Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: MrMiYoda on December 29, 2010, 09:24:56 AM

Title: JT Revisited
Post by: MrMiYoda on December 29, 2010, 09:24:56 AM
Blessings, all.

With all the hype about pre-battle 'discard' abilities, does JT protect one's deck from cards being discarded even if that special ability 'cannot be negated'?

*************
Jerusalem Tower (Fortress) - "No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled."
*************

Thanks!
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Gabe on December 29, 2010, 09:30:32 AM
Yes, JT is a protect ability now.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 30, 2010, 01:36:32 PM
Yes, JT is a protect ability now.

Is it...

    1) Just Jerusalem Tower's special ability
    2) All special abilities worded as a negate ("No opponent may...")
    3) Some subset of cards with special abilities worded as a negate

that are now protect special abilities?

How is any judge who didn't read this (or any related thread) on the board supposed to know which (if any) of these are the case (and hence have the capability of ruling correctly)?
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: JSB23 on December 30, 2010, 01:42:33 PM
And if the change was made just to "Make JT playable" then I'd like to re-visit Split Altar
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: TechnoEthicist on December 30, 2010, 01:48:21 PM
petitions for equal wording and playability stance for Hezekiah's Signet Ring...
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: The Guardian on December 30, 2010, 01:49:55 PM
Quote from: MJB
How is any judge who didn't read this (or any related thread) on the board supposed to know which (if any) of these are the case (and hence have the capability of ruling correctly)?

I would not expect a judge to know every single REG entry by heart, but if it comes up during a game, the REG is correct so a judge would simply need to have access to the current REG to rule on this particular card. Also, "restrict" will be added as a definition in the new REG.

Jerusalem Tower (Pa)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled. • Play As: Restrict opponents' from removing cards from holder’s deck. Deck may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled. • Identifiers: Play to territory. • Verse: Nehemiah 12:38 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 30, 2010, 02:04:10 PM
Wait a minute. You mean that JT currently has "Restrict" in the Play As, but "Restrict" is not currently defined?
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 30, 2010, 02:46:49 PM
Quote from: MJB
How is any judge who didn't read this (or any related thread) on the board supposed to know which (if any) of these are the case (and hence have the capability of ruling correctly)?

I would not expect a judge to know every single REG entry by heart, but if it comes up during a game, the REG is correct so a judge would simply need to have access to the current REG to rule on this particular card. Also, "restrict" will be added as a definition in the new REG.

Jerusalem Tower (Pa)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled. • Play As: Restrict opponents' from removing cards from holder’s deck. Deck may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled. • Identifiers: Play to territory. • Verse: Nehemiah 12:38 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)

Guardian, how does that help?

Someone raises the question, so I go look at the REG, and I see "Restrict opponents..." For as long as I have been playing/judging "Blah-blah-blah opponents yada-yada-yada" has always been the wording used for negates[1]. The wording used for protects has always been "No so-on-and-so-forth can be..."[2]. Looking at the REG entry, I would rule that JT is a negate.

If you are claiming that the word "Restrict" denotes a protect--and as such overrules the years of using the phrasing to decide sa intent--how is a judge to know that outside if this (and possibly related) threads on the board?

[1] See REG entry for Hezekiah's Signet Ring both SA and Play As, as an example.
[2] See REG entry for Blue Tassel's both SA and Play As, as an example.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: 3-Liner And Bags Of Chips on December 30, 2010, 03:15:34 PM
petitions for equal wording and playability stance for Hezekiah's Signet Ring...

I agree...i put up a fight earlier. got nowhere...
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: STAMP on December 30, 2010, 04:39:14 PM
Quote from: REG
Jerusalem Tower (Pa)
...
 • Play As: Restrict opponents' from removing cards from holder’s deck.
...

This is most certainly not your grandfathers' english grammar.   :P
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 30, 2010, 08:00:44 PM
Quote from: REG
Jerusalem Tower (Pa)
...
 • Play As: Restrict opponents' from removing cards from holder’s deck.
...

This is most certainly not your grandfathers' english grammar.   :P
Especially given that a protect works by making a card or cards untargettable.  I am not sure how "Restrict opponents'..." has anything to do with effecting a card.  It sounds more like you are keeping your opponent from doing something (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prevent).
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 31, 2010, 12:05:47 AM
Cute, but even a prevent ability only affects SAs on cards.

It seems to me that there is a typo in this REG entry. STAMP pointed out the unusually placed apostrophe. However, it is possible that the word "cards" was supposed to come after "opponents'."
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: JSB23 on December 31, 2010, 01:33:24 PM
Cute, but even a prevent ability only affects SAs on cards.

It prevents your opponents' special abilities from removing cards from your deck
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 31, 2010, 02:12:53 PM
Cute, but even a prevent ability only affects SAs on cards.

It prevents your opponents' special abilities from removing cards from your deck

And right now it restricts your opponents' special abilities from removing cards from your deck, so your point is moot.

I think the elders need to find out whether this was indeed a misprint and "cards" was supposed to be typed next to "opponents'."
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: EmJayBee83 on December 31, 2010, 04:21:20 PM
I think the elders need to find out whether this was indeed a misprint and "cards" was supposed to be typed next to "opponents'."
And once you add the word "cards" the Play As  is still phrased exactly as a prevent ability.

So--getting back to my original point--after reading the REG (which I did prior to my first question), even an experienced judge has absolutely no chance of ruling on ReyZen's question correctly unless they read this (and possibly related) threads.

This is a problem.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 31, 2010, 05:53:30 PM
I think the elders need to find out whether this was indeed a misprint and "cards" was supposed to be typed next to "opponents'."
And once you add the word "cards" the Play As  is still phrased exactly as a prevent ability.

No, it is phrased exactly as a "restrict" ability. However, there is no current REG definition of "restrict."   ;)

So--getting back to my original point--after reading the REG (which I did prior to my first question), even an experienced judge has absolutely no chance of ruling on ReyZen's question correctly unless they read this (and possibly related) threads.

This is a problem.

I do not disagree. This has been a problem for quite some time. There are many threads that have illuminated this problem. If you are just adding more light, then welcome to the club.  ;D

In the mean time, we hosts just do the best we can, realizing that we may make a ruling that is completely wrong and will be contradicted in the involved players' next tournament. Then, friends of those players will post on here about how the host made an incorrect ruling and lead all their sheep astray.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: JSB23 on December 31, 2010, 08:29:10 PM
Cute, but even a prevent ability only affects SAs on cards.

It prevents your opponents' special abilities from removing cards from your deck

And right now it restricts your opponents' special abilities from removing cards from your deck, so your point is moot.

re·strict (ri strikt′)

transitive verb
put certain limitations on (for example a person)

pre·vent  (pr-vnt)
v. pre·vent·ed, pre·vent·ing, pre·vents
v.tr.
1. To keep from happening
2. To keep (someone) from doing something; impede:

Hmmm.....
Limiting what your opponent can do that sounds a lot like a prevent
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 31, 2010, 09:04:53 PM
Poop sounds alot like scoop, but they don't do the same thing.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: lightningninja on December 31, 2010, 10:50:26 PM
Poop sounds alot like scoop, but they don't do the same thing.
Nominated for awesome quotes.  ;D
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Prof Underwood on January 01, 2011, 03:41:29 PM
Poop sounds alot like scoop, but they don't do the same thing.
I agree with LN, this was quoteworthy (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=12349.msg392866#msg392866) :)
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: The M on January 01, 2011, 09:49:23 PM
 :o  This thread... is now... SERIOUS!!!   :o
Dramatic / Serious Squirrel Rude Tube No.2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey3PbD75cjc#)
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: JSB23 on January 01, 2011, 11:40:32 PM
Poop sounds alot like scoop, but they don't do the same thing.
Too bad we're talking about definitions
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on January 02, 2011, 01:24:14 PM
Poop sounds alot like scoop, but they don't do the same thing.
Too bad we're talking about definitions

We were? Oh, my apologies. Please quote me the REG definition of "Restrict" used for Redemption game play purposes and I'll be happy to continue talking.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: EmJayBee83 on January 03, 2011, 11:13:25 AM
Too bad we're talking about definitions

We were? Oh, my apologies. Please quote me the REG definition of "Restrict" used for Redemption game play purposes and I'll be happy to continue talking.
OK

Also, "restrict" will be added as a definition in the new REG.
Oops, it appears that restrict does not have a definition in the current REG.

For every other word that does not have a specific in-game meaning, standard English usage takes precedence. Given that JSB's definition is a (more-or-less) standard definition of the word that is what a judge would have to use--isn't it?  Since I know you are not just arguing for the sake of arguing, could you please explain why you believe (as a judge) that you should treat the word restrict differently than how JSB defined it, or are you claiming the word has absolutely no meaning in the game lacking a REG definition?  If the latter, what do you do with JT's special ability--would you just have us pretend that it doesn't exist?*

*Once again I am asking you to answer from the point of view of a judge who does not spend hours perusing these boards, and depends on the wording on the card, the rules, and the REG solely for guidance.

This sort of arbitrary ruling flux strikes me as a very serious problem for the game. Would any of the PTB care to comment on how a host can do an acceptable job of judging without spending hours on the boards--or is spending X hours a week on the boards now considered a requirement for hosting?
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: STAMP on January 03, 2011, 11:28:05 AM
Does anyone else find it ironic that the first four related words to prevent in Merriam Webster's Thesaurus are:

baffle
balk
foil
frustrate



 :P
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Prof Underwood on January 03, 2011, 01:44:58 PM
Would any of the PTB care to comment on how a host can do an acceptable job of judging without spending hours on the boards
JTower is currently ruled as a "protect" ability.  That announcement was made a long time ago, and a fairly big deal was made about it, so if people hang out on the boards even fairly regularly, they probably heard about it.  This whole discussion of it being a "restrict" and whatever that means is really irrelevant until the new REG comes out, and we all know when that is going to be.  So don't worry about it.

As for judges who don't spend a lot of time here on the forum, they aren't the people who host the major tournaments, and it really won't matter much if someone rules incorrectly about JTower at a local tourney somewhere.  I agree that the outdatedness of the REG is frustrating, but lets not make this even more of a big deal than it needs to be.  There's already a single thread that compiles all the REG changes that need to be made, so all a host needs to do is read the REG and check 1 thread.  Is that too much to ask?
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Korunks on January 03, 2011, 02:02:49 PM
Then can we have Jtower listed as a protect on the corrections thread so there is no questioning it in the future?
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: JSB23 on January 03, 2011, 05:29:41 PM
Would any of the PTB care to comment on how a host can do an acceptable job of judging without spending hours on the boards
JTower is currently ruled as a "protect" ability.  That announcement was made a long time ago, and a fairly big deal was made about it, so if people hang out on the boards even fairly regularly, they probably heard about it.  This whole discussion of it being a "restrict" and whatever that means is really irrelevant until the new REG comes out, and we all know when that is going to be.  So don't worry about it.
Citation needed
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on January 03, 2011, 05:38:36 PM
Given that JSB's definition is a (more-or-less) standard definition of the word that is what a judge would have to use--isn't it?  

It wasn't actually JSB's definition. It was yours. You had already linked that definition in your post, so JSB's repetition was unnecessary. I had already commented that your definition link was funny (and appropriate).

As for judges who don't spend a lot of time here on the forum, they aren't the people who host the major tournaments, and it really won't matter much if someone rules incorrectly about JTower at a local tourney somewhere.

I completely disagree with this conclusion. If a local player uses (and perfects) the same deck all year, then brings it to a state tournament and is suddenly told that his cards don't do what he thought they did, that player is now at a disadvantage with no time to compensate.

There's already a single thread that compiles all the REG changes that need to be made, so all a host needs to do is read the REG and check 1 thread.  Is that too much to ask?

Yes. The REG is outlined and categorized. That thread is not. Tournaments have time limits that need not be spent perusing post after post to find if any of them is relevant.

I agree that the outdatedness of the REG is frustrating, but lets not make this even more of a big deal than it needs to be.

I found my old joke threads about the mythical REG dating back to February. "Coming out soon" was not even a joke. It was a lie.

I have tried to be less cynical of late, but if the elders are going to pass off a horrendously erroneous REG with complacency, then I feel I have the right to vocalize my frustration.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: TheHobbit13 on January 03, 2011, 06:19:40 PM
They really are not writin
Would any of the PTB care to comment on how a host can do an acceptable job of judging without spending hours on the boards
JTower is currently ruled as a "protect" ability.  That announcement was made a long time ago, and a fairly big deal was made about it, so if people hang out on the boards even fairly regularly, they probably heard about it.  This whole discussion of it being a "restrict" and whatever that means is really irrelevant until the new REG comes out, and we all know when that is going to be.  So don't worry about it.
Citation needed

We have talked about this in our playgroup, I am pretty sure you were there to hear the discussions.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Gabe on January 04, 2011, 10:12:48 AM
I have tried to be less cynical of late, but if the elders are going to pass off a horrendously erroneous REG with complacency, then I feel I have the right to vocalize my frustration.

The majority of the elders have as much control over getting the REG updated as you do.  So what would you like us to do?
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Prof Underwood on January 04, 2011, 02:00:23 PM
it really won't matter much if someone rules incorrectly about JTower at a local tourney somewhere.
I completely disagree with this conclusion. If a local player uses (and perfects) the same deck all year, then brings it to a state tournament and is suddenly told that his cards don't do what he thought they did, that player is now at a disadvantage with no time to compensate.
Realistically, anyone who has a chance at winning a regional or national level tournament would HAVE to be significantly a part of the broader Redemption community.  There's no way that Joe Smith can "perfect his deck" in a local environment ONLY and have any chance of success at the top levels.  He just wouldn't have been exposed to enough varieties of decks and strategies.  So 1 of 2 things will happen:

1 - Joe Smith connects here on the forum with the broader community, becomes and elite player, and along the way learns that JTower is a protect.

2 - Joe Smith dominates locally, and then loses big at the Regional tournament for a bunch of bigger reasons than just his misunderstanding of JTower.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on January 04, 2011, 03:18:23 PM
It'd be hard to imagine it happening at a national tournament, but it is more realistic than you might believe at a state tournament.

Right, Scott? :-*
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: JSB23 on January 04, 2011, 05:03:10 PM
For anyone just tuning in he's a summary,
JT is now a protect, the REG doesn't say that but it doesn't matter because every player obviously spends an hour and a half each day reading the ruling threads. (Also no one has explained why it was changed)  
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Prof Underwood on January 04, 2011, 05:26:16 PM
JTower is currently ruled as a "protect" ability.
Citation needed
Gabe said it here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=22912.msg359165#msg359165) and here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=23137.msg364253#msg364253) in August.
I said it here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=23137.msg364492#msg364492) in September.

(Also no one has explained why it was changed) 
Bryon explained that here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=21814.msg343201#msg343201) back in June.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: TechnoEthicist on January 04, 2011, 06:15:56 PM
<--is still waiting to know why Hezekiah's Signet Ring doesn't get special treatment although it has nearly identical wording. One gets rewritten as a restrict, yet the other remains a prevent..../confused...

No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. - JT

No opponent may search any draw pile or discard pile. - Hez's Ring
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on January 04, 2011, 06:35:37 PM
it really won't matter much if someone rules incorrectly about JTower at a local tourney somewhere.
I completely disagree with this conclusion. If a local player uses (and perfects) the same deck all year, then brings it to a state tournament and is suddenly told that his cards don't do what he thought they did, that player is now at a disadvantage with no time to compensate.
Realistically, anyone who has a chance at winning a regional or national level tournament would HAVE to be significantly a part of the broader Redemption community.  There's no way that Joe Smith can "perfect his deck" in a local environment ONLY and have any chance of success at the top levels.  He just wouldn't have been exposed to enough varieties of decks and strategies.  So 1 of 2 things will happen:

1 - Joe Smith connects here on the forum with the broader community, becomes and elite player, and along the way learns that JTower is a protect.

2 - Joe Smith dominates locally, and then loses big at the Regional tournament for a bunch of bigger reasons than just his misunderstanding of JTower.

I specifically said "state" for a reason. How many people were at the KY state tournament?

The Delarosa twins did quite well at their first high level tournament in last year's FL tournament. I think spicynumber would do quite well if he comes to his first state tournament later this year. Your assumptions are based on simple arrogance, even though you may not perceive yourself as arrogant. Interestingly, the only reason this arrogance has come up is to cover the annoyance of not having a REG update.

The majority of the elders have as much control over getting the REG updated as you do.  So what would you like us to do?

Let the real PtB's know that the current system is not working and is getting exponentially worse.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: sepjazzwarrior on January 04, 2011, 06:37:54 PM
Sry if this has been asked already, but is restrict and different than protect? If it isn't, why add another definition to redemption, just make it a protect.  Hezzy's signet ring has the same wording as J tower, so if one of them becomes a restrict/protect, then they both should
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 04, 2011, 06:53:04 PM
1 - Joe Smith connects here on the forum with the broader community, becomes and elite player, and along the way learns that JTower is a protect.

This thread is evidence that just being on the boards doesn't always mean you know every new rule.

JSB was asking for proof of the change, which most likely means he never heard about it. It's not hard to miss a thread. Be absent for a few days, and things can become buried. This is why I wish we had a better system with the REG, so we don't have to rely on both equally.

When the new REG finally does come out... I really hope there is a "recent changes" page, so that hosts and players alike can check ONE consistent source to stay up to date on the rules and erratas.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: EmJayBee83 on January 05, 2011, 12:24:09 AM
First a personal story...

Since this past summer, I have read precisely three threads on the Ruling Questions board.

1) Where Rob declared that the I am Holy/Chamber of Angels combo never actually worked (back when I was going to brush up to prepare to host my first tournament of the season).
2) The Windows of Narrow Light thread (posted contemporaneously with this thread which I read solely because I saw Rawrlolsauce posting on it).
3) This thread where I found out JT was a protect.

Putting aside the merits of the decisions, two out of the three threads (#1 and #3) changed rulings that had been in place ever since I started playing. What other major ruling changes have I missed? I don't know and I know of no way to find out without going through and spending a considerable amount of time wading through the 500 or so threads that have cropped up since the summer.

The majority of the elders have as much control over getting the REG updated as you do.  So what would you like us to do?
I have two suggestions...

First, the PtB could limit the number of apparently arbitrary ruling changes[1].

Second, some member of the PtB could actually create a single board/thread/rss feed/something where someone can find the actual rulings without having to spend X hours a week reading the boards in order to try to keep up to date.

[1]I just read (for the first time that I recall) Bryon's explanation (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=21814.msg343201#msg343201) of why Jersualem Tower was changed to a protect. The explanation boils down to--JT could have gone down as either a prevent or a protect. Years ago we decided to make it a prevent. "In retrospect, I don't think that was the best choice," so now we are going to rule it the other way. Moreoever, if you go back to Bryon's explanation of why the JT change was made you could substitute "Hezekiah's Signet Ring" everywhere you find "Jerusalem Tower" and the exact same logic would work. So this ruling is arbitrary in both how it was made and how it effects other rulings.

Would any of the PTB care to comment on how a host can do an acceptable job of judging without spending hours on the boards

As for judges who don't spend a lot of time here on the forum, they aren't the people who host the major tournaments, and it really won't matter much if someone rules incorrectly about JTower at a local tourney somewhere.
Thank you for answering my question. I now understand that a requirement to serve as a host is to spend X hours a week reading these boards.

Quote
I agree that the outdatedness of the REG is frustrating, but lets not make this even more of a big deal than it needs to be.  There's already a single thread that compiles all the REG changes that need to be made, so all a host needs to do is read the REG and check 1 thread.  Is that too much to ask?
Which thread is that? I know it's not the "REG Updates" thread, the "OFFICIAL New Rulings Announcement Thread" or the "OFFICIAL REG Corrections" thread, because none of them mention that Jersualem Tower is a protect--which overturned half a decade or more of established rulings. I did check the REG before posting initially, but the fact is (as Bryon noted in his original announcement) that both JT's SA and Play As in the REG are still worded as a prevent so it didn't really help me.

A single authoritative source in addition to the REG could well be manageable, Currently, however, such a beast does not exist.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: lightningninja on January 05, 2011, 12:36:58 AM
Wait I am Holy and Chamber of Angels doesn't work? Darn...
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: JSB23 on January 05, 2011, 12:47:28 AM
Wait I am Holy and Chamber of Angels doesn't work? Darn...
It's never worked, we just didn't know that
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 05, 2011, 12:48:46 AM
Interesting that I took 3rd at Nationals with a deck built around an illegal combo.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: RTSmaniac on January 05, 2011, 01:37:03 AM
true. and i still want to here explanation on hezzy ring too.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: browarod on January 05, 2011, 05:06:30 AM
Considering how similarly Hezzy's Ring and JT are worded, it seems illogical to treat them differently. Redemption is already rule-y and inconsistent as it is, we shouldn't be making it worse rather than better.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on January 05, 2011, 06:12:42 AM
I got a shout out 8).
This is also the earliest I've woken up in months 8).
Coincidence?

Probably.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: STAMP on January 05, 2011, 11:16:59 AM
Interesting that I took 3rd at Nationals with a deck built around an illegal combo.

Good thing Redemption isn't a college sport.  ;)
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Prof Underwood on January 05, 2011, 03:30:00 PM
I specifically said "state" for a reason.
I agree that this could happen at a "state" level tourney, because depending on the state, that competition might not be much different than a local or district tourney.  However, I repeat that knowing all the nuance rulings like JTower is not going to be what determines whether someone wins at the Regional or National level, and that is what determines the RNRS champions and the National champions, so really all other tourneys won't make that big of a difference.

Let the real PtB's know that the current system is not working.
Done already.

Which thread is that? I know it's not the "REG Updates" thread, the "OFFICIAL New Rulings Announcement Thread" or the "OFFICIAL REG Corrections" thread, because none of them mention that Jersualem Tower is a protect
Actually if that ruling were made more recently it would be in the OFFICIAL New Rulings Announcement Thread.  The problem is that the JTower ruling was made just before Nats, and announced just after Nats, and the ONRAT wasn't created until around Thanksgiving.  I just asked Guardian to add the JTower ruling to clear this up, but going forward any other big ruling changes should be easily found there.

Considering how similarly Hezzy's Ring and JT are worded, it seems illogical to treat them differently.
This is currently being discussed by the Elders.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Bryon on January 05, 2011, 03:58:28 PM
As far as I know, there is only one person who can edit the REG: Mike Berkenpas.  Rather than slap bandages on the major wounds to the REG, the decision was made to rewrite it.  Tim Maly did that, with edits from me and Mike.  Tim got really busy, and the project is somewhat stalled.  He posted a rough draft of that document a while back.  Is that still available for players to read and comment on?

We have 2 threads for Official errata and Clarifications, and the things posted there can be treated as updates to the REG (until the new REG is finally born), but those threads have not been well maintained.  I am very sorry about that.  What should probably happen is that all of the elders should feel free to edit those two threads with things they know of that are different than the REG.

What players can do to help is to post on the Errata and Clarifications threads when they know of something new that needs to be added there.  Then, I or one of the other elders can make that update.

I know how frustrating this has been for many people, and I know that you can feel like you can do nothing but complain.  But there are positive, helpful things that you can do.  If you know of something in the REG (old or new) that is not right, post about it in the Clarifications or Errata threads.  We'll get this mess cleaned up together.  :)
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on January 05, 2011, 04:28:36 PM
When the new REG comes out, would it be possible for all of the Elders to have access to it for edits? That would greatly speed up the response time when something needs to be changed.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on January 05, 2011, 06:33:35 PM
Let the real PtB's know that the current system is not working.
Done already.

Apparently not well enough, if this is the case:

As far as I know, there is only one person who can edit the REG: Mike Berkenpas. 

How can this have not been rectified at this point? I find it hard to believe that we can not somehow grant access to more than one person (or just two for that matter). No offense to Mike or Tim, but they should not be doing it alone when there are so many of us that have plenty of time to spare.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Gabe on January 05, 2011, 10:22:26 PM
At some time in the past, probably long before one of the "great purges", Rob stated that the REG is maintained through some software that is very costly.  He's only purchased one license for software and that has been supplied to Mike.  That's why Mike is the only person who has access to update the REG.

That doesn't seem like the most efficient system to me and probably not to most of you either, but it's the one we have.  I agree that it would be better if at least a couple more people had access to make updates.  It's not as easy as saying that more people should have access to update the REG.  We have to also consider the technical requirements, cost and time involved in implementing a better solution.   If anyone knows of a better solution I'm open to suggestions.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: EmJayBee83 on January 06, 2011, 12:06:05 AM
If anyone knows of a better solution I'm open to suggestions.
Can there be a single board that only people appointed by the PtB can post to that has threads that look something like this.

Subject:     Jerusalem Tower Ruled to Be a Protect

Body:        The special ability on Jerusalem Tower has been ruled to be a protect ability.
                 This overrides the original ruling that the special ability on Jerusalem Tower was a negate.
                 For discussion see <hyperlink>this thread here.</hyperlink>

With the actual card name (not JT in this example) used in the subject and body to allow for easier searching, and no back and forth chatter. In an ideal world there would be one post for every single official ruling made that cannot be found anywhere other than on the boards. Something like this would allay my primary concern.

I understand that is what the official threads are supposed to serve and I will begin using it. The reasons I suggested something slightly different are threefold...

   1) There appear to be at least three official threads--five if you count the two threads on the Errata board--that are all currently being used for this purpose.
   2) Not every ruling is found there--only the "big" ones and those only since November
   3) Searching a single thread is much more difficult to do than searching a board--unless you limit the posts to a single user who doesn't post elsewhere or somesuch

My other personal preference would be that existing rulings on cards would be given some considerable deference when revisiting a card. If there is no compelling reason to overturn a ruling, the ruling should not be overturned (even if the re-ruling may be slightly better if taken de novo). Rulings stability is a very good thing, and benefits the game greatly.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: YourMathTeacher on January 06, 2011, 12:22:13 AM
At some time in the past, probably long before one of the "great purges", Rob stated that the REG is maintained through some software that is very costly.  He's only purchased one license for software and that has been supplied to Mike.  That's why Mike is the only person who has access to update the REG.

I have offered to help with the REG for well over a year, and this is the very first time that I have heard this. I thank you for the clarification, but I am curious why no one had ever responded so simply before. All I have ever received was a brush-off, which I frankly found quite offensive. A lot of my frustration would have subsided a year ago if I had known this back then.

Thanks Gabe.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: Minister Polarius on January 06, 2011, 12:37:06 AM
Tim gets busy, but YMT or someone on the job. Seems like a simple fix. The framers of our country weren't even this exclusive about who helps with what.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: STAMP on January 06, 2011, 11:06:58 AM
  If anyone knows of a better solution I'm open to suggestions.

In my opinion, a Microsoft Sharepoint site seems like a great solution.

And there are any number of possible volunteers to work on it based on my experience on the boards.  Redemption haz computer geeks, yes?
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: browarod on January 06, 2011, 02:39:38 PM
A wiki could work, too.
Title: Re: JT Revisited
Post by: EmJayBee83 on January 06, 2011, 09:23:01 PM
There's any number of technical solutions that could work. I'm not sure what a wiki or a sharepoint site would add much beyond what we can already do on these boards. Technically-minded people always like technical solution, but sometime simplicity is best for no reason other than the simple solution actually gets implemented.

If all who wanted to help out would scurry hither to the Official Errata board and start creating single-post threads that contain nothing but official rulings--like this one (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24963.0)--wouldn't that resolve the vast majority of the issues people are having? I know it would mine.

For content creators, you can pick a page of the Ruling Questions board and let everyone know you are willing to be responsible for it. Scan through the 20 threads there to find any official rulings (of the thus saith Rob or two or more elders variety), check to see if someone else has already created a thread for the ruling, and if not create the threads. (I am guessing that less than half of the threads on the Ruling Questions board have any new meaningful content that would warrant a thread.) You would also probably want to have one of the moderators move/copy the three different official ruling change threads on this board to the Official Errata board.

As a future judge, I can search, skim, or scan one specific board for an answer as to what rulings have changed/been clarified since the REG was last updated.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal