Author Topic: Grapes of Wrath and Tying (Read 14152 times)

Chronic Apathy · « **on:** August 03, 2009, 01:37:35 PM »

Quick question, if I play GoW and the score is tied, can I make another RA or not?

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #1 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:38:55 PM »

If you are tied, can either one of you have the most redeemed souls?

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #2 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:39:45 PM »

I don't remember the card well enough, but if it says one of you has to have the most redeemed souls, then you couldn't make another one because you both have the same amount.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #3 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:41:57 PM »

The card says if the rescuing player doesn't have the most redeemed souls he can make another RA.

redemption99 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:42:31 PM »

well he doesn't have the most LS, so he can make another rescue.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #5 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:46:51 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on August 03, 2009, 01:41:57 PM

The card says if the rescuing player doesn't have the most redeemed souls he can make another RA.

If that's what the card says, then yes you can make another rescue attempt.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #6 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:47:38 PM »

There's a big difference between having the least and not having the most.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:49:03 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 03, 2009, 01:47:38 PM

There's a big difference between having the least and not having the most.

Correct, I had thought that the card stipulated having the least. If you are tied, then yes, you can make another rescue.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #8 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:50:38 PM »

Assuming you are the one who started the RA. (Remember, this card can be used defensively as well.)

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #9 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:51:46 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 03, 2009, 01:50:38 PM

Assuming you are the one who started the RA. (Remember, this card can be used defensively as well.)

Well, he did say *another* rescue attempt, so thats the assumption that I was making. But yeah, its only if you started it.

The Guardian · « **Reply #10 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:56:19 PM »

It's semantics... does "the most" mean "the greatest number" or "more than everyone else."

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #11 on:** August 03, 2009, 01:59:43 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on August 03, 2009, 01:56:19 PM

It's semantics... does "the most" mean "the greatest number" or "more than everyone else."

Thats a good point. But using it as "the greatest number" is somewhat nonstandard, I believe. Would you say that both players in a tie have the most redeemed souls?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #12 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:03:45 PM »

No, but I would say that if two people had four lost souls and the two other players had three or less, the first two would have the most. You are referring to MP, right Justin?

seeker · « **Reply #13 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:05:14 PM »

The card says "if the current rescuer doesnt have the most lost souls he may begin a new battle." so in the case of a tie you would be able to make another rescue attempt.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #14 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:12:32 PM »

We're talking about what "most" means. If it means "more than every other player," which I believe is the intent, you are correct. However, it could possibly mean "the greatest number out of each player's current score," in which case they might as well have just said "least."

seeker · « **Reply #15 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:16:09 PM »

Oh ok i would assume that they intended it to mean greatest (more than your opponent)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #16 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:21:30 PM »

most=most. If your tied, you still have the most.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #17 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:26:56 PM »

Unfortunatley, the equation "most=most" doesn't mean anything unless we know what "most" is.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #18 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:27:52 PM »

Most IS most. English most means you have the greatest amount. If we both havd 4 and Gabe has 3, we still have the most.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #19 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:29:03 PM »

But if it's 2P and both people have four, they have the same, and same=/=most.

The Schaef · « **Reply #20 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:30:24 PM »

According to cards like Jethro, a person tied does not have "the most". Based on that, I have always assumed that anyone who is not outright ahead of all other players does not have the most.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #21 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:31:39 PM »

It's Jethro.

Those cards state their meaning though. Grapes does not.

The Schaef · « **Reply #22 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:37:42 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 03, 2009, 02:31:39 PM

Those cards state their meaning though. Grapes does not.

So precedent means nothing to you? Does that also mean that because modern "immune to lone Heroes" cards do not have the extra sentence "you need two or more", you have to ask?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #23 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:39:23 PM »

No, because they work as they should now. The previous wording of Nero was just a clarifier and it gave him an extra ability by all accounts. It's hardly precedent to remove unnecessary words. When this is no game rule defining this, the phase shouldn't be removed if its implied.

That was a horrible example.

The Schaef · « **Reply #24 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:46:45 PM »

...wwwwwhy would Jethro not "work as it should now"? The parenthetical information is a clarifier. You need to explain to me, if my example is horrible, where you draw the line between "clarifier" and "stated meaning", since that's kind of a made-up term and I'm obviously not following the logic you're employing.

News:

Author Topic: Grapes of Wrath and Tying (Read 14152 times)

Chronic Apathy

FresnoRedemption

Chronic Apathy

FresnoRedemption

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef