The vocal minority on these boards whines far too much.Really? Are you serious? I'm having trouble believing you actually said that.... We presented our case, we provided logical, concise, and clear reasons and evidences for it, you guys provided only "Some cards in Redemption have no reference. The end." as the reason for the current 'ruling', and you claim WE are whining? Please, I beg of you to explain to me how that constitutes "whining".
3). The card has a "play-as" reference listed in the REG (this is not correct, btw. Play-As rewords the special ability. The scripture reference is listed several points below both the special ability and the play-as. There is no such thing as a "play-as reference")
4). If the reference in the REG is not supposed to alter the card, it should not be in the REG
5). It's not clear how or why that reference was placed in the REG but it will not appear in any future editions.
You could look at Gabriel (Ki) vs. Gabriel (Wa). Why were these cards printed with different verses (sorry, references)?
Will the Authority of Christ (promo) every recieve a reference?
But every card should have some form of refences I don't care if it's from spongebob it needs a reference! Those who say it doesn't need a reference are the ones who make no sense and are wrong.
But every card should have some form of refences I don't care if it's from spongebob it needs a reference! Those who say it doesn't need a reference are the ones who make no sense and are wrong.out of curiosity, what reference would that be?
a card does not need a reference
Can you demonstrate to me an example of someone saying a card does not need a reference?
Since Jon supports your claim, I'll accept an answer from him as well.
I'm guesing that years ago, Mike thought it would be nice to have that so that players could know what story the card is based on. Maybe so they could look it up and read about it. He could have just as easily listed Mark 8 or Luke 8 (and then we wouldn't be having this discussion... yet).
But it is NOT errata. It is not an official part of the card. It will not appear in the new REG, so that it does not cause confusion. Treat it currently as a way to look up the story, and nothing more. It is not an official addition to the card, just like the Luke reference in the Seeker of the Lost entry is not official.
Bryon said some cards don't have a reference and I take that as don't need a reference.But every card should have some form of refences I don't care if it's from spongebob it needs a reference! Those who say it doesn't need a reference are the ones who make no sense and are wrong.
Can you demonstrate to me an example of someone saying a card does not need a reference?
Since Jon supports your claim, I'll accept an answer from him as well.
Bryon said some cards don't have a reference and I take that as don't need a reference.
Here is a list of cards that are officially referenceless, and therefore testamentless:
Promos:
Authority of Christ
Rage
antiochus epiphanies 3Bryon said some cards don't have a reference and I take that as don't need a reference.
Why do you take it that way? To say a card does not have a reference is only a statement of fact.
I think the total number of cards with no reference are less than twenty, and I'm not sure that ANY of those come after somewhere around 2003ish. Does this sound to you like it doesn't matter whether a card has a reference or not? If it did not matter, wouldn't there be more cards like this? Wouldn't there still be cards printed today without them?
josephus is a book of the bible?
but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.
OK, starting a second thread after the first has been firmly ruled upon is uncalled for. You arent changing anything you are only stirring the pot.no, you're thinking of....
Second, is it possible that the reference was left off of the card for this very reason? ( or better yet, that Matthew was worded in such a way as to make it impossible for him to reccur AoCP?)
It has been established that the verse in the reg was added only as a refference and does not change the playability of the card in anyway. Cards are what they are at face value unless they have an erratta or a Play as...this one has neither that is applicable to your issue. THe card simply does not work that way, and for one I applaud the playttesters for closing that loop. Use AoC and take your chances that it can be negated, but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.
So please just let this one drop...or better yet, delete the thread because this is only going to end badly.
but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.
Every other combo that can recur CBN battle winners every turn including AoCp says hi.
I'm not clear on what else remains unresolved on the issue or what about the issue causes a problem for the entire game.All I'm asking is why it was ruled however many years ago that the cards without a printed reference just wouldn't have a reference. Why is disassociating them from the Bible and many other cards in the game better than treating them as having references despite not being printed? That's what is as yet unresolved. If an errata is the only thing you'll accept then consider this a request to consider such. The issue causing a problem for the entire game is new players wondering why there are these cards that don't have references when the game is supposed to be based on the Bible.
OK, starting a second thread after the first has been firmly ruled upon is uncalled for. You arent changing anything you are only stirring the pot.What was uncalled for was the closing of the other thread with a (seemingly) cop out answer and the deletion of other members' posts rather than answering them directly. If asking for a legitimate reason for a decision is "stirring the pot" then I suppose that's what this is.
Second, is it possible that the reference was left off of the card for this very reason? ( or better yet, that Matthew was worded in such a way as to make it impossible for him to reccur AoCP?)
It has been established that the verse in the reg was added only as a refference and does not change the playability of the card in anyway. Cards are what they are at face value unless they have an erratta or a Play as...this one has neither that is applicable to your issue. THe card simply does not work that way, and for one I applaud the playttesters for closing that loop. Use AoC and take your chances that it can be negated, but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.
So please just let this one drop...or better yet, delete the thread because this is only going to end badly.
Alright, Im calling you out. Give me an INFINTELY reccurable CBN battle winner combo. bonus points if you can do it with AOCP.
but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.
Every other combo that can recur CBN battle winners every turn including AoCp says hi.
Alright, Im calling you out. Give me an INFINTELY reccurable CBN battle winner combo. bonus points if you can do it with AOCP.
All I'm asking is why it was ruled however many years ago that the cards without a printed reference just wouldn't have a reference.
Second, they could have given the referenceless cards references and then simply worded new cards (like Matthew) differently to prevent such things.
Also, since there are still five pages of discussion in the locked thread, it also does not make sense to accuse people of deleting posts that don't agree with the ruling. There are a lot of those posts still in place. So logically, there had to be another reason for that.I never claimed to know why the posts were deleted, I just took note of other people complaining in the Off-Topic section thread that there posts had been deleted rather than answered. If whoever deleted them had a valid reason, then they could/should have said that in the thread so that the people knew why their posts had been deleted.
king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.
king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.
Nope, not infinite, you have to sacrifice a card from hand to recurr AoCP. THis well will eventually run dry.
Gather ET. Search for Philosophy.king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.Nope, not infinite, you have to sacrifice a card from hand to recurr AoCP. THis well will eventually run dry.
king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.
Nope, not infinite, you have to sacrifice a card from hand to recurr AoCP. THis well will eventually run dry.
Gather lemmuel to ET and use philosophy, also Gleaning the Fields lets your recur any good enhancement your opponent is using.
Yes it would have been better to have had some feedback on my post rather than just deleting it like that. It wasnt offencive and i tried to apologize about the whole feeling like being jerked around like a dog on a chain thing too- because it seemed like i offended bryon with that one so i was trying to make myself more clear on what i was trying to say. MKC also made some valid points on how the players arguing thier point were doing it in a logical way that really made sense and were looking for straight answers to straight questions rather that being told they were just misinterpreting the answers given. im over it, but i think it was def mishandled.Also, since there are still five pages of discussion in the locked thread, it also does not make sense to accuse people of deleting posts that don't agree with the ruling. There are a lot of those posts still in place. So logically, there had to be another reason for that.I never claimed to know why the posts were deleted, I just took note of other people complaining in the Off-Topic section thread that there posts had been deleted rather than answered. If whoever deleted them had a valid reason, then they could/should have said that in the thread so that the people knew why their posts had been deleted.
you know, your something else schaef... Schaef you need to work on your attitude problems as much as anyone else on here too. I know you get alot from these guys-
you know, your something else schaef. i guess we all just mishandled the whole the thing, huh. Hey, no hard feelings to any of you guys though, k. Im a pretty laid back guy and anyone who's ever met me can tell ya that. So if i offended anyone, please forgive me. Schaef you need to work on your attitude problems as much as anyone else on here too. I know you get alot from these guys-He's laid back. And I can live with a referenceless aocp I guess.
Happy thoughts make me angry
Being here for me makes me angry.
Monopoly makes me angry.
Monopoly makes me angry.
Monopoly makes me angry too. I dont consider Monopoly a board game. Board games for me begin with Axis and allies and move up in complexity from there. Everything below that is a BoredGame
everybody count to 10 and take deep breaths...dude like 95% of ur post r spam stop spamming!!
think happy thoughts... :sleepy:
Fwiw I thought it was kinda funny. Also I think you should cut the M some slack, considering the fact that when you were first on the boards you spammed a lot.
And doesn't everyone spam as a nubzorz?
And doesn't everyone spam as a nubzorz?
No, not everyone. Check my history.....no spam.....ever. Every one of my posts contribute even though I'm still a noob.*
*Although formally with a medal but somehow added a trophy.
I mean no disrespect, and I apologize if anything I've said has come across that wayYou quoted one of the most respectful, nicest, generous player in the game and continued to bash his posts. I do not think it is fair, or right to quote someone, write a paragraph after each quote that includes nothing positive, then say I mean no disrespect. C'mon on man. Brian is right, it is not a big deal, I think this whole thing got blown out of proportion, and that this set is a great one. Look at how many good things came out of the set and stop complaining that AoCp doesn't say Matthew on the bottom. You can write it in sharpie for all I care, but constantly arguing and trying to bring up "valid" points as to why it should work is obviously not helping. I think everyone who is saying it should, and trust me I see where you are coming from, but I think they all should let it go. Obviously the PTB are not going to have it, and Matthew will not recur AoCp, so stop trying to argue it.
I challenge you to a match of QUICKSCOPING in Modern Warfare 2.
I challenge you to a match of QUICKSCOPING in Modern Warfare 2.
and miss 90% of the time?
Now I know they said that the verses were just suggestions, not errata and that they will change the Reg (someday) anyway but I hope you can see how this might be misleading. Everything else I can find in that thread is not a suggestion but an official rule (though some of them have since been officialy changed). I even thought I remembered some past thread about wanting to correct the past mistakes and have every card have an official reference. So when I read this thread it came across as people that were not aware of the past ruling assuming that the cards don't have references and they would get rid of any indication otherwise. So I think people might be frustrated that the rules seem to arbitrarily and randomly change. It makes it difficult to enjoy working on complex strategies throughout the year if there is no assurance that your effort will matter.
P.S. if it really is considered too broken to allow Matthew to recur AoCP then they could simply change the AoCP reference to non-Matthew. I'm pretty sure that there are plenty of good references for that card. There are other cards that have different references on different versions.
P.S.S. you could also make a distinction between having a reference and having a reference printed on the card.
That certainly sounds like the cards now have official references.