Author Topic: CWD v. Weapons (Read 5192 times)

megamanlan · « **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2012, 04:22:16 AM »

I'm looking at Restrict now as a 'Negate with saying the word' since its more powerful now then a Protect/Immune Ability (which just limits the number of valid targets) and a Negate (which undoes/stops an effect from activating) now Restrict is basically an unstoppable Prevent ability that goes around the CBP/CBN issue. (given that this needed a better solution anyway, but not one that harms theme that already aren't doing great anyway)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2012, 01:25:51 PM »

Again, you may be looking at it that way, but that's not what it is. It doesn't function at all like a negate.

megamanlan · « **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2012, 01:33:56 PM »

Yes, it doesn't function as a negate but it's accomplishing the same result.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #28 on:** August 23, 2012, 01:35:39 PM »

No, it isn't.

megamanlan · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2012, 01:38:15 PM »

How isn't it? The Weapon can never use its effect this battle. (Which also makes me question the definition of Restrict since its supposed to be on players not on cards)

Redoubter · « **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2012, 02:58:22 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on August 23, 2012, 01:33:56 PM

Yes, it doesn't function as a negate but it's accomplishing the same result.

No, it really isn't the same as negate. Negate either undoes an ability or prevents it from activating. It is subject to being stopped by CB- on cards. Restrict on CwD does not do the undoing part, and it cannot be affected by any CB- on cards. So you can't say that the restrict is a negate, as that does not accurately define what is going on.

CwD does not prevent/undo like a negate. It restricts the ability from ever activating. And that is a difference.

megamanlan · « **Reply #31 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:03:56 PM »

Basically as I see it's a negate that gets around CBN.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #32 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:21:21 PM »

Quote

(Which also makes me question the definition of Restrict since its supposed to be on players not on cards)

A restrict ability keeps a player from performing an action that they would normally be allowed to perform.

A restrict ability reduces the number of game action choices available to a player.

All restrict abilities are ongoing. A restrict ability targets the player that becomes restricted.

Restrict abilities last for one round.

The phrases “player may not”, "no player may" and "no ability card may be played" mean the same as “restrict”.

just putting it out there

megamanlan · « **Reply #33 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:32:46 PM »

I know... Its just that this is not following the rules of Restrict.

Redoubter · « **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:36:00 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on August 23, 2012, 03:21:21 PM

Quote
(Which also makes me question the definition of Restrict since its supposed to be on players not on cards)

A restrict ability keeps a player from performing an action that they would normally be allowed to perform.

A restrict ability reduces the number of game action choices available to a player.

All restrict abilities are ongoing. A restrict ability targets the player that becomes restricted.

Restrict abilities last for one round.

The phrases “player may not”, "no player may" and "no ability card may be played" mean the same as “restrict”.

just putting it out there

Quote from: megamanlan on August 23, 2012, 03:32:46 PM

I know... Its just that this is not following the rules of Restrict.

Incorrect, the definition of 'play' when referring to weapons is the action of the weapon entering battle on the WC-character, so restrict can still apply in this case, as the weapon is still being 'played' by the player, per the definition of weapons. The rules on restrict are being applied correctly.

megamanlan · « **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2012, 03:57:43 PM »

Then the weapon shouldn't work and have numbers of 0/0 for the entire battle or better, not be allowed to enter battle. Especially since it only affects Good Weapons and not the much stronger Evil Weapons.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #36 on:** August 23, 2012, 04:07:15 PM »

The weapon doesn't work. You misunderstood what he was saying.

Redoubter · « **Reply #37 on:** August 23, 2012, 04:12:24 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 23, 2012, 04:07:15 PM

The weapon doesn't work. You misunderstood what he was saying.

To be honest, my statement wasn't as concise and clear as it could have been. The "it" I had referred to was restrict, not the card. Changing the wording of my post.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #38 on:** August 23, 2012, 11:45:36 PM »

Quote

I was around when it was being hashed out, and the reason it is what it is is because all other possible definitions had a major gameplay problem associated with them.

If you don't mind doing the work to show what those were, then I'd really like to see those problems. Mostly because of curiousity and because I like seeing the development process.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #39 on:** August 24, 2012, 12:02:35 AM »

I'm not up to it tonight, partly because I don't entirely remember some of the problems and partly because there really were tons and tons of it. I know you asked in good faith, but it really is like asking a musician to work calculus off the top of his head.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #40 on:** August 24, 2012, 12:49:05 AM »

Sometimes, and only sometimes, it's better to just trust that we elders know what we're doing.

But seriously, as Gabe pointed out earlier in the thread, the discussion we had regarding "play" was over 150 posts long...and it wasn't as if we all posted 150 congratulations after solving the issues in the first few posts...

galadgawyn · « **Reply #41 on:** August 24, 2012, 12:59:48 AM »

Yeah, I get that but I'm the kind of person that likes to read those hundreds of posts for fun (maybe someday I'll see the other side)! I might be crazy but I enjoy seeing the thought processes involved.

It always gets me when people post when they obviously haven't read the previous 20 pages; I think "who wants to miss all the good stuff"? Admittedly there are some threads that aren't much fun but even those I read all the way through. Maybe I'm masochistic or OCD?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #42 on:** August 24, 2012, 01:28:35 AM »

There are only three kinds of threads for me: threads I don't read at all, threads I read every post of, and political threads where I skip the 10 pages of "yeah huh! nuh uh!"

Chris · « **Reply #43 on:** August 24, 2012, 02:30:16 PM »

Quote from: galadgawyn on August 24, 2012, 12:59:48 AM

Yeah, I get that but I'm the kind of person that likes to read those hundreds of posts for fun (maybe someday I'll see the other side)! I might be crazy but I enjoy seeing the thought processes involved.

It always gets me when people post when they obviously haven't read the previous 20 pages; I think "who wants to miss all the good stuff"? Admittedly there are some threads that aren't much fun but even those I read all the way through. Maybe I'm masochistic or OCD?

This is why I think the Elder side of the boards should be able to be seen (and only seen) by regular members.

News:

Author Topic: CWD v. Weapons (Read 5192 times)

Chris