Humble Retreat

[Keith Katsikas]

What a mess...

[Deleted]

I understand the nature of your comments, Spiller and Sojo, and of course I should be the one to argue, right?

One thing you have to remember is that this card doesn't prevent damage, it reverses it. So any effects that happened as a result of combat damage definitely happened in the game. This card would reverse combat damage (a weird way to word a card IMO), which would remove any damage counters that are dealt to creatures from combat this turn. The card does not allow for you to undo other effects derived from combat. I think you guys want to read too much into it.

In my humble opinion of course... What's important is just to get it settled, whether it be the way I'm suggesting or not. We just need a concrete basis for an answer.

When push comes to shove, all you can do is read a card LITERALLY, not project what the card seems like it would do.

[spiller]

My original thoughts were exactly as yours Q, damage could only be reversed if the card was still in play. It would seem to push this card into the "OMG good golly" (we shall henceforth avoid the word broken) category if it only brought back the attackers creatures (and removed any damage counters). It does come down to the tricky wording of "reverses damage". If that means removing damage counters, that is one thing. If it means "changes all past attacks so that they deal 0 damage and return the game to the state it was at the time of the attack" then we have a different ball of wax. Heck, you could even define "reverse damage" to mean all damage dealt by a character or creature is dealt to itself.
If I was to errata this card, it would be so that it only effected cards in play. While this may not be the literal translation of the card, it would seem to fix the multitude of issues. That being said, it is Keith's decision on how it needs to be decided.
On another note to Keith....Don't feel bad that you need to make errata to cards. It happens all the time in other games. It isn't always easy to get the linguistics correct. There is a need to keep the cards as simple as possible which often times conflicts with how many words are often needed to fully describe what a card does. Your doing a great job designing fun cards and sometimes they just need to be written out in long form as errata.

[Deleted]

Here, here to Spiller on yet another insightful, exalted comment.

I agree completely. Keith, you are doing an amazing job designing, judging, pioneering, and putting up with the likes of me. Even if it seems that I give you a hard time, it's only because I'm comfortable with you, and that's only because I respect you. (Maybe even admire...?)

Spiller, we have had people think the combat damage is reversed to themselves. I can't help but notice you used that word "past" again, and you know what I think about time-traveling cards. Either way, with or without errata, it must be decided what the card will literally do.

[Keith Katsikas]

Man, the wording on this card just simply SUCKS! I admit that whole-heartedly. Oh... What to do? This one is giving me a migraine. It's just so d**n messy.

[redshirt]

Hypothetically, could I cast this on my turn before attacking at all to have my character gain one action permanently? Or do I have to send at least one creature sideways before I gain that additional action?

Hello, two extra Rings of Temporal Acceleration!


Also, if I cast it in the middle of an attack event, the creature that is currently attacking goes back to its owner's hand, right? Is it considered to "have attacked" if the attack event hasn't resolved?

[Deleted]

You would have to send at least one attacker that would have to return to your hand for you to gain the extra action.

To answer your second question, at least one whole combat event would have to resolve. If you respond to the first combat event with this card, it would resolve before the combat event itself would, and have no effect. Remember that both the attack and its block/defense would happen at speed 0. The only exception would have been a creature with Quickness at a speed greater than this spell.

[redshirt]

I don't feel as though your response to my second question is clear enough, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my latter two questions.

At what point is a creature said to "have attacked"? Is it when it has used an action to attack? Is it when the attack event has fully resolved? Or some other point?

If it is the former, then I can cast the spell immediately after saying my Battlemonger (say) is attacking. Thus, my Battlemonger lives and no creatures of my opponent's get healed.

If it is the latter, my opponent has an opportunity to defend with, say Sworn Defender. Battlemonger dies. Then I can cast the spell. Then Sworn Defender has its 3 damage healed and I get my extra action. (assuming nothing else has gone on combatwise.)

Sorry if I'm giving you even more of a migraine, Keith.

[Deleted]

You're right...mostly. I'll still try to answer it and get us settled, and when Keith comes hopefully it'll be a little less chaotic and he can just give the blessing or the clear-cut correction.

Just remember that when you declare an attack you can't respond until your opponent has had a chance to. So if he decides to block/defend, then you could use the spell before the damage event would resolves. I believe your creature would be considered to have been attacking by then. I'm almost sure of it, then you could return him before he dies.

So don't cast it immediately, but after your opponent responds. Of course if the response nullifies the attack then that's another story. But if they choose a defender, then I believe you could use it to your advantage in a way to gain the action and get back the creature.

[redshirt]

I'm guessing that the original idea was to be able to nullify a wave of attacks set off by your opponent, with the slight drawback of giving him an extra action a turn so he could gradually re-hire all the guys you bounced.

But it seems like the best way to use it is to get an extra action a turn for your own self.

[spiller]

sojomojo said:

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

What was the exanded errata on structures? I didn't see anything posted on the errata page.

[spiller]

Cancel that...I just checked it out. Wow! Huge change. It does make structures much more viable.

[Keith Katsikas]

redshirt said:

I'm guessing that the original idea was to be able to nullify a wave of attacks set off by your opponent, with the slight drawback of giving him an extra action a turn so he could gradually re-hire all the guys you bounced.

But it seems like the best way to use it is to get an extra action a turn for your own self.

You're right, this card does have a deul purpose, and many might think that using it on their own character is better than using it on an opponents. Either way is cool in my opinion.

Honestly, the way the card is currently worded, I don't think any creatures would need to even attack. I may need to add text stating that at least one creature must have attacked this turn.

[spiller]

Are we going to have an answer today? This card needs to be fully explained ASAP before the regional tomorrow.

[Keith Katsikas]

What answe do you want? Seriously. Am I missing something?