Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: theselfevident on July 13, 2011, 11:36:22 PM
-
If i use rain becomes dust, do the cards added to hand/looked at from Susanna become discarded?
-
If i use rain becomes dust, do the cards added to hand/looked at from Susanna become discarded?
No. Susanna has a look ability, and an add to hand ability. Neither of those are draw abilities, so she doesn't actually draw anything. Even if she is the only NT female, and you do seemingly draw a card, it's a different ability entirely.
-
If i use rain becomes dust, do the cards added to hand/looked at from Susanna become discarded?
No. Susanna has a look ability, and an add to hand ability. Neither of those are draw abilities, so she doesn't actually draw anything. Even if she is the only NT female, and you do seemingly draw a card, it's a different ability entirely.
It sure walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
-
If i use rain becomes dust, do the cards added to hand/looked at from Susanna become discarded?
No. Susanna has a look ability, and an add to hand ability. Neither of those are draw abilities, so she doesn't actually draw anything. Even if she is the only NT female, and you do seemingly draw a card, it's a different ability entirely.
It sure walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
That may be true, but it's really a goose (or gray duck, if you're Minnesotan I guess...my formative years were spent elsewhere, so when I learned duck, duck gray duck from my fellow Minnesotans upon my return, I was somewhat confused).
-
Please, for my sake, define drawing in the game of redemption?
-
Drawing is when you take a card from the top of your deck and place it in your hand either via game rule (during the draw phase) or because of a draw special ability on a card.
Reveal and look at are different because the card is in the limbo of being revealed/looked at between the deck and the hand. There has to be a separate special ability telling you what to do with the card(s) from there, otherwise they just returns to the deck in the same position (i.e.: top, bottom, etc.) they were before.
-
Drawing is when you take a card from the top of your deck and place it in your hand either via game rule (during the draw phase) or because of a draw special ability on a card.
Reveal and look at are different because the card is in the limbo of being revealed/looked at between the deck and the hand. There has to be a separate special ability telling you what to do with the card(s) from there, otherwise they just returns to the deck in the same position (i.e.: top, bottom, etc.) they were before.
so is reveal/look-at= search?
-
No, search is a separate ability. Reveal/look at are their own abilities, they aren't any other ability.
-
No, search is a separate ability. Reveal/look at are their own abilities, they aren't any other ability.
so if you look at a card from the top of your deck and add it to your hand it is not drawing a card from your deck? Quirky and this is my dissent...
-
Nope, it's not drawing. When you draw a card you don't see what it is until it's in your hand. When you look at a card, you see it before it enters your hand and you need another ability to actually add it to your hand (the "add to hand" ability). That's the biggest difference.
-
Nope, it's not drawing. When you draw a card you don't see what it is until it's in your hand. When you look at a card, you see it before it enters your hand and you need another ability to actually add it to your hand (the "add to hand" ability). That's the biggest difference.
I get it, but essentially it is doing the same thing as letting you draw the card....................................................... dissent :)
-
There are cards that say reveal/look at without letting you add any to hand, and some that say "add to hand" are optional and you don't have to add any to hand, that makes it different than drawing. The Revealer Lost Soul would be the most popular example. If reveal/look at were the same as draw, the non-Lost Souls would go to your hand rather than on the bottom of your deck. Thus, reveal/look at are, and have to be, different abilities than draw.
Hopefully this helps explain it a little better. :)
-
There are cards that say reveal/look at without letting you add any to hand, and some that say "add to hand" are optional and you don't have to add any to hand, that makes it different than drawing. The Revealer Lost Soul would be the most popular example. If reveal/look at were the same as draw, the non-Lost Souls would go to your hand rather than on the bottom of your deck. Thus, reveal/look at are, and have to be, different abilities than draw.
That is a better explanation of the look at feature, my problem is the letting you add the card to your hand as not being = drawing... that is why i dissent. It does not change the ruling. But I reserve the right to dissent and I do. :)... Not trying to chap your hide or make you feel inferior by dissenting to the ruling. I just disagree with it. One can do that... doesn't change anything. Just look at our government over the last 100 years.... I don't agree with it but dear goodness I have to live with it....... I dissent. :)
-
I find it interesting that "add to battle" can become a band ability, even though it doesn't say "band," yet "add to hand" is not a draw or search ability, even though it may have the same net result. Perhaps theselfevident's query is not as quirky as it may seem.
-
I find it interesting that "add to battle" can become a band ability, even though it doesn't say "band," yet "add to hand" is not a draw or search ability, even though it may have the same net result. Perhaps theselfevident's query is not as quirky as it may seem.
Amen & plus 1 ;D
-
Whether I draw or take my gun and add it to my hand, either way I say "reach for the sky".
Wait. Are we talking about Redemption or Bang!?
At least my gun has paper-piercing bullets. ;)
-
I find it interesting that "add to battle" can become a band ability, even though it doesn't say "band," yet "add to hand" is not a draw or search ability, even though it may have the same net result. Perhaps theselfevident's query is not as quirky as it may seem.
I agree that it's inconsistent, especially considering exchanges (like Numerous as the Stars) are not considered banding abilities (last I heard) even though they result in an additional character in battle, but I think the inconsistency is more on the add to battle side than the reveal/look at side. I think that abilities that have similar end results but not the same way of getting there should remain separate abilities. I do see where you and selfevident are coming from, though, and I'd be happy either way the ruling could be consistent-ized, I just wish it was consistent, lol.
-
I find it interesting that "add to battle" can become a band ability, even though it doesn't say "band," yet "add to hand" is not a draw or search ability, even though it may have the same net result. Perhaps theselfevident's query is not as quirky as it may seem.
I agree that it's inconsistent, especially considering exchanges (like Numerous as the Stars) are not considered banding abilities (last I heard) even though they result in an additional character in battle, but I think the inconsistency is more on the add to battle side than the reveal/look at side. I think that abilities that have similar end results but not the same way of getting there should remain separate abilities. I do see where you and selfevident are coming from, though, and I'd be happy either way the ruling could be consistent-ized, I just wish it was consistent, lol.
I contend that adding a card to your hand from your draw pile (especially if it was pulled from the top of the deck or even bottom) is drawing a card. I don't know if there is a way to have a ruling reviewed, but that is my contention. Not trying to offend anyone...
-
Since you'd probably be asked this by an Elder if you brought it up to them, I'll get you thinking now: What reason or evidence do you have to support your claims that "reveal/look at and add to hand" should be considered "draw" abilities? They trigger differently, they work differently (reveal/look at require a specific paired ability to even end in the same result as a draw), not to mention cards have been printed with the idea that "reveal/look at and add to hand" are not draw abilities so changing it now would drastically affect the game as a whole (such as making cards like Goliath, Rain Becomes Dust, and Iron Pan very much more powerful). There is no theological reasoning for this (so it's not like the captured demons ruling) since these are strictly card game mechanics, so I'm wondering, other than personal opinion, what your thinking is for why they should be the same (other than that they end in the same result).
2 x 2 and 16 / 4 end in the same result, does this mean they are the same operation?
-
browarod is correct.
A similar thing happens with decrease abilities. I can play Angel of the Lord on a Pharisee in your territory (discard ability). Or, I can activate Crown of Thorns (decrease ability). The net result for the Pharisee is the same (discard), but decrease and discard are distinct abilities. One is not a subset of the other.
-
browarod is correct.
A similar thing happens with decrease abilities. I can play Angel of the Lord on a Pharisee in your territory (discard ability). Or, I can activate Crown of Thorns (decrease ability). The net result for the Pharisee is the same (discard), but decrease and discard are distinct abilities. One is not a subset of the other.
If you add a hero to the battle, it is banding. If you add a card from the top of your deck.... aparently not drawing??????
-
Per meriam and webster (and any other card game in the world):
8 a: to take (cards) from a stack or from the dealer
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/draw
You need to stick within the framework of the current ruleset. My argument would be that "add to" abilities have the potential to become other abilities, since "add to battle" has the potential to become a "band" ability. That way, arguments like the ones presented so far do not refute your claim.
-
browarod is correct.
A similar thing happens with decrease abilities. I can play Angel of the Lord on a Pharisee in your territory (discard ability). Or, I can activate Crown of Thorns (decrease ability). The net result for the Pharisee is the same (discard), but decrease and discard are distinct abilities. One is not a subset of the other.
If you add a hero to the battle, it is banding. If you add a card from the top of your deck.... aparently not drawing??????
If a character is reduced to /0 or less it is discarded. But the ability is a decrease ability, not a discard ability.
If a character is added to the battle, it doesn't always result in a band. If I play Angel of the Lord on your lone blocker, you can use the "add to battle" ability on Unknown Nation to add an evil character to the battle. That is not a band. So, "add a character to battle" is not the exact same thing as "band."
SOMETIMES a decrease results in a discard. When that happens, we still call it only a "decrease" ability. The fact that it results in a discard is based on the rule alone. But not all decreases are discards. They are not the same thing.
SOMETIMES an "add to hand" results in same effect that a draw would do. When that happens, we still call it only an add to hand. The fact that a card goes from deck to hand is based on the rules for the ability. But not all "add to hand" abilities result in a draw. They are not the same thing.
SOMETIMES an add to battle results in a band. When that happens, we call that both an "add to battle" and a "band" ability? Perhaps to be consistent we should consider the ability only an "add to battle" ability, and state that the characters are considered "banded" at that point only due to the game rule that two characters being on the same side of the battle are called "banded." Even if the ability that got them there was not a band ability. What would this effect?
-
What would this effect?
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/evil-spawn-(orange)-vs-wool-fleece/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/evil-spawn-(orange)-vs-wool-fleece/)
-
SOMETIMES an add to battle results in a band. When that happens, we call that both an "add to battle" and a "band" ability? Perhaps to be consistent we should consider the ability only an "add to battle" ability, and state that the characters are considered "banded" at that point only due to the game rule that two characters being on the same side of the battle are called "banded." Even if the ability that got them there was not a band ability. What would this effect?
Would that then mean that characters exchanged into battle (like those Genesis enhancements) are now considered "banded into battle?"
-
I don't understand how one "add to" results in a different ability such as banding but "add to" when its adding to your hand is not drawing. You redefine one but not the other????????? Seems suspect and contrary.
So please explain how the one can be redefined to banding and the other becomes as a separate ability from drawing although it does the same thing?
-
@ YMT: No, exchange is a third ability separate from both band and add to battle.
-
I don't understand how one "add to" results in a different ability such as banding but "add to" when its adding to your hand is not drawing. You redefine one but not the other????????? Seems suspect and contrary.
So please explain how the one can be redefined to banding and the other becomes as a separate ability from drawing although it does the same thing?
I agree. If one "add to" ability is considered the same as another ability it's similar to, why aren't all of them? The prevailing thought in Evil Spawn vs. Wool Fleece is contrary to the prevailing thought here, with several of the same people. The only explanation of this I can think of (at the moment, I'm tired :) ) is the rule that two characters in battle are considered banded, which should not always be the case IMO.
-
I would argue that "add to battle" abilities should not shift to become other types of abilities they work similarly to, just as "adding to hand" does not ever crap to drawing.
-
I would argue that "add to battle" abilities should not shift to become other types of abilities they work similarly to, just as "adding to hand" does not ever crap to drawing.
+1
-
Is there such a big problem with "adding to battle" becoming a banding ability but adding to hand not being considered a draw ability? Sure there's an inconsistancy, but that seems a small price to pay for all the abuses or weird combos that might come out. Right off the top of my head: if Susanna's ability was considered a draw ability, she could rescue against a Rain Becomes Dust and the holder could decide to "Draw" a lost soul, thus discarding it from their deck. Stuff like that would creat a bunch of messy situations. It seems that many of these abilities do the same thing but are worded different on purpose so they can't all be affected/negated/whatever by just one or two cards.
-
RBD puts LS in play instead.
What's the rationale (from the elders) for the difference?
-
To me Susanna's ability seems more akin to a search ability, because you aren't just taking the top card off the draw pile, but are rather choosing a card from a group of them from your draw pile. I can't think of an add to hand ability that doesn't have a search, reveal or look in it, and to me a draw is not picking a card from a group you revealed, searched or looked at, but rather simply taking the top card(s) from the deck and placing them into your hand.
-
RBD puts LS in play instead.
*facepalm* Aaugh, thats right. Never mind then! :)
-
I can't speak for all the elders, but I will guess where the difference lies:
When two or more characters are on the same side of the battle, we consider those characters banded together. Band just means join together. "Band" doesn't mean "add to battle." If so, then my high school marching band (musicians joined together) needs to know that a trumpet isn't going to help much on the battlefield.
What Polarius is pointing out is that "add to battle" doesn't NEED to be considered a "band" ability, just because it results in characters being banded together. I agree that we don't NEED to call it a band ability, and I very much prefer to have abilities be treated ONLY as the ability type that is written on the card, as much as is practical.
"Add (character) to battle" can be separate from Band, even if the result is that characters band together.
"Add (enhancement) to battle" can be separate from Play, even if the result is that the enhancement is played.
"Shuffle" can be separate from Return, even if the result is that the card is returned to deck.
-
Are you saying that Household Idols wouldn't ignore "adding to battle" cards?
-
That is not the ruling now, but it is a possibility for someday. Then again, Household Idols is worded oddly. I know the "play as" says "prevent band abilities used by heroes," but the card itself just says "heroes cannot band." That makes it sound like nothing is allowed to happen that would create a situation where there are two heroes on the same side of the battle. Even an evil card like Siege shouldn't allow a second hero into battle, right? I'm just thinking out loud here. These are not official rulings.
-
my high school marching band (musicians joined together) needs to know that a trumpet isn't going to help much on the battlefield.
Gideon would beg to differ.
The fact that I am a trumpet player may have contributed to my desire to correct this slight :)
-
I can't speak for all the elders, but I will guess where the difference lies:
When two or more characters are on the same side of the battle, we consider those characters banded together. Band just means join together. "Band" doesn't mean "add to battle." If so, then my high school marching band (musicians joined together) needs to know that a trumpet isn't going to help much on the battlefield.
What Polarius is pointing out is that "add to battle" doesn't NEED to be considered a "band" ability, just because it results in characters being banded together. I agree that we don't NEED to call it a band ability, and I very much prefer to have abilities be treated ONLY as the ability type that is written on the card, as much as is practical.
"Add (character) to battle" can be separate from Band, even if the result is that characters band together.
"Add (enhancement) to battle" can be separate from Play, even if the result is that the enhancement is played.
"Shuffle" can be separate from Return, even if the result is that the card is returned to deck.
I think for consistency sake, I believe this should be the way you rule on abilities. I would prefer cards not to be rewritten. Just as "add to hand" is not drawing but a separate ability (based on the ruling), "add to battle" should be a separate ability from banding.... This was not my original contention but I feel rulings should be consistent. Inconsistencies (especially in rule making) confuse and frustrate people. (and for me: make me question the system)
-
"Add (character) to battle" can be separate from Band, even if the result is that characters band together.
"Add (enhancement) to battle" can be separate from Play, even if the result is that the enhancement is played.
"Shuffle" can be separate from Return, even if the result is that the card is returned to deck.
This is ultimately what I would like to see. However, I'm sure the reason that "add to battle" can be a band is because the majority of older1 banding enhancements just said "add a second character to battle" or "may join the battle."
1 cards that came on the back of Hostess boxes
-
That is not the ruling now, but it is a possibility for someday. Then again, Household Idols is worded oddly. I know the "play as" says "prevent band abilities used by heroes," but the card itself just says "heroes cannot band." That makes it sound like nothing is allowed to happen that would create a situation where there are two heroes on the same side of the battle. Even an evil card like Siege shouldn't allow a second hero into battle, right? I'm just thinking out loud here. These are not official rulings.
I, for one, very much appreciate you thinking out loud on this side of the boards, Bryon. :)
I know it can be difficult to resolve gameplay/ruling inconsistencies that must be discussed at length on the Elders side of the boards. Even though I may not have any input to the process, I like to know the key points that were discussed that resulted in a decision. I'm a problem-solver at heart. If I had ever become a math/science teacher, I would be one of those that strongly encourages students to show their work that documents the process they used to arrive at a conclusion. :)
-
That is not the ruling now, but it is a possibility for someday. Then again, Household Idols is worded oddly. I know the "play as" says "prevent band abilities used by heroes," but the card itself just says "heroes cannot band." That makes it sound like nothing is allowed to happen that would create a situation where there are two heroes on the same side of the battle. Even an evil card like Siege shouldn't allow a second hero into battle, right? I'm just thinking out loud here. These are not official rulings.
I, for one, very much appreciate you thinking out loud on this side of the boards, Bryon. :)
I know it can be difficult to resolve gameplay/ruling inconsistencies that must be discussed at length on the Elders side of the boards. Even though I may not have any input to the process, I like to know the key points that were discussed that resulted in a decision. I'm a problem-solver at heart. If I had ever become a math/science teacher, I would be one of those that strongly encourages students to show their work that documents the process they used to arrive at a conclusion. :)
Well put
-
I'm sure this ruling would be accompanied by a ruling on old wording something along the lines of "any special ability before (patriarchs? Kings?) that
adds a character to battle is a banding ability."
-
I'm sure this ruling would be accompanied by a ruling on old wording something along the lines of "any special ability before (patriarchs? Kings?) that
adds a character to battle is a banding ability."
That just seems contradictory to the point of consistency in rulings. But I only play the game............. I dissent, and withdraw from this debate as it only frustrates me.
-
I dissent, and withdraw from this debate as it only frustrates me.
This is the exact reason that I do not post in the Open Discussion section anymore. ;)
-
I'm sure this ruling would be accompanied by a ruling on old wording something along the lines of "any special ability before (patriarchs? Kings?) that
adds a character to battle is a banding ability."
Am I the only one that wishes that Redemption cards had electronic components that made it possible for Rob to change the wording on all copies of a card in existence, all at once?
Since we don't have that feature, then for simplicity, cards should do what they say as much as possible. If that means old cards sometimes behave a little differently than what was originally intended, then sometimes we need to just roll with it. Cards with broken gameplay or clear misprints can get fixed with errata.
-
I'm sure this ruling would be accompanied by a ruling on old wording something along the lines of "any special ability before (patriarchs? Kings?) that
adds a character to battle is a banding ability."
Am I the only one that wishes that Redemption cards had electronic components that made it possible for Rob to change the wording on all copies of a card in existence, all at once?
In all fairness to Polarius, I believe that his quote was just a response to my post (there were two posts in between).
I, for one, very much appreciate you thinking out loud on this side of the boards, Bryon. :)
I concur (and I'm not saying that just because I am a math teacher that makes his students show their work ;) ).
-
If that means old cards sometimes behave a little differently than what was originally intended, then sometimes we need to just Troll with it.
Fixed that for you.
-
I am a math teacher that makes his students show their work ;) ).
I always hated showing my work for arithmetic and algebra, because I typically preferred to try to come up with the answer in my head, and once I did that, I felt like showing my work was just busywork that I didn't need.
However, my mother's insistence that I did show my work (yes, I was one of those homeschooled types until my middle school years) paid off when I learned about proofs, which helped me quite a bit in calculus and beyond. So it's good to see teachers still being annoying about that these days.
-
I am a math teacher that makes his students show their work ;) ).
I always hated showing my work for arithmetic and algebra, ...
FTR, I teach Precalculus and Calculus. 8)
-
Originally, I hated showing my work, for the same reason as ProfAlstad. Then, I found I needed to, and it reduced mistakes. Then I hit calc, and knew I needed to show work, but had no idea what work to show, so I just wrote "-inf < answer < inf." I got partial credit...once.
-
I am a math teacher that makes his students show their work ;) ).
I always hated showing my work for arithmetic and algebra, ...
FTR, I teach Precalculus and Calculus. 8)
Really? For some reason, I thought the school you taught at was a middle school...I assume I was mistaken though, unless they are all overachieving 7th graders.
Even so, my precalc class seemed more focused on memorization (unit circle, imaginary roots, etc.) than actual calculation. I probably did most of the work for that class in my head anyway.
-
Really? For some reason, I thought the school you taught at was a middle school...I assume I was mistaken though, unless they are all overachieving 7th graders.
I used to teach at a magnet school for gifted middle schoolers in Virginia Beach, but that was eight years ago (and it was Geometry). I teach at the Professional & Technical High School in Kissimmee. I was also just trying to puff myself up3, since I will not be teaching Calculus until August. The last three years here I was teaching Precalculus, Algebra 2 Honors, Algebra 2 Regular, and Geometry Honors. I was moved to Calculus due to the lack of interest of the teachers with seniority, which (ironically) is the same reason I was chosen as the new Department Head.
Even so, my precalc class seemed more focused on memorization (unit circle, imaginary roots, etc.) than actual calculation. I probably did most of the work for that class in my head anyway.
I wish my students could memorize the unit circle. ;)
3I needed to raise my self esteem after getting trounced at Southeast Regionals by Rob Anderson's daughter. Seriously, who drafts the Terrifying Beast, Emperor Nero and Emperor Claudius!?
-
Originally, I hated showing my work, for the same reason as ProfAlstad. Then, I found I needed to, and it reduced mistakes. Then I hit calc, and knew I needed to show work, but had no idea what work to show, so I just wrote "-inf < answer < inf." I got partial credit...once.
I remember one kid who just listed the name and address of the restaurant where he worked. I think he got extra credit. :laugh:
-
I was moved to Calculus due to the lack of interest of the teachers with seniority, which (ironically) is the same reason I was chosen as the new Department Head.
Interesting. I thought about trying to become a math teacher, but I would just have too little patience for students that didn't want to be there. The only way I could probably do it would be if I could be guaranteed to teach only Calc or higher, where for the most part students want to do well.
I wish my students could memorize the unit circle. ;)
That was a required part of my precalc class. If we didn't pass the unit circle test, we couldn't pass the class.
-
Interesting. I thought about trying to become a math teacher, but I would just have too little patience for students that didn't want to be there. The only way I could probably do it would be if I could be guaranteed to teach only Calc or higher, where for the most part students want to do well. Or are Computer Science students.
FTFY. Yes, I am bitter.
-
Interesting. I thought about trying to become a math teacher, but I would just have too little patience for students that didn't want to be there. The only way I could probably do it would be if I could be guaranteed to teach only Calc or higher, where for the most part students want to do well.
Then you need to teach in a magnet school. My current school is 700 application-only students who are dual-enrolled in a tech program. They graduate with a diploma and industry certification, as well as real-world training. This makes the entry qualifications very selective, with a waiting list to get in. My students know that if they do not behave and do well, then they go back to their home-zoned school and are replaced with someone who will give the necessary effort. This is an extremely powerful incentive, since most of the regular high schools suffer from drug and gang issues.
That was a required part of my precalc class. If we didn't pass the unit circle test, we couldn't pass the class.
In my county, I would be repimanded for such an ultimatum. :o
-
This is an extremely powerful incentive, since most of the regular high schools suffer from drug and gang issues.
I wanna go to your place now. :P
-
I wish my students could memorize the unit circle. ;)
That was a required part of my precalc class. If we didn't pass the unit circle test, we couldn't pass the class.
Why would you ever want to memorize the unit circle? If you understand what the unit circle is and know your basic trig definitions, you can re-derive the unit circle in a nonce. Seriously, some things need memorization but the unit circle taint one of them.
Otherwise, keep up the good work training young minds, YMT.
Originally, I hated showing my work, for the same reason as ProfAlstad. Then, I found I needed to, and it reduced mistakes. Then I hit calc, and knew I needed to show work, but had no idea what work to show, so I just wrote "-inf < answer < inf." I got partial credit...once.
I remember one kid who just listed the name and address of the restaurant where he worked. I think he got extra credit. :laugh:
Physics is much easier. Just scribble in a bad stick figure diagram and throw in a random "F=ma" or two and you are good to go. ;)
-
Physics is much easier. Just scribble in a bad stick figure diagram and throw in a random "F=ma" or two and you are good to go. ;)
Not in the Physics class that I teach :)
-
Seriously, some things need memorization but the unit circle taint one of them.
Exactly. Like all the lines for Carl the greenskeeper and Sheriff Buford T. Justice.
-
Seriously, some things need memorization but the unit circle taint one of them.
Exactly. Like all the lines for Carl the greenskeeper and Sheriff Buford T. Justice.
Or hilarious quotes from Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie... "I am not an alien, I'll stick my ovapositer down your throat and plant my eggs in your chest, but I'M NOT AN ALIEN"..... :)
-
Seriously, some things need memorization but the unit circle taint one of them.
Exactly. Like all the lines for Carl the greenskeeper and Sheriff Buford T. Justice.
From experience, physicists also need to retain space to hold the entirety of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
"You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. " -- Dennis
"My monster is 'silent as tomorrow. He kills in the night. He has been acquainted with the night'."
"It sounds like your monster is acquainted with Frost, too."
"Yeah, and he sprays icy death from his bloody stumps!" -- Crow and Joel
"What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for the law." --Buford
"In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher.'" -- Carl
-
From MST3k: The Cave Dwellers- "How much Keeffe is in this movie?" "Miles O'Keeffe"
-
And that, kids, is what happens when you leave a potato in the microwave.
-
"Ah man, I've wasted almost a whole day...ROXIE!!!!!!"
-
"Don't even know what panties are, yet they feel compelled to raid."
"Every male of every biological species has the innate urge to panty-raid."
-
"A scratch? Your arm's off!"
"Today we're teaching poodles how to fly!"