffled.
Yep.
-
Right but a protected location is still included
-
My understanding is that protecting your deck has nothing to do with the cards in play, so a shuffled card still goes to your deck even if your deck is protected. That said, even if your deck is protected from shuffle, you have to shuffle the character back in - you can't just put it back in your deck "randomly" since it would be easy to put it in the top/bottom to rig your draw.
Put another way - even though the shuffle affects the deck, it only targets the shuffled card. You can't shuffle a card without shuffling the deck, but the shuffle isn't specifically targeting the deck, so it's not protected.
-
Right but a protected location is still included
That's the kind of thinking that had so many abilities "tangled" in the past, (i.e. heal/search, choose the blocker/withdraw) which is something we've moved away from.
The hand and deck can be affected even while protected, they just cannot be targeted.
TH beat me to it... 8)
-
Its not bad to have abilities which do multiple things its just simply bad that a location isn't considered protected when it is
Ie being shuffled while protected from shuffle I'm just saying this will continue to cause confusion for people
-
I'm fairly certain it would be more confusing the way you're suggesting.
Player A: I play Invoking Terror to underdeck your Hero.
Player B: You can't underdeck my Hero, my deck's protected.
Player A: :scratch:
-
I'm fairly certain it would be more confusing the way you're suggesting.
Player A: I play Invoking Terror to underdeck your Hero.
Player B: You can't underdeck my Hero, my deck's protected.
Player A: :scratch:
Especially confusing when I go to the REG and see protect only stops protected things from being targeted and that underdeck doesn't ever target deck. :dunno:
-
Intuitively I would still wonder this as a new player
Shuffle an opponents deck
Shuffle a hero into an opponents deck
Deck is being shuffled
-
I guess I feel like there could be things that specifically say these kinds of things in the reg to where people don't have to triangulate all of these nuances between old rule books, the boards, and the reg and in some cases host guides
Having all of it consolidated along with the 10 commandments of redemption first and foremost in the reg could be very insightful for generations
-
I guess I feel like there could be things that specifically say these kinds of things in the reg to where people don't have to triangulate all of these nuances between old rule books, the boards, and the reg and in some cases host guides
There are literally two lines, one from each relevant entry in the REG (Very easy to find) that completely explain the shuffle/protect interaction.
Immune and protect abilities keep the target from being able to be targeted by cards to which it is immune or protected
A shuffle ability targets the cards that are to be shuffled.
This is one of the areas of Redemption that is actually very well documented and quite a far cry from "triangulating nuances".
If you think you can consolidate every bit of information a brand new player needs to know to become a perfect Redemption expert into one neat little page by all means do so.
-
Maybe the 8 year old kid is still alive inside me