Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Isildur on April 01, 2018, 02:54:01 AM

Great explanation RedemptionAggie! I'm not sure if you were responding to me or the other posts... but I'd still like to throw it out there again as to what happens to old search abilities and anti search cards? Do we now just have a complicated blob of "play as" in the REG for each old card?

Unless if this was changed in a previous REG update and I just missed the boat on the change then please ignore the old fossil over here

The first part (about exchange and other things from deck) was an indirect response to you - since search is already partially integrated into a lot of abilities, this just does the same with take - some takes are searches, some aren't, it just depends on where the target is. The rest was in general.

We do have a document called the ORCID, which has Play As for all of the cards, trying to bring them to the current wording. Here's an article about it on Land of Redemption.

Quote from: Red on April 01, 2018, 03:35:45 PM

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on April 01, 2018, 02:27:53 AM

Search is not it's own thing. Sometimes we can't state it (exchange) or we don't state it (discard from deck, banish from discard pile, top/underdeck from Reserve, etc.). But the search still happens.

Prior to Fall of Man, we were down to 3 situations where we actually used the word "search" (X is a searchable location, Y is what you search for):
- "Search X for Y (and add it to hand)", which has been replaced with "Take Y from X" (which works because of a different change that allows you to take cards you do not control, not just opponent's cards)
- "Search X for Y and put it in play" or "Search X for Y and play it", which has been replaced with "Play Y from X" (Sample)
- "Search opponent's X for Y and put it in play" (where Y is usually a Lost Soul), which is Shem's Wife. (And it is clunky, IMO.)

Basically, since we can't always state the search, we never state the search.

Can't you change "give it to opponents territory" to the older "put it in play?" Or have I missed "put" becoming a keyword? Are we trying to avoid unstated default language?

Once you take a card, you control it - so "put it in play" would put in your territory, and "put it in their territory" would leave the card under your control, which I don't think we want.

But one thing I find irritating: The usage of "give" where we used "place in ..." or "take into ..." before. So when it is constituded by the definition of control-handover I wonder how this worked so far when cards have been "placed" into anothers player's territory like hopper lost soul or when things like "convert and take it" happened where also a control-handover takes place?

For me it looks as if we introduce another keyword for topics which have been handled more or less unquestionable while not replacing any of the already existing keywords or reducing the overall amount of keywords at all!

What is the benefit in introducing this new keyword? For me it looks for now like making the entire gameplay more complex and confusing without any need (when considering the already existing control-handover scenarios where at least during the game play experiences I could paticipate there have never been considerable/reasonable questions or [mis-]interpretations)?

Quote from: ProfA

Lost Soul "Hopper" (II Chronicles 28:13) (Kings) - Special Ability: When drawn, place this Lost Soul in one opponent's Land of Bondage. Identifier: Does not count toward Lost Soul deck building requirements.

http://www.cactusforums.com/redemption-official-rules/errata-reworded-special-abilities/msg471510/#msg471510

Hopper should have been a give (and has been given errata to be a give).

Nothing is really changing about how the old cards are played--we are simply trying to streamline the wording.

If I "place" a LS into opponent's land of bondage, I no longer control that LS (which everyone understands from years of playing that way), but since we have a rule that says placed cards are controlled by the player who placed them, that is actually inconsistent. In order to surrender control of a card to an opponent, we need a different keyword and "give" is the optimal choice since we've had "give" cards since Kings as Aggie pointed out.

Quote from: KoalaKing on March 31, 2018, 01:36:13 PM

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on March 30, 2018, 09:40:51 PM

EI resulted in a failed rescue, because no LS was rescued in battle resolution. We changed that so EI is a successful rescue.

There is a rule that stops you from making 2 successful rescue attempts before each opponent has had a turn.

On the colon, unless the ability before the colon is a look or reveal, everything after the colon is dependent on that ability. Look and Reveal is at least the rest of the sentence, maybe more. Ends of the Earth stinks for defining the colon. (Not that it's the only card - it's just the first one that comes to mind.)

So if you rescue on your first turn then can you not make a rescue attempt on your next turn at all? Or would any attack just default to a battle challenge?

However, once a player has made a successful rescue attempt, they may not make another rescue attempt until each other player has had a turn.

The battle is considered a rescue attempt if a Hero has access to a Lost Soul at any point in the battle.

What am I missing here, I thought when you added an extra dominant you had to add an extra lost soul that would put the deck at 58 cards right?

Okay cool. I didn't realize this. Are we going to get to see the Wages of sin (Fom) and the Golden calf (Fom) any time soon?