Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: 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?
-
If you are tied, can either one of you have the most redeemed souls?
-
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.
-
The card says if the rescuing player doesn't have the most redeemed souls he can make another RA.
-
well he doesn't have the most LS, so he can make another rescue.
-
The card says if the rescuing player doesn't have the most redeemed souls he can make another RA.
+1
If that's what the card says, then yes you can make another rescue attempt.
-
There's a big difference between having the least and not having the most. ;)
-
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.
-
Assuming you are the one who started the RA. (Remember, this card can be used defensively as well.)
-
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.
-
It's semantics... does "the most" mean "the greatest number" or "more than everyone else."
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
-
Oh ok i would assume that they intended it to mean greatest (more than your opponent)
-
most=most. If your tied, you still have the most.
-
Unfortunatley, the equation "most=most" doesn't mean anything unless we know what "most" is. :P
-
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.
-
But if it's 2P and both people have four, they have the same, and same=/=most.
-
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.
-
It's Jethro.
Those cards state their meaning though. Grapes does not.
-
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?
-
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.
-
...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.
-
I'm saying Nero's is an unnecessary clarifier and Jethro's is an ability clearing up how it works. One of them can be chopped away and the other can't.
-
I disagree, and therefore I don't consider my example "horrible" (thank you for that).
And it doesn't change the fact that we have an existing example of how to define most that can give us direction on how to treat other cards using the exact same phrase.
-
But it doesn't have the same phase. It cut out the phasing on how it works, and so the only logical way to look at it is by reading what is said on the card, in which case I refer to my previous logic and most=most.
-
I have to say that Schaef's is the only logic I can understand and thus agree with.
-
I agree with Schaef as well.
-
But it doesn't have the same phrase.
It doesn't say "the most"? ???
-
Official answer?
-
A precedent was set by Jethro with a similar wording, and Schaef says "most" means "more than anyone else," so I'm going with that for now.
-
A precedent was set by Jethro with a similar wording, and Schaef says "most" means "more than anyone else," so I'm going with that for now.
I don't see anything wrong with this definition.
-
then if it's a tie you would get to make another rescue because you don't have the 'most' rescued.
-
Two possible wordings here would have eliminated this whole discussion, depending on how it was intended:
If ties still allow a rescue:
"if no player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"
If ties do not allow a rescue:
"unless the rescuing player has the most redeemed souls, or is tied for most, that player may begin another rescue attempt"
How did all you playtesters play this? Did this never come up as a question?
-
C'mon Cactus, get it together
That's what we call an escalator. :) Insulting Cactus will only make people mad at each other, so try using "I" messages instead, as in, "I'm annoyed that this card was worded the way it was." This will prevent angry outbreaks. :)
(Huh, maybe Issues & Wellness wasn't such a worthless class. :P)
-
You're right. That wasn't meant to be as harsh as it came off. I'm fine just getting a ruling and moving on. I just am baffled that no playtesters had this same question.
-
Hey, it worked! Maybe I'll start trying to be that guy from now on; I seem to be pretty good at it. ;D
In all seriousness though, while I do agree that the card could have been worded less suspiciously, it seemed relatively obvious to me from the beginning what the intent was.
-
The way I saw it was If you are tied you both have the most and the least. That said thought it is very confusing and I just asked my Dad (Mike Berkenpas) which is a pretty final answer. Given the situation where grapes of wrath is played and the lost soul count is tied, the rescuing player (not having "the most" lost souls because of the tie) MAY make another rescue attemp. This should settle the argument
-
I just am baffled that no playtesters had this same question.
You assume too much.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weeklystandard.com%2Fweblogs%2FTWSFP%2FNuteGunray.jpg&hash=b9a023c8dd435d7ac3a1782c8600fab7964811d2)
-
I just am baffled that no playtesters had this same question.
You assume too much.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weeklystandard.com%2Fweblogs%2FTWSFP%2FNuteGunray.jpg&hash=b9a023c8dd435d7ac3a1782c8600fab7964811d2)
HAHAHAHAHAHA
-
C'mon Cactus, get it together:
Two possible wordings here would have eliminated this whole discussion, depending on how it was intended:
If ties still allow a rescue:
"if no player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"
If ties do not allow a rescue:
"unless the rescuing player has the most redeemed souls, or is tied for most, that player may begin another rescue attempt"
How did all you playtesters play this? Did this never come up as a question?
Or you could be like me, and ignore this card completly because eventually no one will think its worth the card slot
-
C'mon Cactus, get it together:
Two possible wordings here would have eliminated this whole discussion, depending on how it was intended:
Edit this post. This comes off as rude and abnoxious. Look at the setthat just came out. How many powerful and great looking cards were released. I suggest go editing it and if I had the power to I would do it for you. Even if you said later that you didn't mean to come off harsh then you should edit it then.
Anyway, I would say if you are tied then you do not have the most which means you can make another. But by going to Jethro's SA a tie means nothing happens...
-
Anyway, I would say if you are tied then you do not have the most which means you can make another. But by going to Jethro's SA a tie means nothing happens...
I have confirmed and it will most likely be added to the REG that if there is a tie, neither player has the most therefore a second attempt can be made.
-
I don't seems wierd to me that that would happen...jethro and grapes are worded differently. Jethro says 'the player with the most' and Grapes says, 'if you don't have the most'. Which mean two different things....
also jethro has the thing that tells you what to do if there's a tie, (if there's a tie no one draws). :P
-
It did come up among the playtesters--I had forgotten about it though. The idea behind the wording was to keep a player in the lead from getting an extra shot but also not requiring that a player have the fewest LS rescued in a MP game--we wanted to give a 2nd or 3rd place player an extra rescue.
Personally I would much rather not give this extra power to Grapes, but it seems that is the way it's going to be.
-
I don't seems wierd to me that that would happen...jethro and grapes are worded differently. Jethro says 'the player with the most' and Grapes says, 'if you don't have the most'. Which mean two different things....
Only in a yes/no fashion. If the cards said "If you have three Redeemed Souls" and "If you don't have three Redeemed Souls", they may calculate as two different things, but "three Redeemed Souls" means the same thing in both instances. So, too, should "the most" be calculated the same way everywhere it appears.
-
"if any player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"
Previous post edited. But read the above. Wouldn't that wording have eliminated this whole question? I just think we should keep our eyes open for alternate wordings that answer questions before they are asked. I'm glad at least it came up as a question in playtesting, but given that, I'm not sure why the wording wasn't changed. It's not that big of a deal.
I don't want to come across as overly critical or anything. The way it is written on the card is how it is and there's no use crying over spilled milk. I'm just trying to be proactive with new cards that may come out. On that note, pointing out how awesome this set is (which I agree with) and how much work went into it (clearly a lot) doesn't really have much to do with the subject at hand. Unless you mean to imply that because this new set is so good (which it is) I have no right to level any complaint, however minor, against it. Don't mistake my push for clearer wordings for dissatisfaction with an awesome new set. :)
-
"if no player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"
More? You mean fewer?
Even so, Justin said that wasn't the intent of the wording...
The idea behind the wording was to keep a player in the lead from getting an extra shot but also not requiring that a player have the fewest LS rescued in a MP game--we wanted to give a 2nd or 3rd place player an extra rescue.
-
"if any player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"
More? You mean fewer?
Erm, no. That wouldn't work. I fixed it above.
-
It was worded how it was worded and there is no point in arguing about "it should have said this" or "it should have said that"...The ruling on the card says that if there is a tie neither player has the most...whether that makes sense or not it is how the card is intended to be played. But I do think Cactus could avoid things like this by being a little more careful with the way they word things but again its never that big of a deal because they always clear things up for us by telling us how a card is to be interpreted. :)
-
It was worded how it was worded and there is no point in arguing about "it should have said this" or "it should have said that"...The ruling on the card says that if there is a tie neither player has the most...whether that makes sense or not it is how the card is intended to be played. But I do think Cactus could avoid things like this by being a little more careful with the way they word things but again its never that big of a deal because they always clear things up for us by telling us how a card is to be interpreted. :)
This is what I'm trying (and failing) to say. I'm not trying to dwell on the past and nitpick every little thing, I just would like to see less of it in the future.
-
I'm not trying to dwell on the past and nitpick every little thing
The problem is, that's exactly what you're doing.
-
If cards looking for this condition all say "most" and "most" means the same thing in all circumstances, I'm not sure where a problem would arise.
-
I realize it's coming across that way, so I am going to shut up now. My goal was only ever to keep it from happening in the future.
As a side note, there's a bit of irony in calling me critical with a post like that.
-
Ok well we can drop this now right? haha. Its funny what posts can lead to. This Topic started as a simple question of how to play a card. Just like my "hi everyone post" that turned into a DISASTER! haha. (jo I have a super speed deck that I can't wait to play tonight....its got some secret weapons!)
-
I'll have to rebuild my speed bane deck.
-
If cards looking for this condition all say "most" and "most" means the same thing in all circumstances, I'm not sure where a problem would arise.
The problem arises when a clarifier (that for all I know could be ment as an execption ) on an older card is deemed presedence because the rule for most is on the card? What? 1. Since when did we have a rule for most, it is rather self explanitory 2 Since when do cards make there own rules? I think Jethro is a moot point.
May we do a question and answer session to illustrate the other side of the argument?
Now pretend you are in a very very dark room, and there is no light except the light of my 500 watt bulb. You cant see me but I can see you through a two way mirror *manical laugh*. The hour is six, the swet is starting to run down your face and if you don't answer the questions in a manner to my liking I will pwn ur trollz!
1. If I have three lost souls and my opponent has three lost souls, how many lost souls does each of us have?
-
3
-
That wasn't much of a question there Hobbit.
-
The problem arises when a clarifier (that for all I know could be ment as an execption ) on an older card is deemed presedence because the rule for most is on the card?
Yes. that's what clarifiers do, they clarify things that are unclear.
1. Since when did we have a rule for most, it is rather self explanitory
It's so self-explanatory that we're sitting here having this discussion even before I bring up Jethro?
2 Since when do cards make there own rules? I think Jethro is a moot point.
The entire purpose of a special ability is for a card to make its own rules. You cannot turn an Evil Character into a Hero by normal game rules. A conversion ability makes its own rule that allows that play.
-
The problem arises when a clarifier (that for all I know could be ment as an execption ) on an older card is deemed presedence because the rule for most is on the card?
Yes. that's what clarifiers do, they clarify things that are unclear.
1. Since when did we have a rule for most, it is rather self explanitory
It's so self-explanatory that we're sitting here having this discussion even before I bring up Jethro?
2 Since when do cards make there own rules? I think Jethro is a moot point.
The entire purpose of a special ability is for a card to make its own rules. You cannot turn an Evil Character into a Hero by normal game rules. A conversion ability makes its own rule that allows that play.
Let's move on from Jethro. My second question for Schaef (assuming he agrees with the answer of the first). I am not saying I am right , I just want to get this cleared up in el head.
In the same game I have three lost souls and so does my opponent. What is the number of the most rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?
-
Nothing. There is no player that has the greatest quantity of Redeemed Souls.
-
May we do a question and answer session to illustrate the other side of the argument?
Now pretend you are in a very very dark room, and there is no light except the light of my 500 watt bulb. You cant see me but I can see you through a two way mirror *manical laugh*. The hour is six, the swet is starting to run down your face and if you don't answer the questions in a manner to my liking I will pwn ur trollz!
1. If I have three lost souls and my opponent has three lost souls, how many lost souls does each of us have?3
My second question for Schaef (assuming he agrees with the answer of the first). I am not saying I am right , I just want to get this cleared up in el head.
In the same game I have three lost souls and so does my opponent. What is the number of the most rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?
3
-
Nothing. There is no player that has the greatest most quantity of Redeemed Souls.
You mean most, right?
here is another,
What is the number of the least rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?
-
Most is synonymous with Greatest, so I don't understand what your point was with editing his quote.
Also, the answer to this one is...
Nothing. There is no player that has the greatest or least quantity of Redeemed Souls.
Bold added by myself.
-
You mean most, right?
You should know by now that what I type is what I mean. The definition of "most" is the "greatest quantity". That is the exact reason I used that exact phrase. So please don't try to tell me what I mean.
What is the number of the least rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?
Nothing, because no player has the smallest quantity of Redeemed Souls.
A more appropriate approach than this Socratic line of questioning is to determine exactly what you hope to achieve by asking them. If you want me to acknowledge that there is more than one possible way to interpret "most", I said as much when I pointed out there was a discussion before there was a mention of Jethro (something you neglected to note when asking me to "move past" Jethro). If you want me to say that two tied people each can have "the most", I already noted the two differing possibilities and noted which side I came down on and why. If you want me to change my mind and agree with that perspective, I would question why I could be asked to keep rulings consistent, and then be asked to rule the same phrase differently on different cards.
In other words, we've been down this road and I am wondering what it is you are driving at, that you don't think has been discussed so far.
-
I think the easiest way to explain this is to say that "most" is superlative, and can therefore only refer to a single player. If both players have the same number of redeemed souls, can either one of them be the only player with the most souls? Of course not.
-
Prove this by logic or whatever means that you want to prove it by. It is ruled that a tie means neither player has the most. That is the easiest way to look at it.
-
But is it the right way?
-
But is it the right way?
I think in a case when people are divided like this, and the issue in itself is relatively minor, easier equals better.
-
Whether its the right way or not (which I kinda sensed some sarcasm in that lol) its the way that the creaters and playtesters want it to be played. FINAL! ha
-
Judging from the conversation we had at your house, I'd say I was being sarcastic.
-
Yeah thats what I thought...in that case it makes me laugh haha. Especially if people jump on what you said and tear you down which is probably likely to happen because everyone seems to love an argument wherever it is to be had!
-
I personally disagree with the ruling, but like you said, your dad and Schaef and Rob from what I understand agree with the ruling, so I lose.
-
exactly...the way me you and josiah read it if it is tied...both players have the most. But the way the card is intended on being played is that a tie means neither has most so we all have to stick a cork in it if we disagree, give a big exhale and move on.
-
Exactly. Plus, in the scope of rulings, this isn't that big a deal. However, 12FG vs. Protection of Angels....big deal. You missed all that fun.
-
12FG...i assume you are talking about a big argument that I missed... and your use of the word "fun" was again extremely sarcastic?
-
I would link you to the argument, but the search function on this site stinks. It was a 15 or so page argument about whether the protection from the Priests Proctection of Angels protected a Cherubim/ET band from the negation of The Twelve Fingered Giant. The answer is no. I'm pretty sure that was ruled on about page 3. And then it went 12 more. There was also a side argument of whether or not "Protection from evil cards" included numbers (it doesn't).
-
Sounds like a blast! Gotta love side arguments...once one argument is finished...then there must be another argument to take its place so side arguments arise...I've been on this for like 3 days only and I can already see that that is how it goes...oh dear :-\
-
There was also a side argument of whether or not "Protection from evil cards" included numbers (it doesn't).
I must have missed that part. Can you sum up in a few words how protection from "effects" of cards can cover numbers and specials, but protection from the card only means the ability?
-
Perhaps I am recalling the argument wrong. But as I remember it, Maly, RDT, and I (ok, mainly Maly) argued that protection meant specials because numbers are not effects they are attributes. I thought we (Tim) won the argument. I am assuming you were on the opposing side and that you remember you won. It's been awhile since that argument, I might be remembering foggy.
-
NOOOO...i can see this going, oh about 6 pages. I was not part of that argument. I cannot answer your question.
-
NOOOO...i can see this going, oh about 6 pages. I was not part of that argument. I cannot answer your question.
Seeing as we are at 6 pages, I don't think that really matters.
-
meant 6 more pages.
-
Of course, but we here on the boards can't miss a way to nitpick your wording.
-
mmm...you're right. I guess I need to re-read everything and spellcheck, make drafts, have a second opinion, and take any other measures necessary to make sure my post is perfect. Though im sure there will still be some way to nitpick something I say, lol. Its inevitable.
-
Haha. You could just get your dad to proofread any post you make in any rulings related thead. Then if we nitpick you can push the "Mike Berkenpas supported my post" button.
-
hahahahahaha...thats hilarious!
-
What is the final ruling on this thread?
But is it the right way?
We do want to get it right and we want to be consistent whether in Ohio or Minnesota.
When I first read the card I immediately thought that if the players were tied they would not be able to make a second rescue attempt. Why?
1. As a tournament host, when a muli player table is finished and the players report their scores I ask who had the most lost souls. If the game timed out and two players were tied at 4 LS they would respond by saying we both had the most Lost Souls.
2. Based on precedent, two cards come to mind. On has already been mentioned, Jethro.
Jethro was designed to reward the player if he had the most O.T. Hero’s in their territory. If they were tied they wouldn’t get rewarded. Another card is Nicanor.
Nicanor
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 5 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: If holder has fewer Redeemed Souls than opponent, holder may draw two cards.
Nicanor was designed to reward the player that has fewer Redeemed Souls. If they were tied they wouldn’t get rewarded.
Grapes of Wrath I assumed was designed to reward the player with the fewest Redeemed Souls. If they were tied they wouldn’t get rewarded.
3. It just doesn’t seem far that in a 4-4 game, whether in 2-player or multi that one person would get to make another rescue attempt for the win during the same turn.
I could live with the ruling either way. Right now until it becomes official I would rule that a person who is tied can not make a second rescue attempt.
-
The Official ruling is that if the lost soul count is tied, then neither player has "the most" lost souls and the rescuer CAN make another rescue...this isn't coming from me but from my Dad and you will find this rule in the REG once he gets his hands on the TexP cards. :)
-
Perhaps I am recalling the argument wrong. But as I remember it, Maly, RDT, and I (ok, mainly Maly) argued that protection meant specials because numbers are not effects they are attributes. I thought we (Tim) won the argument. I am assuming you were on the opposing side and that you remember you won. It's been awhile since that argument, I might be remembering foggy.
I'm not sure I remember even being involved in that, much less having "won". Suffice to say I don't think there is merit to the idea that any card only refers to specials when it doesn't say so (and there is precedent for that). But that's another discussion.
-
I mean, it was a 15 page thread. You were probably there somewhere.
-
The simple fact is nobody knows the principles behind English grammar. Most is not the same as the greatest. Most is a comparative adjective, and when both players have 3, neither has the most. The greatest number is a quantitative adjective, and when both players have 3, they each have the greatest number.
-
Excuse me for consulting a dictionary. Sheesh.
And if nobody knows the principles behind English grammar, that means you don't know the principles behind English grammar, which puts you in a poor position to "advise" people on their grammar. Especially when grammar refers to the structure and syntax of language, not the denotation and connotation of individual words.
-
English being a derivative of Romance language, I mean exactly what I say. Talking about the principles behind grammar is different than talking about grammar. There is also an element of necessary inference in modern English that you seem to be unaware of. It would be silly to say "everyone doesn't know grammar," and then talk about grammar, so the only logical inference there is that an implied "just about" or even "except a few" in the sentence.
That's the lesson for today, and I am no longer involved in this. (For those who didn't catch it, there was an implied "thread" or "discussion" in that last sentence)
-
The Official ruling is that if the lost soul count is tied, then neither player has "the most" lost souls and the rescuer CAN make another rescue...this isn't coming from me but from my Dad and you will find this rule in the REG once he gets his hands on the TexP cards. :)
Isn't that just a common sense decision? If I have three Lost Souls in my Land of Redemption and my opponent has three in his/hers, then according to the English language neither one of us has the most.
-
Talking about the principles behind grammar is different than talking about grammar.
Not in such a way that it detracts one iota from my previous assertion. You are proposing a distinction without a difference. Which is sort of the whole point to this exchange. Read on.
There is also an element of necessary inference in modern English that you seem to be unaware of. It would be silly to say "everyone doesn't know grammar," and then talk about grammar, so the only logical inference there is that an implied "just about" or even "except a few" in the sentence.
Someone who has something to say about inference, I am certain is clever enough to know I am just as aware of it as he. The irony of this statement is that you are demanding precision from others that you are openly expecting people to excuse you from, based on common knowledge that trumps the black-and-white letter of the law. What you seem to have missed is that the entire purpose of the retort was to illustrate how being critical of grammar in these situations often involves an employed double-standard almost by default, and doesn't really add to the productivity of the thread.
The way people have been discussing "most" in this thread has been quite grammatically valid, but more to the point of the matter, their adequate adherence to the dictionary definition of the word demonstrates the discussion has also been semantically valid.
-
The simple fact is nobody knows the principles behind English grammar. Most is not the same as the greatest. Most is a comparative adjective, and when both players have 3, neither has the most. The greatest number is a quantitative adjective, and when both players have 3, they each have the greatest number.
Most is NOT comparative, it is superlative. And its definition is "greatest in amount or degree." Is "the greatest in amount" and "the greatest number" comparable?
-
Sweet, the grammar police have arrived now. I don't even understand this thread anymore. It's been pretty well established what the ruling is as well as the fact that it could have been clearer.
Oh and um... this post approved by Mike Berkenpas? :)
-
Yes...the "Mike Berkenpas Approves this post" button has been hit on all...i think 4 of my posts repeating what the ruling is in an attempt to end this argument.
-
Thank you for the lovely contributions, people, but I think we already have a ruling. :)
-
You mean most, right?
You should know by now that what I type is what I mean. The definition of "most" is the "greatest quantity". That is the exact reason I used that exact phrase. So please don't try to tell me what I mean.
What is the number of the least rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?
Nothing, because no player has the smallest quantity of Redeemed Souls.
A more appropriate approach than this Socratic line of questioning is to determine exactly what you hope to achieve by asking them. If you want me to acknowledge that there is more than one possible way to interpret "most", I said as much when I pointed out there was a discussion before there was a mention of Jethro (something you neglected to note when asking me to "move past" Jethro). If you want me to say that two tied people each can have "the most", I already noted the two differing possibilities and noted which side I came down on and why. If you want me to change my mind and agree with that perspective, I would question why I could be asked to keep rulings consistent, and then be asked to rule the same phrase differently on different cards.
In other words, we've been down this road and I am wondering what it is you are driving at, that you don't think has been discussed so far.
Right after I posted that , I said to my self it doesn't make a difference because they are the same thing. I was going to edit it but I didn't get the time.
"A more appropriate approach than this Socratic line of questioning is to determine exactly what you hope to achieve by asking them."
I hope to achieve a different ruling.
The First
So when in a tie both player don't have the most and they don't have the least (which is what your saying). Grapes of Wrath would trigger on the " if you don't have the most souls", allowing another rescue attempt. It would seem this is correct but lets look a little further. The intention of Grapes of Wrath was to give the player with the least amount of souls an extra rescue. Since you said that when somone is tied no one has the least, why are we giving this player another rescue? Let's look back to Jethro ( the set presedent). The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more. It sets the presedence for latter cards such has Grapes of Wrath (like you say). In this case a play as for Grapes of Wrath would be helpful (with the added clarifier), like Jethro and Nicanor.
My second argument
I personally think you are wrong on the quantity issue. Having the greatest quantity is used to say that someone has more apples than another person and it is also used to state the greatest quantity, whether somone also has the same quantity it doesn't matter. The fact remains that the greatest quantity at that time is x (x=number of apples) not the greatest quantity that can potential be in the future. And logically when you play a card you check what is happening at the time rather than checking what can happen in the future. I think this is were you are a little confused about. And maybe are you caught up on the fact that most is similar to more but not = to? Most is a broader word than "more". This is why parmenas has no clarifier, it doesn't need one whereas Jethro does because of his wording. You are treating Grapes of Wrath like it is worded as parmenas and Nicanor are. However Grapes of Wrath uses "most" instead of "more "(which parmenas has in his SA), when you should treat Grapes of Wrath like the card Jethro with the clarifier.
Parmenas
If your opponent has more cards in hand than you, you may draw two cards.
Jethro
The player with the most O.T. male heroes in territory may draw a card. (If there is a tie, do not draw.)
Thanks for your patience. :)
-
The intention of Grapes of Wrath was to give the player with the least amount of souls an extra rescue.
What makes you so sure of this? And either way you want to define the advantage (it's technically the same thing in a two-player game), wouldn't you agree that someone who is tied is not in the lead?
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.
How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?
I personally think you are wrong on the quantity issue.
Well, then, you're just wrong, because that's an objective assessment based on the dictionary definition of most.
The fact remains that the greatest quantity at that time is x (x=number of apples) not the greatest quantity that can potential be in the future.
There is no potentiality in play here. You either have the most or you do not. If someone has the same as you, you do not have the most.
You are treating Grapes of Wrath like it is worded as parmenas and Nicanor are.
No, I am not. I am treating it exactly as I have laid out above. It would be easier to determine the validity of my arguments if you actually addressed those, and did not just toss them aside and make up something else that I'm supposed to be saying instead.
-
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.
How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?
I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.
-
I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.
But the condition of Jethro is not based on who benefits from it, it's based on a numerical assessment of greatest quantity.
-
Is it possible that jethro and GoW could be played differently from each other or ruled in different ways? And either way I don't understand what more there is to argue about GoW. Schaef you are right about GoW that a tie means neither player has the most. The card was ruled that way and will be played that way. Anyone who thinks otherwise...well they shouldn't think otherwise haha
-
Is it possible that jethro and GoW could be played differently from each other or ruled in different ways? And either way I don't understand what more there is to argue about GoW. Schaef you are right about GoW that a tie means neither player has the most. The card was ruled that way and will be played that way. Anyone who thinks otherwise...well they shouldn't think otherwise haha
Shaef is it really you? You know creating two profiles is against board policy. o_O
-
Sorry to jump in this far into the discussion, but I just wanted to mention that I had Grapes of Wrath in my booster draft deck at Nationals, and it was ruled by Tim Maly and Bryon Hake that since two of us were tied for the most Lost Souls rescued, we both had the most, and there could not be another rescue. I didn't notice a post from them here, so I wanted to add it to the topic since those were 2 National judges who ruled it this way.
The reasoning was that if we both had 4 Lost Souls, no one had more than us, so we both had the most.
-
Hmmm...that is interesting because while my Dad was not at Nationals he ruled it here as the opposite...I guess we kinda need to hear from Rob then...or our judges need to get together and on the same page haha
-
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.
How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?
I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.
Jethro and Grapes are two different cards, and should be treated as such. I think plain, simple English should be how the card abilities are used. And since Grapes only allows the current rescuer to make another rescue if he/she doesn't have the most, then if the two players are tied, the current rescuer does not have the most.
-
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.
How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?
I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.
Jethro and Grapes are two different cards, and should be treated as such. I think plain, simple English should be how the card abilities are used. And since Grapes only allows the current rescuer to make another rescue if he/she doesn't have the most, then if the two players are tied, the current rescuer does not have the most.
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1
-
This whole thing really comes down to what each player thinks "the most" means. If you think that only one person can ever have the most (which is how I think of it), then a tie would allow the rescuer a second battle. If you think that anyone who has the highest score has the most (in which case no one person would have the most in the event of a tie), then a tie would not allow the rescuer a second battle. Am I right?
The question then is: How does Rob see it? ;)
-
most (mst)
adj. Superlative of many, much.
1.
a. Greatest in number: won the most votes.
b. Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: has the most compassion.
2. In the greatest number of instances: Most fish have fins.
n.
1. The greatest amount or degree: She has the most to gain.
2. Slang The greatest, best, or most exciting. Used with the: That party was the most!
pron.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The greatest part or number: Most of the town was destroyed. Most of the books were missing.
adv. Superlative of much.
1. In or to the highest degree or extent. Used with many adjectives and adverbs to form the superlative degree: most honest; most impatiently.
2. Very: a most impressive piece of writing.
3. Informal Almost: Most everyone agrees.
Then you see it wrong.
-
Then you see it wrong.
Oooh, look who knows everything!
You are not proving anyone's point with those definitions.
Greatest in number: won the most votes.
Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: has the most compassion.
Do either of these specify whether they refer to one or many items?
The greatest amount or degree: She has the most to gain.
This one uses a singular example!
Maybe you see it wrong sir.
-
9/10 of those would agree that most=as many have the greatest. Or, since I like confusion:
Most say that most means multiple things if need be.
-
9/10 of those would agree that most=as many have the greatest. Or, since I like confusion:
Most say that most means multiple things if need be.
Again, it depends on how you look at it.
-
I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.
But the condition of Jethro is not based on who benefits from it, it's based on a numerical assessment of greatest quantity.
The condition of Grapes of Wrath is also based on a numerical assement of the greatest quantity. You check the lost soul count whiuch is a quantitiy. What is your point?
Hmmm...that is interesting because while my Dad was not at Nationals he ruled it here as the opposite...I guess we kinda need to hear from Rob then...or our judges need to get together and on the same page haha
Right, that is what the judges do they rule buy commitee. I guarantee you that there is a discussion on the playtesters boards about this, as we type.
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.
How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?
I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.
Jethro and Grapes are two different cards, and should be treated as such. I think plain, simple English should be how the card abilities are used. And since Grapes only allows the current rescuer to make another rescue if he/she doesn't have the most, then if the two players are tied, the current rescuer does not have the most.
They are two different cards and are treated as such. The special abilities are alike and for consistency need to be ruled the same way every time.
9/10 of those would agree that most=as many have the greatest. Or, since I like confusion:
Most say that most means multiple things if need be.
Again, it depends on how you look at it.
We cant have rulings being relative, so it has to be ruled on past cards.
If I am in a three player multyplayer game, and I have 3 lost souls and my opponents each have 5 lost souls who won one the game?
How do you win the game of redemption?
-
Has this discussion been resolved?
-
According to this (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17610.msg277931#msg277931) post, it seems like a tie means neither has most (or least as the case may be), however that thread hasn't received a confirmation by any moderator or playtester.