Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Red on April 10, 2010, 12:19:07 PM
-
why does the wording has to be exact for cards like high places and the white I Ams? This is not logical same thing with empors not kings i wish that the rules could make SENSE! some things in redemption don't make sense. PTB please fix rules or SAs that don't make SENSE!(please)
-
It makes more sense to have the cards do what they say from a gameplay perspective than to have them do what we wish they said. Would you argue that Gomer could band to a female evil character even though she says male? Or that Agur could place an NT enhancement even though he says OT?
-
You could have probably voiced these concerns on the other thread, but it doesn't really matter. Anyways, I'm pretty sure that they decided High Places shouldn't include "placed" cards to prevent abuse of certain cards with that wording.
Also, you have to draw the line for wording somewhere. The simplest place to draw it is what we have now: exact wording counts. You can't always take the "commonsense" approach to rulings and keep everything consistent. Besides, exact wording makes as much sense as taking cards as they were "intended" to work.
-
ignores and ignore means the same get my drift?
-
But that's not what the card says. It makes perfect sense you just don't want it to make sense.
-
quite frankly if those two cards worked together it would almost be unstobbale in type 2, so its probably good it dosen't work, Even though i whish that it had for once the gramar end actualy helped the game
Susana makes an ra... (1/1) = auto rescue with no need for spices,
Turn 2
Susana makes an ra (2/2) still amazing inative hey look they blocked non wc hey that another ls,
or you can look it at it like this
Marahiah to caldia to ET, not only is it preblock ignore that can't be negated but it also allows for recurssion if some how sneak an evil charecter into battle,
or
Marahiah to claudia to John, owait thats TGT on top of that combo
(I had added a gathering to get ET in also ) but not as practical
yhea its disgusting if it would have worked,
-
ignores and ignore means the same get my drift?
While they may mean the same thing, they aren't the same thing. I am Love refers to the EXACT wording on various cards (that's why in its SA, the words "ignores" is in quotes). Thus, when the wording on a White good enhancement does not use EXACT wording on I am Love, I am Love can't target it.
-
quite frankly if those two cards worked together it would almost be unstobbale in type 2, so its probably good it dosen't work, Even though i whish that it had for once the gramar end actualy helped the game
Wow, that is completely unstoppable unless they block with a WC evil character which make up a good percentage of ECs in the majority of T2 decks.
-
I just think that now that it's known that they don't work together, we should strip Jonathan of his 2006 Nationals Second Place, since his deck relied on that combo... ;)
-
then if it worked then then why not now?
-
Because before it was played wrong. Now it is played correctly.
-
I just think that now that it's known that they don't work together, we should strip Jonathan of his 2006 Nationals Second Place, since his deck relied on that combo... ;)
I suppose we could, but why waste the time for a second place? ;)
-
then if it worked then then why not now?
Because before it was played wrong. Now it is played correctly.
+1, "Because we always did" is NEVER a reason for a ruling.