Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Gabe on November 25, 2009, 11:46:50 AM
-
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: At any time, you may discard the bottom card of deck. If it is an orange demon or a Lost Soul, place it in your territory instead. You may discard this card to add your demon to the battle.
My question is about the bolded part of this ability. It's a cost/effect ability and it doesn't appear that there are any restrictions as to when I can pay this cost. If I was crazy enough to want to discard my own Gates outside of battle, I could pay the cost (discard Gates) to gain no benefit (add your demon to battle), coudn't I?
-
I'm usually wrong in these cases, however, the wording of the card would indicate to me that there had to be "the battle" in order for the activation to occur.
With that said, the ability seems to be meant to be considered all together, so the "any time" would indicate you could. I just know that there has been a lot of discussion lately about separate sentences in SAs, so reading that sentence by itself, I would have to rule that you could not.
-
+1 w/ YMT. It makes it sound like if you aren't in battle phase then you could not discard card gates to add to something that bascially isn't existing yet.
-
Seems like that sentence is dependent on the one before it. I think we should be able to use Gates to create a battle challenge that starts with an Evil Character.
-
Seems like that sentence is dependent on the one before it. I think we should be able to use Gates to create a battle challenge that starts with an Evil Character.
That seems like it would be a cool idea but it would be pointless for the fact that you wouldn't be getting anything in return.
-
Seems like that sentence is dependent on the one before it. I think we should be able to use Gates to create a battle challenge that starts with an Evil Character.
I see how you could interpret it that way, but since that violates a game rule (heroes make RAs, ECs block) that wouldn't work. Game rules > an individual card wording
-
Seems like that sentence is dependent on the one before it.
How is it dependent? It doesn't say "that demon."
-
...the wording of the card would indicate to me that there had to be "the battle" in order for the activation to occur.
By that logic would you say I that couldn't discard my top card for Jephthah unless my opponent has an Evil Character in play too?
Play As: Holder may discard the top card from his deck to discard any two Evil Characters in a territory or set-aside area. Limit once per player per game.
-
Jephtha can still be used because it doesn't specify who's evil characters are being discarded. So even if they don't and you do, you can still do it, which would be kind of pointless to discard your own ec. Unless it's mannaseh lol XD
-
A "X to Y ability" does not require Y to be able to activate in order to activate X. It is a cost/benefit. If you pay the cost without getting any benefit, you made that choice.
I don't see a reason that this doesn't work.
EDIT:
Jephtha can still be used because it doesn't specify who's evil characters are being discarded. So even if they don't and you do, you can still do it, which would be kind of pointless to discard your own ec. Unless it's mannaseh lol XD
I don't see what your argument about ownership has anything do to with Gates of Hell...
-
By that logic would you say I that couldn't discard my top card for Jephthah unless my opponent has an Evil Character in play too?
What does that have to do with the words "the battle?" It would appear that you are trying to tie my logic to a completely different scenario.
-
What does that have to do with the words "the battle?" It would appear that you are trying to tie my logic to a completely different scenario.
It doesn't have anything to do with "the battle" just as "two Evil Characters in a territory or set-aside area" doesn't limit by ability to discard my top card with Jephthah.
I'm only pointing this out because Gates and Jeph are the same type of ability. Pay X to gain benefit Y.
-
It doesn't have anything to do with "the battle" just as "two Evil Characters in a territory or set-aside area" doesn't limit by ability to discard my top card with Jephthah.
I'm only pointing this out because Gates and Jeph are the same type of ability. Pay X to gain benefit Y.
They are not the same because Jeph is a character and Gates is a fortress. Character abilities are already limited to battle (minus obvious exceptions). Fortress abilities are not, unless the SA says otherwise. I would argue that this ability says otherwise.
-
Gates seems to be a very specific pay X to do Y effect in that it's more like "Pay X to do Y at this time" as opposed to Jepthah's. I don't know if that warrants being treated differently or not, I can see it going either way.
:2cents:
-
What does that have to do with the words "the battle?" It would appear that you are trying to tie my logic to a completely different scenario.
It doesn't have anything to do with "the battle" just as "two Evil Characters in a territory or set-aside area" doesn't limit by ability to discard my top card with Jephthah.
I'm only pointing this out because Gates and Jeph are the same type of ability. Pay X to gain benefit Y.
However, territories and set-asides exist continually throughout the game. Battles do not. The rulebook governs battle initiation.
Seems like that sentence is dependent on the one before it. I think we should be able to use Gates to create a battle challenge that starts with an Evil Character.
Therefore, a battle cannot be initiated by an EC by discarding Gates.
-
Therefore, a battle cannot be initiated by an EC by discarding Gates.
That's not what I'm asking to do. I simply want to discard my Gates for no effect. As far as I can tell that should be perfectly legal.
-
It is not legal without "the battle," IMO.
-
It is not legal without "the battle," IMO.
So can you not discard the top card of deck with Jephthah if there is no ECs in play?
-
Good Question from Gabe as always - I think in the past when these situations have come up, its been fairly consistent that you can always pay the cost, even if you don't recieve the benefit - In this case using it outside of battle is akin to paying the cost, and then you cannot recieve the benefit, because EC's do not start battle challenges (Anymore, but pre-prophets they could.... Oh, for the good old days...) So in conclusion - I agree with Gabe, And he should shoot me a PM to confirm something for me ;)
-
So can you not discard the top card of deck with Jephthah if there is no ECs in play?
I've already addressed this question.
Good Question from Gabe as always - I think in the past when these situations have come up, its been fairly consistent that you can always pay the cost, even if you don't recieve the benefit ...
I'm not debating the cost-benefit angle, rather:
- In this case using it outside of battle is akin to paying the cost, ...
I am suggesting that you cannot activate the ability outside of battle, since the ability specifies that there has to be a battle with the phrase "the battle."
-
#1 - I see both sides on this discussion and could see this going either way.
#2 - If it said "discard this card to add your demon to A battle", then I would lean toward Gabe's interpretation. But since it says "discard this card to add your demon to THE battle", it does seem to imply that there is a battle already happening. Therefore, I lean toward YMT's interpretation.
#3 - Since I think I know why Gabe is really asking this question, I think it is highly in the best interest of Redemption as a game to rule this in YMT's favor. Breaking the game is a possibility. But I'm curious how it will turn out.
-
Breaking the game is a possibility.
Well, then, there's your answer. C'mon folks, haven't we learned by now. :-\
-
Breaking the game is a possibility.
False, the game is already broken. There will be changes made.
-
Discarding Gates has very little to do with the brokeness. Gates isn't even necessary to do it in T1.
-
Discarding Gates has very little to do with the brokeness. Gates isn't even necessary to do it in T1.
I must be missing something. What is the "it" that people refer to you trying?
-
Gates isn't even necessary to do it in T1.
Nope, but it might be necessary to do it in T1 after an errata to another card (which I hear is in the works).
-
I could care less about "brokenness." I simply want to see consistency with the interpretation of abilities. This SA is not a "paired ability" as Sir Nobody mentioned in previous threads. The last sentence does make sense when it stands alone. The apparent design of the card was to allow you to get cards from the bottom of your deck. However, an additional ability was to allow you to bring that or any other demon into a battle when you needed it. This is not a conditional ability, since it does not say "demon" or "that demon." The wording of "your demon" means that the ability can stand alone. With that said, the ability also specifies "the battle" which sets up a prerequisite for the ability.
The only brokenness that I fear is an inconsistent, do-what-we-want interpretation process that makes being a judge nearly impossible, especially for newcomers to the game.
-
The only brokenness that I fear is an inconsistent, do-what-we-want interpretation process that makes being a judge nearly impossible, especially for newcomers to the game.
Agree 100%.
-
The only brokenness that I fear is an inconsistent, do-what-we-want interpretation process that makes being a judge nearly impossible, especially for newcomers to the game.
...and "oldleavers" like me. Ahh, retirement is good! :)
-
I must be missing something. What is the "it" that people refer to you trying?
I think there is some broken combo that isn't being revealed, that those "in" the know are aware of, but so far have not shared.
-
I must be missing something. What is the "it" that people refer to you trying?
I think there is some broken combo that isn't being revealed, that those "in" the know are aware of, but so far have not shared.
There is definately an 'It' It's also mine, thus the PM from Gabe. I won't reveal what it is, and I ask that those who do know (Gabe, Prof, Sean etc) don't either, simply that it likes Gates to be discarded.
EDIT: Well actually I guess the deck is Gabe's - The Combo was origionally mine.
-
I ask that those who do know (Gabe, Prof, Sean etc) don't either, simply that it likes Gates to be discarded.
No problem here. I have no plans of sharing your dastardly plan with anyone (unless Rob asks me). It is quite creative and I am glad that you and Gabe are getting the recognition that you deserve for it :)
-
Hey,
When I see the word "to" in an ability I view that as splitting the sentence in half, everything before it is the cost, everything after it is the benefit. Which results in:
(You may discard this card) to (add your demon to the battle).
"You may discard this card" is an ability that you can perform at any time (because it's a fortress).
"Add your demon to the battle" is an ability that only works if there is currently a battle going on (that is not a heroes vs heroes side battle).
So yes, you can discard your own Gates during a phase other than the battle phase and gain no benefit.
(this would be similar to playing Visions off of Hidden Treasures, it doesn't do you much good, but you can do it.)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I have no plans of sharing your dastardly plan with anyone (unless Rob asks me).
RDT told me that he had informed play testers already.
-
I've shown it to enough people 'In the know' and I happen to know there is a discussion on it over on the playtesters side of the board.
-
Gates isn't even necessary to do it in T1.
Nope, but it might be necessary to do it in T1 after an errata to another card (which I hear is in the works).
I just hope the card being considered for the errata is not the one I fear it is.
Let's just say it wouldn't be fair to give a second errata to a card before other worthy contenders get their first errata.
I've shown it to enough people 'In the know' and I happen to know there is a discussion on it over on the playtesters side of the board.
Since there was absolutely no question of the combo's legality, you might have been better served to wait until after you play it (and win) at Nationals before bringing it up to people "in the know."
-
Seems like that sentence is dependent on the one before it. I think we should be able to use Gates to create a battle challenge that starts with an Evil Character.
I see how you could interpret it that way, but since that violates a game rule (heroes make RAs, ECs block) that wouldn't work. Game rules > an individual card wording
That is absolutely wrong. The whole point of special abilities are to allow us to do things that the game typically can't allow. You can't discard cards from your deck, but Jepthah "disobeys" this game rule because he has a special ability.
-
Seems like that sentence is dependent on the one before it. I think we should be able to use Gates to create a battle challenge that starts with an Evil Character.
I see how you could interpret it that way, but since that violates a game rule (heroes make RAs, ECs block) that wouldn't work. Game rules > an individual card wording
That is absolutely wrong. The whole point of special abilities are to allow us to do things that the game typically can't allow. You can't discard cards from your deck, but Jepthah "disobeys" this game rule because he has a special ability.
I understand what you are saying, but ECs do not make RAs just as heroes do not block. Unless a card SPECIFICALLY allows for it, it can't be done.
-
Oh, in that regard yes.
-
When I see the word "to" in an ability I view that as splitting the sentence in half, everything before it is the cost, everything after it is the benefit.
So is this just "the way Tim does it" or this officially how judges are supposed to rule all cards with the word "to" in the SA? Again, I am looking for consistency.
-
When I see the word "to" in an ability I view that as splitting the sentence in half, everything before it is the cost, everything after it is the benefit.
So is this just "the way Tim does it" or this officially how judges are supposed to rule all cards with the word "to" in the SA? Again, I am looking for consistency.
This is the way all cost/benefit abilities are to be played. You can tell a cost/benefit ability because it's worded "pay X to do Y".
-
Oh please don't errata this away :'( Although now that I'm no longer in the states, I guess I don't have to keep it a secret too...but I will.
-
I have to humbly ask this, can someone pm and tell me what this "it" is? I am concerned that since I am not "in the know" that at any of my next tournaments I will rule this incorrectly, especially given the fact I have no clue what any one is talking about. I know how protective people are about their "secret" combo's. But it is really easy for me to make a "wrong" ruling because how I see redemption working does not always line up with what is posted on these forum's. I understand if no one wants to clue me in, but I had to ask before I cost some the game by not ruling it their way. I have no intentions of blabbing this secret around, I host far more than I play.
-
I have to humbly ask this, can someone pm and tell me what this "it" is? I am concerned that since I am not "in the know" that at any of my next tournaments I will rule this incorrectly, especially given the fact I have no clue what any one is talking about.
People who spend time coming up with dastardly combos tend to be rather tight lipped about who they share it with. (I am a little surprised RDT decided to share it with the PtB rather than saving it up to take a shot at winning Nats.)
If it makes you feel better "it" is--as I posted above--entirely legal. If someone played it at one of your tournaments there is little chance you would even be asked to make a ruling. And if you were called in there is no chance an experienced judge would blow the call.
-
EJB is right, the combo doesn't need any ruling. It just uses the special abilities as printed. It is very straight forward. I'm also pretty sure that I'm the only one anywhere near MD that knows about it. I won't be playing it.
-
I have to humbly ask this, can someone pm and tell me what this "it" is? I am concerned that since I am not "in the know" that at any of my next tournaments I will rule this incorrectly, especially given the fact I have no clue what any one is talking about. I know how protective people are about their "secret" combo's. But it is really easy for me to make a "wrong" ruling because how I see redemption working does not always line up with what is posted on these forum's. I understand if no one wants to clue me in, but I had to ask before I cost some the game by not ruling it their way. I have no intentions of blabbing this secret around, I host far more than I play.
Just use a little CSI work. ;)
Clues:
1. The combo requires discarding Gates in a phase other than the battle phase.
2. There is no game rule that allows a fortress to be discarded from territory in any phase.
Possible motives:
1. The absence of Gates assists the player.
2. The discarding of Gates triggers something else.
-
I'll make it easy on you.
A) If you play RTS I'd be glad to play the deck against you. It's not as good as the hype builds it up to be but it is rather dastardly when it works.
B) The only purpose to discarding Gates is so that there is one less card. I want as few cards as possible.
-
If the discarding of Gates outside of the Battle Phase breaks the game, someone who knows the combo please PM it to me. I can't think of a single reason discarding a Fortress would break the game, and any discussions taking place re: Gates behind closed doors are not following this line of thinking.
-
Schaef, It doesn't break the game - The combo is completely possible without discarding it, discarding Gates just makes it ever so slightly easier.
-
All I need to know. Thanks to you and the couple PMers who responded.
-
Well, now the combo has been destroyed and it doesn't matter anymore. Search around for those who are interested.
-
Actually, in the very rare case that you know that your opponent is using a "Balance" deck, it may still matter. Plus, it is good to know the principle.
If there is a "You may do X to do Y" ability, you may do X (pay the cost) even if Y (perform the benefit) is not possible.
-
Well, now the combo has been destroyed and it doesn't matter anymore. Search around for those who are interested.
Did I miss a thread?
-
Well, now the combo has been destroyed and it doesn't matter anymore. Search around for those who are interested.
Did I miss a thread?
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18817 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18817)