Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: ebridge on August 27, 2009, 01:23:04 PM
-
In a multiplayer game, if you're player 3 and players 1 and 2 have Plagued out, are your heroes now -4 toughness (or maybe even -6)?
Thanks.
-
yes, strength and toughness can go negative (just look at Samson's Sacrifice)
-
yes...they both decrease your heroes 0/2 or 0/3 therefore your add the subtraction. So you would be decreased 0/4 or 0/6.
-
yes...they both decrease your heroes 0/2 or 0/3 therefore your add the subtraction. So you would be decreased 0/4 or 0/6.
Or 0/5 :P.
-
haha, right...or 0/5 ::)
-
Along this line, how do you determine who has "fewest" Lost Souls for the 0/2 vs. 0/3 if 2 or more players have the same?
I know there was some uncertainty about "most" on Grapes of Wrath, so I didn't know what the ruling was for this one.
-
i personally would think you count souls physically in lands of redemption and since 2-liner and 3-liner ls don't go in land of redemption till completely rescued they don't count towards grapes at all. but thats just my random rabble
-
If you are tied with the fewest as long as one person has more than you and the person tied with you then you have the fewest.
-
If you are tied with the fewest as long as one person has more than you and the person tied with you then you have the fewest.
So, in multiplayer as long as one of the non-tied people has more than the tied people, the tied people all have the least (or most if the non-tied people have less)? And then in 2-player, if they're tied, neither has most or least?
-
wouldnt they have died already if under 0? or is that with evil only ??? besides, i plan on abusing this with high places and leprosy. give me that credit.
-
wouldnt they have died already if under 0? or is that with evil only ??? besides, i plan on abusing this with high places and leprosy. give me that credit.
No, that is universal. But say you played a 1/1 hero or EC directly from hand into battle.
-
I would rule since only 1 person can have the "most" (see Grapes) then only one can have the "least"
-
I would rule since only 1 person can have the "most" (see Grapes) then only one can have the "least"
That's kinda what I thought, in which case you couldn't have 0/6 decrease from 2 Plagued with Diseases; only 0/4 if neither had least or 0/5 if one had least.
Would be nice to have a definitive ruling, though...
-
Wait, what? If two players have 4 souls, they both have the most.
-
Not according to the Grapes logic.
In order for Grapes to give the second rescue, a player must "not have the most." If two players are tied 4-4, then neither of them has the most if Grapes gives a second rescue in a tie game.
Unless...we are saying that Grapes does not give a second rescue to one of the players in the lead of a multi player game where two people are tied for the most and one or more players has less.
That would mean the deciding factor for whether Grapes gives a second rescue is essentially, "If no player has fewer Redeemed Souls than the rescuing player, they may make a second rescue attempt." right?
Player A and Player B tied in a 2P game: neither has the most or fewest.
A and B tied, C in third in a MP game: A and B have most, C has fewest.
A, B and C tied in a MP game: none has the most, none has the fewest.
A and B tied with 4, C and D tied with 3 in a MP game: A and B have most, C and D have fewest.
Anyone disagree on any of these?
-
I've been ruling that Grapes does not allow an additional attempt by a player who has the most, including a tie for the most.
-
"If no player has fewer Redeemed Souls than the rescuing player, they may make a second rescue attempt."
The problem with this, and what all your scenarios leave out, is when there are 3 different scores, say 4-4-3-2. The player with 3 should be able to make another RA.
-
If no one has more than you, then you have the most. Right?
Jethro refers to the player (singular) with the most, and then specifically disqualifies ties.
There is no disqualifier on Grapes. Even if you and another both have the most, you still have the most.
-
Well whatever the outcome of this argument, I think "most" should be defined in the REG.
-
Since this was ruled as Bryon is saying at Nationals, that is still how I am playing it and ruling it at my tournaments.
-
Although I disagree with this*, I would just be happy if the word was officially defined one way or the other.
*Most is a superlative adjective according to my dictionary, superlative being defined as "surpassing all others." I personally have never used the word most as an object of multiple things - at least not in a serious sentence within the last ten years.
-
In a multiplayer game, the player with the most lost souls gets to choose who goes first. If there are two players tied for the most, don't you just decide at random between those two tied players to see who goes first?
In other words, don't we already aknowledge that there exist ties for "the most" in Redemption?
-
Good it is official, Grapes does not allow an additional attempt by a player who has the most, including a tie for the most. Hopefully everybody will rule it that way. Maybe it should be posted on the rulings thread.
-
This came up at the last tournament I was at. I played it during my rescue attempt at the start of the game when we both had zero. I figured we were tied for the least, not the most, and we played it that way and I made another rescue attempt. Was that wrong?
-
Going off the recent Grapes of Wrath ruling, you must have MORE than everyone else to have the most. Tied means no one has the most.
-
I've been ruling that Grapes does not allow an additional attempt by a player who has the most, including a tie for the most.
Sorry, but this seems to contradict what Cameron just said. At the start of the game, zero to zero, are we tied for the most and thus no new rescue attempt, or are we tied for the least, or neither? Am I the only person that has tried to play this card the first turn of the game?
Thanks again for clarifying this, because we are having another tournament this weekend.
-
That quote from Bryon was from before the ruling on GoW was made I believe. Cameron is correct; "most" excludes ties.
-
If no one has more than you, then you have the most. Right?
That goes both ways. If no one has less than you, you don't have the most, right? I always thought of it ruling the other way.