"BROKEN." What does it mean?

[spiller]

The rulebook states that sacrificing does require an action. Since Twisted Sorceress specificly states that you can sacrifice a creature without using an action, it overrides the rulebook. Sacrificial Altar has no such wording so any loops involving it would have to be much different than the one used with Twisted Sorceress.
I am still working on trying to figure out this infinite loop. I am intrigued!! LOL

[Deleted]

Actually, I would dispute that. Tis true that an Action must be taken for a Creature to use his own Sacrifice, but Structures are exempt of Actions. Moreover, Sacrificial Alter does not imply that a Creature gains the ability to sac itself, but that the structure itself is the one that has the Sacrifice ability, which would thus involve no actions at all. In my eyes, it works just the same as Twisted Sorcerer. The only reason that Twisted Sorcerer HAS to include the line about no actions needed is because it itself is a Creature, and thus it's need to avoid confusion.

What do you think, Spiller? If I have hopefully convinced you, then an answer here would be cool. But if you would have a rebuttal and this turns into a deeper rules issue, then please I urge you to PM me for a convo, and we will come back here later with the simple resolution. Agreed?

[spiller]

Your point is well taken. This is a ruling I could go either way on. The rulebook defines Sacrifice as an ability that a Creature or an Item can have (doesn't mention Structures). If Sacrificial Altar is giving each creature the ability to sacrifice themselves, then the ruling would go one way. If the Altar itself is doing the sacrificing, you would be correct. I am leaning towards the altar is actually making the sacrifice only based on the "cards over rules" theory. This is a question I hope we here from Keith on.

[kevmo]

I agree with Q there is no ruling stating any sacrificing guidelines for structures. Since a structure is an inanimate object such as items I would lean towards the ruling of no action for sacrificing.

[rohoe]

I put this in hear because it is a potential broken combo unless I am not understanding the rules correctly.

If Vorex gets something that gives him an extra action he can perform an infinite number of attacks?

Vorex with 2 actions
Vorex attacks
Vorex uses his ability on himself
Vorex disengages
Rinse and repeat.

[Deleted]

Hey, rohoe. The answer would be yes. Truth is, about 2 months ago this was a problem. Some of the players including myself were putting Ring of Temporal Acceleration on Vorex and doing just what you listed and more and it amounted to inbalance and insanity.

You may or may not know that that the Ring has been errata-d. Check it out here... www.mysticalempire.com/temporalring.html

It can't be used by creatures anymore. I don't think there are any other ways to give Vorex an extra action that I know of. But if you find one, let us know...please? As cool as some of these comboes, especially infinite ones, are, some may be too one-sided and not healthy for the game.

This is not to say that all inf comboes are "broken". There are some out know that are still legal yet not "broken". In fact, card interaction and comboes are what make this game so cool. But good looking out, rohoe.

[Deleted]

kevmo said:

I agree with Q there is no ruling stating any sacrificing guidelines for structures. Since a structure is an inanimate object such as items I would lean towards the ruling of no action for sacrificing.

Aw, shucks. Thanks!

Yes, the rulebook is a little lacking to provide the answer here, but I'm sure that it will be worked out and that the new rulebook will have much more powerful language. As it is, we're lucky to have powerful minds like yours Kevmo, along with Spiller and Sojo and others, to help the Sith out and preserve the quality of gaming. Thanks guys.

I have nonetheless been looking at the spoilers of both sets specifically at structures, just analyzing patterns. It is clear for me to see that some of these Structures have their own activated abilities. Sure, some structures read, "Your Character/Creature may use an Action to..." and that means that the Structure grants abilities to them, but others, like Sacrificial Altar, don't. I must continue to infer then that the Sacrifice ability of the Altar doesn't need an action from anyone. I just wrote this to hope and further clarify.

Next case.

[rohoe]

I read the errata I just assumed that there was something else that would give him an extra action but after looking through the card list I see that is not the case. Thanks for the reply.

[WildfireCEO]

Uh guys there is that peasent combo....

[Deleted]

fperkins said:

Uh guys there is that peasent combo....

Do you mean when combined from that cool effect/curse from Reckoning, Davy?

[spiller]

I hate it when people "hint" at a broken combo. If you really feel it is broken, it should be fixed for the benefit of the game. I would love to hear of this broken peasant combo.

[Keith Katsikas]

I see two cursed effects from reckoning that would make peasants quite interesting. Brain Death & Sinking Battlefield. Brain Death must be the one in question here. But broken? I don't know about that.

[darklord]

Just to throw my two cents in, I think that a broken card is one that everyone feels the need to play if they want to optimize their chance of winning. This definition excludes resources or other core elements in a game that are INTENDED to be in every deck. A broken card is NOT intended to be in most decks but ends up there anyway. A well-designed card will end up in some decks, maybe many decks, but not most or all decks. If a card is in almost every deck out there, then it's reducing deck diversity by one slot. That a card is common or uncommon makes it no less broken, just a little less devastating on the tournament players' wallets.

If the deck size is 49 and if 5 card slots are pretty much automatically filled in every deck with cards that the mechanic doesn't intentionally seek to fill them with, then you have at least 5 broken cards. Of course this doesn't apply with a really small card pool where people are playing the same cards due to lack of viable alternative options. But, in the long run, if the trend toward putting a card in every deck remains, then the card is broken.

In designing my own games, I've determined that occasionally a mechanic is broken rather than a card. I've sometimes found everybody and their brother playing a given card that doesn't look like it's unbalanced. Sometimes this occurs because the card is a bandage or patch for something in the core rules that needs fixing. In this case, a change in the core rules can free up a card slot in everyone's deck and neutralize the overused card, creating more deck diversity.

I think broken cards (or rules, as noted earlier) are primarily measured by their influence on deck diversity and their constant presence in the game. As Magic the Gathering proved, just because a card is common or rare, doesn't readily stop it from being broken or sought after for inclusion.

If you have to think hard for a reason not to include a card in every deck, and the designer didn't intend it to be in every deck, then the card is broken (or it's a patch for a broken rule).

A much more elusive kinda broken card doesn't have to be in every deck, but every deck has to have that card OR a specific counter for that card. Those are less obviously broken, but still limit play diversity. If stacking anti-item cards generally makes sense, then they alone aren't a sign of brokenness. If people stack anti-item cards primarily to nuke one or two other cards which are in most decks, then that's a subtle sign of a broken card hanging out there.

I have a much more conservative definition of broken than Keith does -- that which attacks play diversity, rather than that which automatically wins. Consider that by Keith's definition, if there were 49 cards that had to be in everybody's deck to optimize the deck that he would not define them as broken, whereas I'd define everyone playing the same 49 cards as a definite screwup on my part as a designer. Keith hasn't designed an environment like that, but I've seen a couple of cards that seem too prevalent. So I offered up the Veritas Games Company definition of "broken" as some food for thought.

Just my 2 cents. Your mileage may and probably does vary.

[WildfireCEO]

spiller said:

I hate it when people "hint" at a broken combo. If you really feel it is broken, it should be fixed for the benefit of the game. I would love to hear of this broken peasant combo.

Actually no I didn't mean to hint I just figured it was already discussed when skyler brought it up.

[Deleted]

spiller said:

I hate it when people "hint" at a broken combo. If you really feel it is broken, it should be fixed for the benefit of the game. I would love to hear of this broken peasant combo.

Oh boohoo. If you ever want to know anything, just ask, bro. I'll PM you my brain if you want. I just don't like blabbing other people's stuff, assuming I even know what their stuff is. Either way, I don't think any of what was going on was broken or you know I would have blown the whistle first and brought it to panel.

In this case, I actually thought it was Sinking Battlefield, but I don't know. I don't remember who it was last month or so that this effect + any 2 action creature is your basic Vorex + RoTA. Albeit, not as consistent or fast and thus not worth blowing the whistle for but alas cool to know.