Humble Retreat

[Keith Katsikas]

160
Humble Retreat
Spell
Ritual

Creatures that have Attacked during this Turn are returned to their owner’s Hand: all Combat Damage is reversed: controller of returned Creatures gains one extra Action permanently.
4
4
0
8
8
Santiago Iborra
R

[kevmo]

Question? Can the creature be returned from anywhere back to your hand this card is very open ended so the ruling is foggy. Also if a creature that blocked my attacking creature dies and then the damage gets reversed later i know i get my creature back but would thier creature come back into play or would it stay dead?

[Keith Katsikas]

What exactly more can you read into what the card states? I think it is pretty clear.

1. Creatures that have Attacked during this Turn are returned to their owner’s Hand.
2. All Combat Damage (by those creatures) is reversed.
3. Controller of returned Creature(s) gains one extra Action permanently.

I am open to suggestions.

[spiller]

It is less clear to us that have not created the card LOL. I will show you what I mean.

1. If a creature died in the attack, is it returned from the graveyard? If it was stolen, does it return from your opponents control? If it abandoned, does it come back to your hand from your resource pile? If removed from the game, does it return to your hand?
2. Damage is reversed but does it return your opponents creatures back to play if it was killed? For example, I attacked my opponent with Vorex and he blocked with a Mountain Giant. I then attacked him with a Knyles and did 2 damage to his character. I now cast Humble Retreat. It is obvious that the 2 damage is removed from his character, Knyles is returned to my hand, and my character gains one extra action. As worded, Vorex would return from the graveyard to my hand but what happens to his Mountain Giant in the graveyard? As worded, it would loose it's 3 damage but since it isn't in play, it would have to stay in the graveyard.
3. This part is quite clear unless your opponents creatures are returned to play because then it would imply that his character would gain another action as well.
4. What is the ruling on when a creature has considered to have attacked? If I declare my Goblin Archer as an attacker and my opponent uses the Illusionist's ability to engage it (or removes it with a cranial leech), did it actually attack?
I know this may seem like arguing semantics but it needs to be 100% clear.

[Keith Katsikas]

Answers to Mike's Questions:

1. Yes
2. Mountain Giant would return to play, because it was never damaged, so it was not destroyed.
4. In cases like you mentioned, the creature would not have attacked.

There must be a way to not clutter every card with rules. If you take the text on this card very literal, does it not work?
I can see that we need to be careful in how we word cards in the future, but I hope we can work with this one as it is. I hate errata.

[sojomojo]

Just remember that declaring and attacking are two different things. More like two parts of combat. However after the 1st part the 2nd part is questionable if it happens or not so if it didn't you never attacked.

I would have to agree that this one seems straight forward but the declaring attack vs attacking was a fair enough question.

Sojo out!

[spiller]

If I had made a ruling, I would have gone with everything you had said but one. I would have left the opponents creatures in the graveyard since they were no longer there to reverse the damage that had done to them.
The biggest question this makes clear is that cards remember effects after they leave play and that effects will apply to a card no matter where the card is.

[Keith Katsikas]

I see where this is going... See, I wanted it to be the way I explained it, but now I wonder if that is going to make things to complicated. Is it a problem if an effect influenses things to the point that it completely reverses things which happened during the turn, even taking things out of the discard or cemetery and putting them back where they were before the effect? That is what I had in mind, but will it mess things up too much rule wise? I am begining to wonder.

[spiller]

It can be however you want it to be, your the boss LOL. I have been studying this card recently and it does make a few things a bit more complicated then when you first look at it. I am not sure what other cards/abilities can effect cards in other zones. This is a good reason to have this individual card database to refer to.
PS. Q is going to love this ...he enjoys the messy ones.

[Deleted]

I do love the messy ones! Nice call, Spiller.

In truth, Spiller, I had seen this question since like the second you posted it. But I knew whatever I told you had a good chance of conflicting with Keith's ideas. Who am I do disagree with the boss, right? I just wanted to give them time to say their piece first.

Ok, Sithmaster, I agree with Spiller in that you should have cards work whatever the way you want them to...and that's what the development and design process is for. But...I will dare say that once a card hits the sales shelf it belongs more to the gamer than the designer. (Don't hit me!) I think things should be dealt with on our terms.

I can definitely relate to every single query that Spiller might have had, or anyone for that matter. I understand you, Keith, (trust me) that you want the game to be read literally off the card as to reduce the number of rules questions.

...But you hit the nail on the head when you said that you have to be very careful how you word the cards. Now, that can be as easily done as said if you just have it in your mind at all times. I was making a "language" argument on Trade Agreement too.

There is no problem for this card to do everything you said you wanted it to, as long as you provide literal pathways for it on the card. ANY ONE EFFECT THAT THE CARD CAN DO THAT BREAKS THE NORMAL RULES OF THE GAME HAS TO BE PROVIDED FOR ON THE CARD ITSELF.

To answer Keith's concerns IMO, you can't have a literal interpretation of cards when the text is too broad or vague. The more a card does, the more text it needs.

To comment on this card...it's way too vague. The card doesn't provide for everything that people are suggesting it does. Under normal circumstances, cards affect cards in play. If a card affects other zone, it has to say so.

Humble Retreat LITERALLY returns all creatures that attacked to owner's hand. It LITERALLY reverses combat damage that was done. This would normally do so for creatures in play. Whether this card reanimates dead creatues or reinstates abandoning creatures isn't literally provided for. You're suggesting this is inferred, and that's just messy.

The problem with the card is that in order to do all the things it was designed to do, it's asking the game to go "back in time". Keith suggested this concept by saying "the creatures that died would never have been dealt damage". No official rules procedure for sanctioned play advocates going back, so for this card to do so is weird.

But I think I've made my point. I don't even want to go into how I would answer or rule your question Spiller. Better to wait and see what the response is to what I'm suggesting. I do think there is a serious language problem with some of the cards right now. The higher level players in heated moments or pressured play will pick this game apart card per card in an attempt to manipulate wording to their advantage, and they can't be given this easy a target or opportunity.

Dazed and Confused, Q out...

[Keith Katsikas]

I'm sorry. I see the points being made here and I know I needed to word this card so much differently than I did. But now that it is printed, what should be done? errata is so difficult. I almost always stear towards banning before errata. Once you change the text on a card you open the door to even bigger messes on tourney day. I hope we get better wordings on card in the future to avoid crap like this. Thanks guys for all the help.

[Deleted]

The easiest thing for you to do is to actually leave it alone. As the card is, it doesn't actually create a game problem. You would just have to rule the card to do exactly what it says literally, meaning it wouldn't have the power to do the things you previously envisioned for it.

-It would only return creatures that attacked that are still in play to their owner's hand. It would not bring creatures back from any other zone; cemetery, resource pile or otherwise.
-Only surviving creatures and/or the defending character get their damage reversed. Creatures that died or abandoned because of combat damage are not reinstated because they are not in play at the time of Humble Retreat.
-Controller of creatures that attacked that turn get +1 action permanently.

As the card would be under that light, it definitely still has its uses. You just not be able to use anymore the way you might have used to.

If you wanted to salvage it's previous power, you would have to add text to the card, which im my opinion is unfeasable. Like I said, the way the card would be now isn't even bad. I say leave it and judge under this new perview.

[spiller]

I am not sure you need to errata the card, just put here EXACTLY what it does. I hope we have a final decision prior to this weekends tournament. And to think at first people thought this card was pretty straight forward.

[sojomojo]

See I look at this as it being too simple. If combat damage is reversed then if something died it wouldn't of died. But I can also see how people would argue against it. If your intent was how you originally stated it then I would suggest expanding on it with an Errata just like you did for structures.

Sojo out

[spiller]

You also need to address issue of effects triggered from damage ie: Dark Knight, Warrior Angel, Monkeys, and whatever else I am forgetting.