Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Rawrlolsauce! on December 10, 2010, 11:16:20 PM
-
It isn't that good. If it pre block ignored you, yeah, it'd be bad. But it doesn't, so it isn't very good.
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If opponent has a redeemed Lost Soul, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play. • Identifiers: Empty! • Verse: Mark 16:1 • Availability: Rock of Ages booster packs (None)
An opponent is any other player in the game. However, the word opponent can be specific or general: “Opponent”, “your opponent’”, or “opponent's” means the other player whose character is fighting your character in battle. However, “an opponent”, “any opponent”, “one opponent”, “opponents' ”, or “each opponent” is any player in the game other than you.
-
On a side note this also stops CTB somewhat.
-
I'd say the opponent is also the guy you're RA'ing against.
-
The REG says their character has to be fighting my character, which doesn't occur until they block.
-
It isn't that good. If it pre block ignored you, yeah, it'd be bad. But it doesn't, so it isn't very good.
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If opponent has a redeemed Lost Soul, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play. • Identifiers: Empty! • Verse: Mark 16:1 • Availability: Rock of Ages booster packs (None)
An opponent is any other player in the game. However, the word opponent can be specific or general: “Opponent”, “your opponent’”, or “opponent's” means the other player whose character is fighting your character in battle. However, “an opponent”, “any opponent”, “one opponent”, “opponents' ”, or “each opponent” is any player in the game other than you.
Yeah I wouldn't worry about TGT. It only ignores, provides CBN banding and has some of the best characters in the game.
-
But it doesn't pre-block ignore. <3. If you want to give me infinite init via in battle ignore or srs init by numbers, that is OK with me.
-
How is it not pre-block?
-
I bolded the important parts.
-
The " means the other player whose character is fighting your character in battle" is referring to the term "opponent's" only.
-
How do you get that?
-
Why do you say that? It is a list. It is pretty clear it is referring to all objects in the list.
“Opponent”, “your opponent’”, or “opponent's” means the other player whose character is fighting your character in battle.
That does not mean that only "opponent's" is the char vs char
Real Life: "Andrew", "Scott", or "Jason" will win the tournament tomorrow.
That does not mean only "Jason" can win the tournament tomorrow.
-
I see what you are getting at, but this is a fight you will not win. I promise. The wording in the REG is old and out of date. No one will rule in your favor on this.
-
Scenario One: I'm right, and I nerfed TGT better than the makers. This is a win for me.
Scenario Two: I'm right, and they quickly change it. This is a win for me ;D.
Scenario Three: I'm allegedly wrong, and they claim that ignore has had a different definition for 4 year.s This is a loss for everyone, and I complain for a month. Beings I like complaining, this is also a win for me.
So yes. No matter what, I win.
-
Scenario Four: You are wrong because the REG is knowingly flawed during this day and time. Everyone agrees and continues to play TGT as it has always been played.
-
Garden Tomb works exactly as it always has, and there is no difference in the way ignore has worked for the last
four 15 years.
It takes about half an ounce of common sense to understand that your opponent is the guy you're fighting, even if at a particular moment during the battle he happens not to have a character in the Field of Battle. You have no reason to complain because there is no issue here except one you are inventing by attempting to split hairs, and so I would not recommend attempting it just for spite.
-
"Common sense" is way too subjective to be basing rules off. For example, when there was broo-ha-ha about Reheboam's ability "in territory" meaing "in a territory" or "in the state of being in a territory," both sides were claiming common sense in their arguments. Yes, in this case the answer is pretty clear, but that doesn't change the overall problem of REG errors rendering the whole document suspect. If we are to use our individual common sense to sift out what is and isn't valid in the REG, how can any of it be trusted? Maybe as a tournament Judge, someone's common sense may dictate that a Converted Salome can use TGT because TGT just says "Salome," not "the Hero Salome who was at TGT," while another's common sense would say that, while TGT doesn't specify, it's implied, while a third judge would rule that Mary Christmas Promo can use TGT since she's (probably) the same Mary and TGT refers to the person, not the card title. Which, come to think of it, why does TGT refer to the card title when listing MoJ but to the person when listing Salome?
-
Which, come to think of it, why does TGT refer to the card title when listing MoJ but to the person when listing Salome?
common sense.
-
Urban Dictionary Defintion:
Common sense is what -I- think others should know.
-
Garden Tomb works exactly as it always has, and there is no difference in the way ignore has worked for the last four 15 years.
We've, as a community, played things wrong before (IE: Doubt). That doesn't mean "hey, lets just leave it".
It takes about half an ounce of common sense to understand that your opponent is the guy you're fighting, even if at a particular moment during the battle he happens not to have a character in the Field of Battle.
Really? Common sense, for me at least, would tell me to do one of two things: consider all players my opponents at all times (like I would if I didn't know Redemption defined "opponent" or any variations) or follow the specific definition provided by the PTB.
It takes half an ounce of common sense to realize Split Altar was supposed to shuffle all artifacts, but that doesn't happen...
You have no reason to complain because there is no issue here except one you are inventing by attempting to split hairs, and so I would not recommend attempting it just for spite.
I feel something is being played incorrectly. I think that meets the criteria for an issue. If you disagree, thats fine, but I feel claiming I'm doing this out of spite is baseless.
-
"Common sense" is way too subjective to be basing rules off.
Come on, Dan, you know who your opponent is.
I feel something is being played incorrectly. I think that meets the criteria for an issue. If you disagree, thats fine, but I feel claiming I'm doing this out of spite is baseless.
Let's be clear. I didn't say you were making the claim out of spite. I said you were making the claim because you thought you could be cute and split hairs about a definition to get an outcome you wanted, even though you know - YOU KNOW - how something this basic to the game works. What I asked is that you don't follow through on your threat to complain for a month, just to spite a ruling that you know is logical and consistent with how the game has been played since day one.
-
I know who my opponent is. I also know what "in territory" means. Turns out, it actually means something else.
Why do you try so hard to defend the REG? You're usually at the front of the parade waving the flag in admitting that it's defunct, but then when someone else says so you counter with a "nuh-uh" argument. The REG is not reliable. Why won't you admit this fact?
-
will everybody stop talking about the reg? i am not taking sides. i feel just as annoyed as every player out there. the reg needs to be updated. this is a fact that everyone knows. the people behind the scenes are working as hard as they can because they have lives outside of redemption like all of us do. we need to stop telling them what they already know. they see the problem and are working hard trying to fix it. we need to be patient and wait for the updates. they will come.
-
See, the problem is, we've been awaiting a new REG for two years. Still no new REG. There are like three people working on it. You know what would happen in the business world if there were two people working on a crucial, time-sensitive project and hadn't finished it in two years? More people added to the team or current people fired and replaced. In redemption world? Same people, no new people.
We know that the problem is being worked on. We are dissatisfied with the lack of results, the amount of time taken, and the unwillingness to fix the system.
-
Why do you try so hard to defend the REG?
What makes you think I am defending the REG? All I said was this particular argument has no legs.
The REG is not reliable. Why won't you admit this fact?
You need to make up your mind if your grateful that I acknowledge this or frustrated that I refuse to do so. You've said both in the same day.
-
I'm in a multi-player game and I make a rescue attempt.
There is no Evil Character in battle at the moment I move my Hero into the Field of Battle, and if that means I have no opponent, then how exactly do we determine who is going to give me the Lost Soul? ::)
Oh that's right, we determine that based on who I am attacking because by attacking someone, that makes them my opponent. :)
Yes, the REG has some outdated wording, we've established that approximately 3,578 times over the past couple of years. Some things do need to be added or clarified because the ruling is not overly clear (such as a converted 6/6 Salome not working with TGT or Matthew not being able to recur AoCP), but other things really are just common sense and whilst they will eventually be clarified to the umpteenth degree, we (speaking for Elders) would encourage people to not lose sleep wondering if Damsel with Spirit of Divination was actually a guy... :P
-
but people have lost sleep wondering if fsp is a woman.
-
Fortunately, the REG has that one correct :D
-
Has anyone double checked the custom cards? I'd definitely lose sleep if the REG though I was female.
-
Has anyone double checked the custom cards? I'd definitely lose sleep if the REG though I was female.
It may have something to do with your screen name. No offense, but SomeKittens sounds female. For the longest time I thought stefferweffer was female. ;)
Yes, the REG has some outdated wording, we've established that approximately 3,578 times over the past couple of years.
I did a quick search and stopped at 3,579 times just to prove you wrong. :o ;)
All I said was this particular argument has no legs.
That would make sense based on TGT's identifier.
If you disagree, thats fine, but I feel claiming I'm doing this out of spite is baseless.
Scenario One: I'm right, and I nerfed TGT better than the makers. This is a win for me.
Scenario Two: I'm right, and they quickly change it. This is a win for me ;D.
Scenario Three: I'm allegedly wrong, and they claim that ignore has had a different definition for 4 year.s This is a loss for everyone, and I complain for a month. Beings I like complaining, this is also a win for me.
So yes. No matter what, I win.
Although you may try to play off your sarcasm as just a joke, common sense would indicate that often times you say exactly what you mean.
-
At least your name is genderless. :)
-
SomeKittens comes from video games. Confused?
If one person kills/defeats another, it announces so on the screen:
*name* killed you.
ergo:
SomeKittens killed you.
*much laughter and applause*
The reverse works to: "You killed SomeKittens". You horrible person.
The whole point's moot, I didn't have enough money to get a custom card.
-
Why do you try so hard to defend the REG?
What makes you think I am defending the REG? All I said was this particular argument has no legs.
The REG is not reliable. Why won't you admit this fact?
You need to make up your mind if your grateful that I acknowledge this or frustrated that I refuse to do so. You've said both in the same day.
You're inconsistent about it. Half the time you act like there's no problem because common sense, and half the time you agree with the world (recently v. somekittens) that the REG is Swiss cheese at best.
But like I said last post, what the problem boils down to is not really that the REG is out of date, but that the REG is still out of date. And no changes are being made in the system that has produced "working on it" for years.
-
At least your name is genderless. :)
I was talking about perception. I would argue that most people would assume math teachers are male. Ironically, I am the only male in the math department of my high school.
SomeKittens comes from video games.
Never heard of it. But, then again, I rarely play video games.
Perhaps all my preconceived notions are outdated. :-\
-
At least your name is genderless. :)
I was talking about perception. I would argue that most people would assume math teachers are male. Ironically, I am the only male in the math department of my high school.
I had an even split of math teachers in HS: three of each. But overall in the department most math teachers were male.
Perhaps all my preconceived notions are outdated. :-\
Translation: You're old.
-
Perhaps all my preconceived notions are outdated. :-\
Translation: You're old.
LOL. You made SomeKittens old. :D
-
Never heard of it. But, then again, I rarely play video games.
It's not from an actual video game, it's the screen name he uses so that when his character kills another in a shooting game, his opponent sees You were killed by Some Kittens!
:P
-
Never heard of it. But, then again, I rarely play video games.
It's not from an actual video game, it's the screen name he uses so that when his character kills another in a shooting game, his opponent sees You were killed by Some Kittens!
:P
Oh I see. ;D
The only FPS I ever played was N64 Goldeneye, and that didn't use screen names. In my days, the only laugh you got from video games was when you were beaten by Gorf.
-
Perhaps all my preconceived notions are outdated. :-\
Translation: You're old.
LOL. You made SomeKittens old. :D
You'd better believe I'm the oldest freshman on campus! Incidentally, my calc professor is female.
-
You're inconsistent about it. Half the time you act like there's no problem because common sense, and half the time you agree with the world (recently v. somekittens) that the REG is Swiss cheese at best.
I have never acted like there was no problem, and I defy you to show me where I have said there is no problem with the REG. There's nothing inconsistent about acknowledging an obvious need while defending rulings that I know to be correct. What I said, and am now repeating for the third time, is that this issue is not caused by changes or something incorrect within the REG. It is caused by someone trying to play word games and split hairs to get a desired outcome on a single card. This rule has been the same since Day One of the game and no one has ever interpreted it in that manner at any time. There are no grounds to consider this problematic.
Moreover, he is not considering the ramifications of twisting words that were intended only to show the distinction between a specific opponent you are facing in battle and a general opponent which can be any other player at the table. He considers it cute to say TGT doesn't work unless both players have a character in battle, but he's not thinking about the fact that he would break every other card that refers to his opponent that might occur at a time when one player or another happens not to have a character in battle at that exact moment. Additionally, if this were accepted as the pure definition of opponent and not just this one small distinction, then it would be impossible for any player to block a Hero ever, because the rulebook says: Your opponent may block your Hero by placing an Evil Character into the Field of Battle.
So either:
- we accept his interpretation of a single phrase to the exclusion of everything else and break countless aspects of the game in a way that no one had even thought was remotely correct in the game's 15 year history, or
- we accept this distinction between "the" opponent and "an" opponent in the context of the existing rules and the way everybody understands them intuitively and without question
What surprises me about the (loudest) critics of the REG is that this is the hill they're willing to die on. Knowing there are real problems with real impact that require real work to solve, and knowing that resources and manpower are limited - sometimes even to the point of hindering progress - they prefer to waste those limited resources on obvious "issues" like who is your opponent, or what gender is a card named "Damsel" depicting a woman. Is this really where you want them expending their energy, rather than defining something like "cannot be ignored" or working out a good list of abilities that do and do not convert with the character?
-
I don't see what there is to critisize about. :)
-
No Need For Walls of Text, I Can Sum up This Whole argument in one phrase...
Actions Speak Louder Than Words
With No Action, That Wall of text Doesn't Change The Others Opinions because Frankly Ever Post of yours Looks almost exactly the same to me:
Defend something that's going nowhere
-
It takes about half an ounce of common sense to understand that your opponent is the guy you're fighting, even if at a particular moment during the battle he happens not to have a character in the Field of Battle. You have no reason to complain because there is no issue here except one you are inventing by attempting to split hairs, and so I would not recommend attempting it just for spite.
When has this game ever run on "common sense"?
-
Okay, you guys are all correct and I and the entire history of the game are wrong. You officially never have an opponent unless two players have characters in the Field of Battle. Have fun with that.
-
You officially never have an opponent unless two players have characters in the Field of Battle. Have fun with that.
Just to clarify. Schaef is being sarcastic here out of frustration. This is NOT an official ruling, and is in fact the opposite of the true ruling.
-
It takes about half an ounce of common sense to understand that your opponent is the guy you're fighting, even if at a particular moment during the battle he happens not to have a character in the Field of Battle. You have no reason to complain because there is no issue here except one you are inventing by attempting to split hairs, and so I would not recommend attempting it just for spite.
When has this game ever run on "common sense"?
When has Christianity ever run on common sense?
-
Just to clarify. Schaef is being sarcastic here out of frustration. This is NOT an official ruling, and is in fact the opposite of the true ruling.
I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being reasonable. To defend the basic definition of your opponent from the genesis of the game is to defend something that is going nowhere, and it is unreasonable to appeal either to common sense or to the larger context of the game. If this many people consider this the wrong side of the argument, then I'm prepared to rule in their favor.
-
OK, so you're not being sarcastic, you're just being silly. :P
-
Not at all. I'm just giving the players what they want.
-
Power to the Players. Master KChief would be so proud. ;)
-
You people disgust me. Why? Because your oppnet is the player that you are playing. In MP that's all other players.
-
this is the last time i will post on this thread but i will say that we as players have to be nicer to the people who are bringing us this great game instead of fighting them every chance we get.
-
+1 You think my post was negative? I was refencing the players who were trying to manpulate a outdated rule to their advantage.
-
actually i will post again. i was not refering to red. i was talking about the players as a rule being rude to the people who deserve more respect.
-
Not talking to you sorry. Shoulda put people who -1'd me and others who dislike my post.
-
Okay, you guys are all correct and I and the entire history of the game are wrong. You officially never have an opponent unless two players have characters in the Field of Battle. Have fun with that.
can we please get a second elder to make this official?? (https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgallery.me.com%2Fnickjaeger%2F100117%2Fweb-1%2Fweb.gif%3Fver%3D12916524940001&hash=3a3d5b3e521d4e99b203d4af1b4b9bd75a2e5440)
-
Can we also get free Dew and pizza at tournaments?
-
and free booster draft to go with :D
-
actually i will post again. i was not refering to red. i was talking about the players as a rule being rude to the people who deserve more respect.
No one was being rude, you have to understand that every Redemption discussion happens withing the context of the game and therefore should only be looked at within the context of the game. Intelligent people like pol, sauce, raith, and Schaef etc get into arguments over rules and semantics because they are intuitive. Naturally their minds are opposed to inconsistency and in tune with logic and reason. Therefore they do everything in their power to try and fix these inconsistencies. The controversy arises when people have different oppnions of what is right and wrong. Now sometimes (and in this case as well), because of the impersonal median that is the computer, discussions such as these are misunderstood by those looking in and are inevitably labeled as flame wars. So rather than saying that people are rude blame it on Al Gore.
-
i didn't want to get involved but now i am.
actually i will post again. i was not refering to red. i was talking about the players as a rule being rude to the people who deserve more respect.
No one was being rude, you have to understand that every Redemption discussion happens withing the context of the game and therefore should only be looked at within the context of the game. Intelligent people like pol, sauce, raith, and Schaef etc get into arguments over rules and semantics because they are intuitive. Naturally their minds are opposed to inconsistency and in tune with logic and reason. Therefore they do everything in their power to try and fix these inconsistencies. The controversy arises when people have different oppnions of what is right and wrong. Now sometimes (and in this case as well), because of the impersonal median that is the computer, discussions such as these are misunderstood by those looking in and are inevitably labeled as flame wars. So rather than saying that people are rude blame it on Al Gore.
this is an classic example of somebody taking something i said out of context. in order to see every single meaning i have in my posts you have to read all my other posts in the thread. (i have to learn to be more clear) with this said, i was refrencing how frustrated people are with the reg and how tired i am of seeing the same old comments over and over again.
-
Keep in mind, if this rule changes, a LOT of other cards would be broken.
Wall of Protection, Judges Seat, Marketplace, Herod's Temple, Pithom, Dust and Ashes, Wolves in Sheeps Clothing, Nazereth (vs mayhem), etc...
-
i didn't want to get involved but now i am. actually i will post again. i was not refering to red. i was talking about the players as a rule being rude to the people who deserve more respect.
No one was being rude, you have to understand that every Redemption discussion happens withing the context of the game and therefore should only be looked at within the context of the game. Intelligent people like pol, sauce, raith, and Schaef etc get into arguments over rules and semantics because they are intuitive. Naturally their minds are opposed to inconsistency and in tune with logic and reason. Therefore they do everything in their power to try and fix these inconsistencies. The controversy arises when people have different oppnions of what is right and wrong. Now sometimes (and in this case as well), because of the impersonal median that is the computer, discussions such as these are misunderstood by those looking in and are inevitably labeled as flame wars. So rather than saying that people are rude blame it on Al Gore.
this is an classic example of somebody taking something i said out of context. in order to see every single meaning i have in my posts you have to read all my other posts in the thread. (i have to learn to be more clear) with this said, i was refrencing how frustrated people are with the reg and how tired i am of seeing the same old comments over and over again.
I know what you mean, all I was saying is that the people are not trying to be rude this thread is mostly a joke anyway.
-
actually your wrong this thread is not a joke its currently the end of the redemption world and totally ruins everything ive done for the past 4 months but no one cares about that.
-
That REG quote is outdated. So yes TGT works. Why do I say this? This was posted by SAUCE he's a troll so don't take this thread as anything coherenent.
-
doesn't matter he got schaeff to break what says he can't make someone else so he gets whatever he wants for his ulterior motives and we all pay the price because of him we all suffer cause of what he thinks is funny
-
For the record, I do not feel like I was "trying to be cute" or "trying to split hairs". I honestly thought that we had been playing an aspect of the game wrong (which has happened before, so it isn't out of the question). After reading the definition of block, among a few other things, I have changed stances. I still support my opinion at the time I stated it.
Also, I disagree with this being unimportant, but if you don't feel it is worth your time and energy to clarify this for me don't feel obligated.
Who is my opponent at any time? Why can I play HT on anyone, even if I'm in battle with someone else or don't attack that player, but I can't attack player A with Nathan and make player B shuffle?
-
New Thread: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24719.0. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24719.0.) Locking this one thanks to this last page of posts.
-
"An" or "any" opponent is anyone else at the table with you. "Your" opponent is the one you're battling at that moment. Since battles tend to have my characters against your characters, then reasonably, the guy whose characters are fighting my characters is "the" opponent. This is specific enough to clarify that it's not just anyone at the table, but general enough to be more accurate than saying "the guy blocking the rescue", because from the blocker's perspective, the rescuer is the opponent.
From time to time one party or the other may temporarily have no characters in the battle at that exact moment but that does not change this very basic formula which has been the foundation of battles in Redemption, and really, in every (competitive) card game ever made.