PDA

View Full Version : Rules Bugs



bactgudz
05-01-2014, 10:43 AM
These are either bugs in the implementation of the rules, or areas where the rules need to be updated to reflect what is happening in the client if as intended.

A) Wizard of the Silver Talon.
In the rules FAQ it states that the master/pet relationship exists in all zones, additionally cards like Shrine of Prosperity make it apparent that troops have power and toughness in all zones. Yet while Wizard is in the graveyard, the master/pet relationship is not in effect (Wizard doesn't get +1/+1 in the graveyard if talon does damage).

B) Definition of a Card.
Why can I not target a card on the chain...or for that matter a card in the graveyard or a hidden zone with Reversion or Time Ripple. In the Rules Glossary, the term card refers to objects in these zones as well...and there are other things that explicitly interact with "cards" in these zones. The term "card" on Reversion and Time Ripple should be replaced with "card in the war zone."

Disordia
05-01-2014, 11:59 AM
I definitely agree with B. This has been an annoyance that I hope they clean up. A troop should be a troop when it's in play, a troop spell on the chain and a troop card everywhere else. The game functions like that, but the wording is not clearly defined on the cards, and you cannot have things not clearly defined in aTCG.

Eierdotter
05-01-2014, 12:49 PM
well usually a cards text refers to "target xy" this means something on the board
in other cases it says " target xy in a hand" "target xy in a graveyard" etc.

bactgudz
05-01-2014, 03:22 PM
Countermagic says "Interrupt target card." Obviously we all know what it means, but it is very bad templating. A new player may see this and ask So why is that different from Time Ripple and Reversion in terms of targeting?

Eierdotter
05-01-2014, 03:53 PM
Countermagic says "Interrupt target card." Obviously we all know what it means, but it is very bad templating. A new player may see this and ask So why is that different from Time Ripple and Reversion in terms of targeting?

good point
but with so many keywords and mechanics it is impossible to write a full ruling on each card.
it is a complicated game for fresh starters, but if you gathered a basic knowledge of the mechanics
each explanation on cards is just annoying.
you can not learn this game after playing a few minutes like hearthstone.
it requires some dedication and i assume we get a awesome tutorial at some point to introduce the basic mechanics to each fresh player.

Disordia
05-01-2014, 04:37 PM
good point
but with so many keywords and mechanics it is impossible to write a full ruling on each card.
it is a complicated game for fresh starters, but if you gathered a basic knowledge of the mechanics
each explanation on cards is just annoying.
you can not learn this game after playing a few minutes like hearthstone.
it requires some dedication and i assume we get a awesome tutorial at some point to introduce the basic mechanics to each fresh player.

Or you can do what I suggested? Not terribly difficult to realize you need to be able to refer to a card differently based on which zone it's in.

bactgudz
05-01-2014, 04:48 PM
good point
but with so many keywords and mechanics it is impossible to write a full ruling on each card.
it is a complicated game for fresh starters, but if you gathered a basic knowledge of the mechanics
each explanation on cards is just annoying.
you can not learn this game after playing a few minutes like hearthstone.
it requires some dedication and i assume we get a awesome tutorial at some point to introduce the basic mechanics to each fresh player.

No, it's not impossible...in fact it is very possible to write a comprehensive rules document and be able to interpret every card clearly in the context of those rules...just look at mtg which hex obviously borrows generously from. They could take copy nearly verbatim 90% of the mtg comp rules and write the rest themselves, but instead we have poor templating.

Eierdotter
05-02-2014, 02:00 AM
No, it's not impossible...in fact it is very possible to write a comprehensive rules document and be able to interpret every card clearly in the context of those rules...just look at mtg which hex obviously borrows generously from. They could take copy nearly verbatim 90% of the mtg comp rules and write the rest themselves, but instead we have poor templating.

as far as i know the comprehensive rules are not written on the cards.
For now we have a little rules PDF somewhere that will hopefully get bigger during beta.
OK after reading all posts carefully i get what you are up to, you are not asking why xy is written that way on a card, you are asking why the same term is used for different meanings in general. The big picture if you want.

Well then i hope we can get this fixed, a lot of cardtext needs a rewording then.
Maybe start a new thread in general to get a brainstorm going for these terms. Hopefully CZE will be able to use most of this if they feel the need.

PS: this thread is not a BUG it is a complaint

bactgudz
05-02-2014, 07:11 AM
OK after reading all posts carefully i get what you are up to, you are not asking why xy is written that way on a card, you are asking why the same term is used for different meanings in general. The big picture if you want.

Exactly, Time Ripple, Reversion, and Countermagic all say:
[do something to] "target card"

The fact that you need rules knowledge to interpret the [do something to] is totally fine and as it should be. But they all say "target card" when their allowable targets are in fact different.

Gwaer
05-02-2014, 07:24 AM
I doubt set 1 will have major wording changes at this point. I think the key here is the context. To me ripper and reversion both target the same cards. They'll both hit any card in play. Countermagic is the odd man out, and I think the operative wording that makes it so is interrupt. There's really only one place to interrupt cards and that is on the stack/chain.

bactgudz
05-02-2014, 07:28 AM
I doubt set 1 will have major wording changes at this point. I think the key here is the context. To me ripper and reversion both target the same cards. They'll both hit any card in play. Countermagic is the odd man out, and I think the operative wording that makes it so is interrupt. There's really only one place to interrupt cards and that is on the stack/chain.

The context of Countermagic I can understand, but it would be perfectly reasonable to be able to return to hand or revert a card on the chain...so there is lack of context there.

They should take a lesson from mtg that has evolved over the years to very precise rules and card templating to properly maintain the huge design space available in a tcg.

Gwaer
05-02-2014, 07:33 AM
As long as the comp rules say, if no zone is specified the card refers to the battle zone or in play zone. Then has a special section for interrupt mechanics on the chain the current card wordings are perfectly viable.

at least I can't think of any cards that violate those rules.

bactgudz
05-02-2014, 08:01 AM
As long as the comp rules say, if no zone is specified the card refers to the battle zone or in play zone. Then has a special section for interrupt mechanics on the chain the current card wordings are perfectly viable.

at least I can't think of any cards that violate those rules.

Sure, that's why my original post said that they either need to update the rules or change the templating. As long as the comp rules and templating are in synch that's fine. They have to explicitly define actions resolving as effects then (which they kind of do in the quick start guide) to make things like Ritualist of the Spring Litter and Te'Talca high Cleric to function as in client to use that templating of the word "card"; and define "play a card" as an exception. And then if they print an ability in the future that says "Your cards deal double damage" it wouldn't double actions...that's fine if it's the way they want to go. And then Constants would have to be both cards and effects to be consistent with the client and quick start rules.

Gwaer
05-02-2014, 11:02 AM
I don't think I'm clear on what you're saying. All cards in all zones can be cards without issue. They would just need to specify zone if it's non normal. The text 'card' is fine. Play a card doesn't need to be an exception. Card is the general term that applies to every card in the game. It's a superclass that includes actions, troops, constants, everything. Your cards deal double damage means that any damage from any card would be doubled but it doesn't double an action that mills for example, only damage effects. Be it troops or actions or constants. Their zone isn't implicitly important because they are being played or coming into play in order to deal any damage at all. Same with extinction. It doesn't specify a zone so it defaults to in play/battle zone it does specify troops. So all troops in play are destroyed.

bactgudz
05-02-2014, 11:27 AM
Your cards deal double damage means that any damage from any card would be doubled but it doesn't double an action that mills for example, only damage effects. Be it troops or actions or constants.
But the phase "your cards deal double damage" does not specify a zone, so why would it not default to only in play/battle zone under your reasoning? Why should it affect an action on the chain? Should a Quick Action that reads "Void all cards." Also then void any actions on the chain? And then if so should I not be able to target an action on the chain with Time Ripple?

Disordia
05-02-2014, 11:37 AM
No matter what you say on the issue, how the cards are templated currently is a terrible design. A basic premise of a TCG is that everything in the game has crystal clear definitions. It currently is not like that in this game. In my opinion, If you made cards to be templated like how I mentioned in my first post, then it would take minimal effort in the comp rules to clearly define how cards interact based on what zone they are in and what zones their abilities affect.

Gwaer
05-02-2014, 12:27 PM
Because the card enters play in order to do double damage it has to be in play. A card that says it voids all cards would void any card that is in play, yes. If you play it in response to another action on the chain it wouldn't interrupt that, but if you waited until after it entered play it would.

I would argue that that even mtg is not crystal clear. There's a ton of arguing about what cards really mean, which is why there is a huge comp rules document. I think hex is perfectly in line with mtg's card clarity. It's just different in some ways.

Disordia
05-02-2014, 01:05 PM
Well, in regards to players arguing, that just means one side doesn't understand the rules. Now crystal clear may not have been the best wording. I think comparing it to a simple math problem is better. If you have 1 plus 3 plus 7, then that equals 11. It will always and only equal 11. Same in magic. Given a specific situation, there is one correct outcome. Unfortunately, the rules are very deep and somewhat convoluted so it can be very difficult for judges to call upon every relevant rule to get it exactly right in the fly at a tournament.

Basically, there cannot be any ambiguity in the rules or definitions of words. Now they can lay out a lot of rules in the comp rules to cover everything, but in this specific scenario, I think they would be better served giving cards different names based on where they are, like troop, troop card, or troop spell. This would mean there is less needed to be explained in the comp rules, less specific rulings in said rules, and it would be more easily understood by someone learning the game.

bactgudz
05-02-2014, 01:34 PM
Because the card enters play in order to do double damage it has to be in play.

Actions never enter play, they go from the chain to the graveyard. So if you had a card in play that read "Your cards do double damage" and then you play an action that does 2 damage, that damage would not be doubled if we use you rule definitions.
See you are even confusing yourself when trying to make something work with the current templating.

Magic does not have these inconsistencies, if you read and understand the comprehensive rules there are is only debate about a handful of interactions amongst 15,000+ cards between high level judges. Not something nearly as simple as the definition of a card.

Gwaer
05-02-2014, 09:14 PM
The magic comp rules are 200 pages long covering 9 sections and tons of subsections. You are seriously misrepresenting how easy to grasp the magic wording is cards. Cards dealing double damage is extremely clear. If that needs a special rule for some reason put it in the comp rules. Doesn't seem like it should to me. Especially since there is an impartial judge at all times in hex games. Ie you are only allowed to make legal plays. That honestly obviates the need for comp rules IMO. If you can't do an action it is illegal. If you can it is not.

bactgudz
05-03-2014, 07:36 AM
Cards dealing double damage is extremely clear.
It is exactly as clear as "Revert target card" or "Destroy all cards" or "Void all cards"...yet the "cards" they should effect are entirely different in your mind. In case English is not your first language, the word "card" does not typically have deep contextual meaning. And if you want to define a contextual meaning in the rules, like you suggested, you need to stick to that contextual definition, not just say it doesn't hold when convenient. I'm done going back and forth with you on this.

The fact of the matter is at some point if they want to explore the design space of this game, they need precise templating and rules otherwise both the minds of the players and the game-engine code have to uniquely handle an exponentially increasing number of interactions.

It is extremely surprising that they did not do this from the get-go for a digital tcg, especially one that borrows this heavily from Magic. You can literally write down the comprehensive rules of Magic as computer code on the objects that are defined therein and you have 90% of your game engine done...Conversely if the hex game engine is properly structured instead of a hodgepodge of catching interactions, the pseudo-code for it would provide 90% of what you need for a comp rules document.

It is not coincidence that both mtgo and the detailed comp rules document came out within a core set of eachother.

I mean just think about that..the game engine doesn't know what is clear or not in the english language, it must have a precise definition of what something effects...so why is the English left needlessly ambiguous when you have already done the work to be accurate in the engine? And code-reuse would seem to be highest if you had some set of objects referred to as "cards in play" and one that refers to "all pieces of virtual cardboard", etc rather than constructing an "affected objects" set from scratch when programming each card.

Gwaer
05-03-2014, 08:51 AM
It'd really help if you would use examples actually present in hex so I can understand what you're trying to get across.


Mtg has wrath of god, which says destroy all creatures, they cannot be regenerated. Hex has extinction which says destroy all troops.
Those cards are exactly as clear.


Judgement says destroy all cards. It effects the exact same zone as destroy all troops. And it removes all cards no matter their subtype

The examples you give of revert target card says very clearly that it will target any card, and just like mtg the zone it can effect is defaulted.

mudgee01
08-23-2015, 09:41 PM
Sorry to Necro this, but where does one find the "comprehensive" Hex Rulebook?

Audens
08-24-2015, 12:24 AM
There is no "comprehensive" rulebook, but there are three documents that help:

The Quick Start Guide: http://f31812b0b389f16c3943-bb9edd4f1582b9b60c1682bd9d280aa0.r48.cf2.rackcdn.c om/HEX_QuickStartGuide.pdf

The Set 1 FAQ: http://f31812b0b389f16c3943-bb9edd4f1582b9b60c1682bd9d280aa0.r48.cf2.rackcdn.c om/HEX_FAQ_1-3.pdf

The Set 2 FAQ: http://f31812b0b389f16c3943-bb9edd4f1582b9b60c1682bd9d280aa0.r48.cf2.rackcdn.c om/HEX%20Shattered%20Destiny%20FAQ%201-1.pdf

There is not currently a comparable document for Set 3.