Author Topic: The issue with Silver (Read 21307 times)

The Schaef · « **Reply #50 on:** August 24, 2010, 09:53:45 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 24, 2010, 09:31:00 PM

Why isn't Plagued with Diseases?

Decrease all opponents' Heroes by 0/2 (or 0/3 if you have the fewst Redeemed Souls).

Plagued with Diseases is an ongoing increase that lasts while the "Artifact" is active. Strengthening Angel resolves instantly and has no time limit, and is therefore a permanent increase.

Quote

I think the Set-Asides work differently because they are set-asides

Not all of those abilities are set-asides. But that's not even the point. The (old) REG quote refers to increase/decrease as an ongoing ability. In some cases that is correct. In a lot of cases, say for example every single card I mentioned, the increase is instantaneous and permanent.

The increase is PERMANENT. The increase was DESIGNED TO BE PERMANENT. The wording was debated to ENSURE THE PERMANENCE OF THE INCREASE.

Quote

Also, FWIW, I'm having trouble thinking of any other Heroes...I don't think BB was being sarcastic when he said he could only think of two heroes.

In my post, I said CARDS. In his response, he said CARDS. I went back and specifically verified the CARDS that allow Strengthening Angel to be banded in. I verified my facts before posting my response so that I could back up what I said.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #51 on:** August 24, 2010, 09:57:38 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 24, 2010, 09:53:45 PM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 24, 2010, 09:31:00 PM
Why isn't Plagued with Diseases?

Decrease all opponents' Heroes by 0/2 (or 0/3 if you have the fewst Redeemed Souls).

Plagued with Diseases is an ongoing increase that lasts while the "Artifact" is active. Strengthening Angel resolves instantly and has no time limit, and is therefore a permanent increase.

PwD can be played an an enhancement too.

The Schaef · « **Reply #52 on:** August 24, 2010, 09:58:22 PM »

Yes? And?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #53 on:** August 24, 2010, 10:15:21 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 24, 2010, 09:53:45 PM

Plagued with Diseases is an ongoing increase that lasts while the "Artifact" is active. Strengthening Angel resolves instantly and has no time limit, and is therefore a permanent increase.

So why doesn't Gibeonite Trickery's gain last? I'm not trying to be irritating, but I don't see the difference in the wording right now between the two.

Quote

Not all of those abilities are set-asides. But that's not even the point. The (old) REG quote refers to increase/decrease as an ongoing ability. In some cases that is correct. In a lot of cases, say for example every single card I mentioned, the increase is instantaneous and permanent.

So then how do we decide in the cases when it's not explicitly stated? Also, I realize that not all of them were set asides, but the majority were. The others I referred to as your other examples, and asked why they worked the way they always have given the REG quote.

Quote

The increase is PERMANENT. The increase was DESIGNED TO BE PERMANENT. The wording was debated to ENSURE THE PERMANENCE OF THE INCREASE.

Personally, I never saw those discussions, because I only saw abilties up to version 0.3 before Justin kind of dropped off the Redemption map and needed to work 80 hours a week, and never got around to updating me with the newer abilities. So I guess it would be interesting to see what the reasoning for the permanence is.

The Schaef · « **Reply #54 on:** August 24, 2010, 10:27:34 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 24, 2010, 10:15:21 PM

So why doesn't Gibeonite Trickery's gain last? I'm not trying to be irritating, but I don't see the difference in the wording right now between the two.

That strikes me as an issue with Gibeonite Trickery, not the dozens of other cards that say "increase" or "gain" which are temporary when ongoing and permanent when instant. Including this one.

Quote

The others I referred to as your other examples, and asked why they worked the way they always have given the REG quote.

In the portion of my post you quoted, I pointed out that the REG states that rule in reference to increase as an ongoing ability. Not all increases are ongoing, and so I am not going to apply that rule universally to cards that don't match the description.

Quote

So I guess it would be interesting to see what the reasoning for the permanence is.

I don't understand what you mean by "the reasoning for the permanence". Do you mean why is the gain supposed to be permanent? Or do you mean why is it assumed that this wording makes it permanent?

The reason for this wording is because the intention to make it permanent was made very clear very early on in this change of the ability, and strong assurances were given from multiple sources that this wording would apply the ability correctly. The reason for making it permanent is to make the gain worthwhile by accumulating over several turns. Similar to the way Messenger Angel works but on a much bigger scale.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #55 on:** August 24, 2010, 10:32:22 PM »

Then why doesn't the EXACT same wording make other cards like PWD and Gib Trickery permanent?

All three cards say

Increase/Decrease a Target by This number.

Why don't they work the same? what makes PwD magically ongoing, Gib Trickery temporary, and Strengthening Angel permanent?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #56 on:** August 24, 2010, 10:38:11 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 24, 2010, 09:23:20 PM

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 24, 2010, 09:08:34 PM
So...2 cards?

Now you can keep being cute and sarcastic about this ...

Alright, first of all...

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 24, 2010, 09:44:17 PM

Also, FWIW, I'm having trouble thinking of any other Heroes besides Jacob and Claudia that can band to Strengthening Angel without the aid of enhancements. I don't think BB was being sarcastic when he said he could only think of two heroes.

This is true. I was not being sarcastic, I was being realistic. You may have said "cards" and I may have said "cards", but if an enhancement is required to band to a hero, there is only a limited number of times you can do it, and each time you will spend another card. And the whole point of FbtNB in the first place is not to have to use enhancements, so I automatically thought heroes.

And second of all, not to be disrespectful, as I appreciate all the work you do for the Redemption community, but I'm surprised that you of all people would be calling someone out on sarcasm. Half of the posts you write seem to be dripping with sarcasm (or at least some other form of speaking that people might consider condescending).

The Schaef · « **Reply #57 on:** August 24, 2010, 10:54:51 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 24, 2010, 10:32:22 PM

Why don't they work the same?

You don't understand why an Artifact doesn't work the same as an Enhancement?

I've already responded to all of these points. If you'd rather ignore over 60 other cards that work exactly the way I described, than wonder whether your one counter-example Gib Trick might be the card that needs clarification, I can't help you.

Quote

You may have said "cards" and I may have said "cards", but if an enhancement is required to band to a hero, there is only a limited number of times you can do it, and each time you will spend another card.

Well, see, that's not the case either, because there are ways to deal with that as well. Using musicians, I can play The Stars basically a limitless number of times. FBNB is about creating a nice FBN chain but you have to be ready to deal with other issues as well, like if the opponent drops a CBP card on you, or if you can't get your chain all together at once. This card works with OR WITHOUT the band and with OR WITHOUT the fbn, so again these are only EXAMPLES of how to use it. I can also see comboing it with a red offense to beef up their numbers, even though there's not a lot of FBN in that cluster. The point is that you have to be a little bit creative sometimes, but I'm not going to go around telling people that the card has no value based on "facts" that just are not correct. I think discussions should be had on their own merits.

Quote

Half of the posts you write seem to be dripping with sarcasm (or at least some other form of speaking that people might consider condescending).

It is no secret that I am very direct and highly technical in my replies. When you're in a written format, the only thing you have to go on are what people type, and so I have to put all my focus on that in order to make sure what I say is as close to correct as I can make it, and that I can back up the things I say, and that if I draw a conclusion about something that someone else said, I can point at the words they used (example: my use of the word "cards" meaning "cards" and your use of the word "cards" meaning "Heroes that are blatantly obvious plays", and prof's complete changing of the word to just "Heroes"... I was the only one who actually said exactly what I meant when I used the word "cards"). It's also no secret that sometimes this level of directness is offputting to some people, especially when it's compounded with the frustrations of people arguing based on facts that are wrong, accusing me of saying things that I did not say, and/or turning yet another thread into a big discussion over whether I personally am a good or bad person instead of just working to solve the problem. It's unfortunate, but I can only do the best I can with what meager social skills I have.

But let's both be real about this: you think this card is practically worthless, and you were set on making sure everything I said about what the card could do had as little value as possible in order to keep the card worthless in your opinion. Meanwhile, we're discovering that for many people, their evaluation of the card is based on misunderstandings about what the card actually DOES. In order to draw a right conclusion, whether they agree with me or not, people should at least be working with the right information.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #58 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:09:12 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 24, 2010, 10:54:51 PM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 24, 2010, 10:32:22 PM
Why don't they work the same?

You don't understand why an Artifact doesn't work the same as an Enhancement?

Thats why i brought up that PwD can be played AS an enhancement... to get rid of that difference.

Still, all three cards are worded the exact same. The wording should act the same way. (IGNORE playing PwD as an artifact)

Other cards that should now be permanent:
Plague of Boils
Unbowed
Gib Trickery
Plagued with Diseases (as an enhancement)
Burning Censer
Herod Agrippa II (old)

If Body of Christ played as an enhancement is permanent, why arent the other enhs listed (and one EC).

DDiceRC · « **Reply #59 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:10:07 PM »

I don't have a problem with Strengthening Angel providing a permanent increase, or with the statement that this was the intent of the playtesters. However, this contradicts the current wording of the REG.

Under Ongoing Conditions-> Increase or Decrease Ability-> Default Conditions, 4th line:
"The effect lasts until the end of the battle, unless the card specifies otherwise."

Strengthening Angel does not "specify otherwise." If the intent is a permanent increase, this line in the REG will need to be modified, or a "play as" will need to be added to SA.

The Schaef · « **Reply #60 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:18:07 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 24, 2010, 11:09:12 PM

Thats why i brought up that PwD can be played AS an enhancement... to get rid of that difference.

Getting rid of the difference in how it's played also gets rid of the difference in how the effect works. The reason I made it a point to ask you about the significance of your question (to which you never responded to me) was the hope you would pick up on that.

Quote

Still, all three cards are worded the exact same. The wording should act the same way.

I have 62 cards that act the same way when played. You have Gibeonite Trickery.

Quote

Other cards that should now be permanent:

I agree with all your examples except Agrippa, which only works when blocking and therefore is ongoing/temporary, and Gib Trick which is probably going to need clarification or errata.

Can you give me any reason this increase should not be permanent? So far all you've tried to do is find some example or another that is supposed to make the dozens of working cards not matter in the discussion, but for what reason should all of these other cards - including the angel - not work the way I described?

Quote from: DDiceRC on August 24, 2010, 11:10:07 PM

However, this contradicts the current wording of the REG.
Under Ongoing Conditions-> Increase or Decrease Ability-> Default Conditions, 4th line:
"The effect lasts until the end of the battle, unless the card specifies otherwise."
If the intent is a permanent increase, this line in the REG will need to be modified, or a "play as" will need to be added to SA.

I addressed this point two other times in this discussion, pointing out that this refers to Increase applied as an ongoing ability. Not all increases are ongoing; some resolve instantly. Not all increases are temporary; some are permanent. You look at all these examples available on all these cards and it's a pretty sensible conclusion to reach. It should also be reasonable to conclude that increase/decrease and "gain" will be addressed more accurately in future editions.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #61 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:20:47 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 24, 2010, 10:54:51 PM

But let's both be real about this: you think this card is practically worthless, and you were set on making sure everything I said about what the card could do had as little value as possible in order to keep the card worthless in your opinion.

Why are you saying this? At first observation, this card seemed worthless. I searched on my own for reasonably effective combos using this card, and did not find any. I'm going to maintain my view of this card until I have significant evidence to prove it incorrect. So far I don't believe I have been offered this. In fact, the only specific example you gave that I recall was Ethan recurring The Stars, which doesn't seem to me like a game-winning combo from any perspective.

If something you say does not seem to me to have as much value as you make it out to have, I will want to point that out. That's something I'll probably do even if it downsizes my own "argument".

The Schaef · « **Reply #62 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:23:25 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 24, 2010, 11:20:47 PM

I'm going to maintain my view of this card until I have significant evidence to prove it incorrect. So far I don't believe I have been offered this.

That's fine, but don't turn something I said into something that is not correct just to marginalize my argument.

DDiceRC · « **Reply #63 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:24:07 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 24, 2010, 11:18:07 PM

I addressed this point two other times in this discussion, pointing out that this refers to Increase applied as an ongoing ability. Not all increases are ongoing; some resolve instantly. Not all increases are temporary; some are permanent. You look at all these examples available on all these cards and it's a pretty sensible conclusion to reach. It should also be reasonable to conclude that increase/decrease and "gain" will be addressed more accurately in future editions.

I think where the confusion occurs is with the current REG, which does not include "increase or decrease ability" under "instant special abilitites." I look forward to the changes in the REG that clarify this.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #64 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:24:44 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 24, 2010, 11:18:07 PM

Getting rid of the difference in how it's played also gets rid of the difference in how the effect works. The reason I made it a point to ask you about the significance of your question (to which you never responded to me) was the hope you would pick up on that.

Sorry, I was in the middle of a game when you posted that.

Quote

Quote
Other cards that should now be permanent:

I agree with all your examples except Agrippa, which only works when blocking and therefore is ongoing/temporary, and Gib Trick which is probably going to need clarification or errata.

So, I'm just double checking because this will completely change how I play this... PwD used as an enhancement is a permanent decrease/diseasing of all my opponents heroes? If so, I'm never using it as an art again.

Quote

Can you give me any reason this increase should not be permanent? So far all you've tried to do is find some example or another that is supposed to make the dozens of working cards not matter in the discussion, but for what reason should all of these other cards - including the angel - not work the way I described?

None at all, I just always assumed no time limit means it ends at the end of the phase. I wasn't using the examples to say Strengthening Angel is not permanent, I was more asking if the cards are now permanent... because as said, I've always played that they ended.

The Schaef · « **Reply #65 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:27:23 PM »

Quote

I think where the confusion occurs is with the current REG, which does not include "increase or decrease ability" under "instant special abilitites." I look forward to the changes in the REG that clarify this.

Right, but that's kind of my point. There are dozens of instant and permanent increases and we accept them as correct intuitively. The REG clouds this by mentioning one type but not the other, but people have been playing their cards correctly up until this point, so all it's really going to do is codify what people already do normally.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 24, 2010, 11:24:44 PM

So, I'm just double checking because this will completely change how I play this... PwD used as an enhancement is a permanent decrease/diseasing of all my opponents heroes? If so, I'm never using it as an art again.

The way it's currently worded and the way I currently understand decrease to work, I don't see why that's not the case.

Quote

I just always assumed no time limit means it ends at the end of the phase.

So you assumed that Jairus' Daughter increased 2/2 until the end of the phase where she just lost the battle, and then immediately returned to her previous numbers?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #66 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:28:45 PM »

I guess now that I think about it, its kinda odd that I thought that.

Still, I'm so happy about PwD that I'm going to go make a defense.

Smokey · « **Reply #67 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:29:44 PM »

If I increase / decrease one of my characters and they return to draw pile and reset, the increase / decrease will reset, correct?

The Schaef · « **Reply #68 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:30:52 PM »

All cards return to face value when they go anywhere apart from the Field of Play or Set-Aside area.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 24, 2010, 11:28:45 PM

Still, I'm so happy about PwD that I'm going to go make a defense.

That strikes me as kinda weird... it's not the only disease card that does this, it just has a broader scope. But it only gets to target cards one time in this fashion, whereas the card affects every Hero the opponent puts down while it's active as an Artifact.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #69 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:37:05 PM »

Well, its good both ways, but... you cant DoN it to get rid of the decrease/disease when used as an enhancement.

DDiceRC · « **Reply #70 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:38:35 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 24, 2010, 11:30:52 PM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 24, 2010, 11:28:45 PM
Still, I'm so happy about PwD that I'm going to go make a defense.

That strikes me as kinda weird... it's not the only disease card that does this, it just has a broader scope. But it only gets to target cards one time in this fashion, whereas the card affects every Hero the opponent puts down while it's active as an Artifact.

But the "artifact" effect can be stopped by getting rid of PwD, while the "enhancement" effect is permanent. And if you played it while you had the fewest LSs, the -3 is permanent even when you rescue more souls.

The Schaef · « **Reply #71 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:43:02 PM »

No but you can kill it with a lot of cards from the new set, or heal your Heroes with those worthless angels Guardian Angel and Attending Angel, and being non-ongoing, the Hero won't re-decrease the next turn. Not to mention what Ordained as a Disciple can now do with all the new Heroes. So you see, there are different aspects to what is "permanent" here.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #72 on:** August 24, 2010, 11:50:05 PM »

Attending Angel does nothing against PwD. Guardian Angel only heals one at a time. I'll let you know when I see Ordained as a Disciple in any decks.

The Schaef · « **Reply #73 on:** August 25, 2010, 12:05:39 AM »

Attending Angel was my error; I thought it also healed a Hero. I know Guardian Angel only heals one at a time; please give me some credit at least. And I know that today is "bash any card that might work in a given situation day" but I don't think giving a Hero the permanent ability to pick apart a demon defense and/or heal a Hero - in addition to the greatly increased strength of apostles with the new cards - is so weak that no one would bother with it in these new circumstances.

My point was that with some Heroes coming onto the field clean, and Guardian Angel healing a new Hero each time he comes out (not to mentio all the other healing cards in the game), and the most important part, that HEALED HEROES DON'T GET RE-DISEASED, means that the trade is having ALL of the Heroes diseased when the Art is active versus having only the current batch of Heroes diseased, and only unless and until they get healed or reset.

In addition to which, using it to kill off low-grade Heroes only works the one time as opposed to keeping them out of territory for extended periods, and the ones that are killed (including with Face of Death) will come back at full strength when the player recycles them with Chariot or whatever, and I get better initiative with Heroes in the */4-ish range.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #74 on:** August 25, 2010, 12:07:49 AM »

I would most likely play it as an enhancement, quickly followed by Face of Death.

News:

Author Topic: The issue with Silver (Read 21307 times)

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

Lamborghini_diablo