Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: CountFount on March 11, 2009, 03:33:41 PM
-
This past weekend at the local Minnesota Type 2 it was ruled that the Garden tomb could be used by any player in the Game who met its conditions not just the player who owned it and controlled it in his territory. Is there a misunderstanding?
s/aIf opponent has a Redeemed Soul, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the Mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play.
-
That's the way I read it.
-
I've heard it ruled that way from several people.
-
I'm still struggling to understand why this call way made in this direction. I have read and re-read the SA of every fortress card I can find, and this is the first fortress that can work for my opponent just as much as for me. That really doesn't make sense to me. Though I'm pretty sure that there's no where in the rule book that says so, aren't fortresses ONLY for the player who owns it? Even if it doesn't say "your" whatever, it's still your fortress and you should be the one using it.
The prime example that I've found of fortresses being for the owner only is Storehouse:
Storehouse - Unused enhancements may be placed here face up during discard phase. Any one enhancement from Storehouse may be placed in holder's hand during player's Site phase.
There's nothing in this SA that says "your." It doesn't say "your" unused enhancements, but it is understood that you are the only one to get to use it since it is your fortress. How does TGT differ any from this. It always does not say "your" Salome, Mary Mag, etc, but it should be understood as much because it is your fortress.
-
Why? The language for your opponent applies only to you, so that is unchanged. The benefit targets characters with a specific name, and that can belong to anybody. Example, Herod Agrippa can capture any Peter, including your own or your opponent's. If by chance you banded to someone else's Salome, are you saying you would not get to use this since that's not your Salome either?
-
Is there another fortress that provides a benefit to an opponent?
-
Not that I've seen, but the Storehouse "proof" may be the only other Fortress in the entire game that doesn't specify "Holder's" or "Yours". But as i said, the first sentence does refer to "your" opponent, so even this Fortress, in its own way, only applies to you. It's just that the benefit can apply to anyone who happens to be controlling these characters.
-
But neither of these examples have to do with fortresses. Both these examples use a hero's SA. But TGT is not a hero, it's a fortress. Again, if I can use my opponent's TGT, what is stopping me from putting my unused Enhan. in my opponent's storehouse?
For a different look, think about what a fortress really is outside of Redemption. I think of a castle. Why did people used to build castles? For themselves. For better protection and attacking for themselves. I doubt that there was any group that build a castle and then let their enemy in and said, "Here you go! You can fight from in here and we'll go outside." It seems absurd, but it's very close to the same idea as letting someone else use your TGT.
-
But that tomb isn't a castle. It's ability applys to heroes, not fortresses. If it says something about your fortresses, then it would only apply to you. But it talks about heroes, and two players can have the same heroes, so the effect is granted to both of them. I don't have any trouble with this, and think it's actually a good counter to Garden Tomb decks, since they typically have small defenses.
-
For a different look, think about what a fortress really is outside of Redemption. I think of a castle. Why did people used to build castles? For themselves. For better protection and attacking for themselves. I doubt that there was any group that build a castle and then let their enemy in and said, "Here you go! You can fight from in here and we'll go outside." It seems absurd, but it's very close to the same idea as letting someone else use your TGT.
+1 for Scottie_ffgamer
But that tomb isn't a castle. It's ability applys to heroes, not fortresses. If it says something about your fortresses, then it would only apply to you. But it talks about heroes, and two players can have the same heroes, so the effect is granted to both of them. I don't have any trouble with this, and think it's actually a good counter to Garden Tomb decks, since they typically have small defenses.
Its identified as a fortress. It would follow Schaef's reasoning more easily if it had been an artifact.
-
I tend to treat Arts and Forts essentially the same in the way they work, and the way they do not. Example, Interrupt the Battle affects characters and Enhancements, not Arts or Forts. Arts and Forts typically don't enter battle, characters and Enhancements typically do. Forts work solely for your benefit because they are worded for your benefit, whereas Arts that apply to everyone are highly generalized (e.g. Three Nails). If J Tower said "No cards may be removed from a draw pile" that would apply to everyone. TGT applies its effect to specific named characters, so it doesn't seem to apply only when one player is using them.
-
I tend to treat Arts and Forts essentially the same in the way they work, and the way they do not. Example, Interrupt the Battle affects characters and Enhancements, not Arts or Forts. Arts and Forts typically don't enter battle, characters and Enhancements typically do. Forts work solely for your benefit because they are worded for your benefit, whereas Arts that apply to everyone are highly generalized (e.g. Three Nails). If J Tower said "No cards may be removed from a draw pile" that would apply to everyone. TGT applies its effect to specific named characters, so it doesn't seem to apply only when one player is using them.
If you go by the wording alone, then you must allow any player to stick enhan. in storehouse as well. As I already said, it doesn't specify, but it's still played only for the benefit of the owner.
-
Storehouse - Unused enhancements may be placed here face up during discard phase. Any one enhancement from Storehouse may be placed in holder's hand during player's Site phase.
I don't understand where the confusion is. Doesn't Storehouse say that the card can be placed in HOLDER'S hand? Holder means the holder of Storehouse.
-
Storehouse - Unused enhancements may be placed here face up during discard phase. Any one enhancement from Storehouse may be placed in holder's hand during player's Site phase.
I don't understand where the confusion is. Doesn't Storehouse say that the card can be placed in HOLDER'S hand? Holder means the holder of Storehouse.
Or does it mean Holder of the enhan. being taken out? If this is the case, it wouldn't be specific to the owner and either could potentially use it.
-
If your enhancement is in your opponent's Storehouse, then you are not "holding" it.
FWIW, however, I agree that fortresses should only benefit the holder. Is there any other fortress that's ability is for everyone? Would Stronghold in the Desert work for my opponent?
-
No, because "opponent" defines the ability in your favor, just as it does with the first part of Garden Tomb. It's just that the ignore ability applies to all characters with that name. That is different from Storehouse and from just about every other Fort out there by that virtue alone.
-
You didn't answer my first question. Is there any other fortress that grants its ability to an opponent? We are basically setting a precedent based on a manipulation of semantics. Fortresses have only ever been used to benefit the holder. Why change that now?
If from here on every card will be ruled based on nitpicking the word choice, then there will be other repercussions. For instance, Stronghold in the Desert won't be as useful if my opponent is a female.
Stronghold in the Desert
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect contents from opponents' cards. While occupied, each time an opponent plays an Evil Character of a brigade he does not already have in play, discard the top card of his deck.
-
You didn't answer my first question. Is there any other fortress that grants its ability to an opponent? We are basically setting a precedent based on a manipulation of semantics. Fortresses have only ever been used to benefit the holder. Why change that now?
That seems to be the most important question. Will semantics decide a precedent? If the card was an artifact then the argument is mute, because artifacts have always been played with the mindset that they could effect both players when played.
However, No fortress has ever been ruled this way and there was certainly no care given to define it as carrying a precedent in the REG when it was created, thus before we begin setting a precedent by letting random semantical arguments determine rulings at tournaments where there is no precendent, I think that TGT should be seen as following the precedents of Fortressess and remain the unique use of the Holder until Rob rules it otherwise.
-
If the card was an artifact then the argument is mute...
I believe you mean moot. ;)
-
We are basically setting a precedent based on a manipulation of semantics. Fortresses have only ever been used to benefit the holder. Why change that now?
It's not a manipulation of semantics and it's not a change of precedent. The reason Fortresses have only benefitted the holder is precisely because of the wording on the card. Ruling Garden Tomb as we're talking about it here, is consistent with the policy of doing what the card says the way the card says it.
-
I also do not agree with the way this card has been interpreted. With the stronghold in the desert example
Stronghold in the Desert
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect contents from opponents' cards. While occupied, each time an opponent plays an Evil Character of a brigade he does not already have in play, discard the top card of his deck.
The second part of that SA can be read from both perspectives. Say Player A puts stronghold in the desert out and sticks his character in it. Well when he puts an EC from a brigade he doesn't allready have in his territory, Player B can say "Due to Stronghold, you have to discard a card from the top of your deck." This was clearly not the intent of this card.
You can say "well, it only works if YOUR Hero is in there", but it does not say that, it only says that it works if it is occupied. But for that matter what is preventing player A or B from placing a Hero in that fort? (answered below)
We need to seriously hammer out how these cards are going to be read and used because I dont want to go into Nats thinking one thing with Stronghold or TGT and having it do something entirely different.
-
It's not a manipulation of semantics ...
It is a manipulation of semantics because the only reason the ruling has been made is because the card doesn't say "your" or "holder's." I would argue that it doesn't have to, based on the rules for whose characters are allowed in fortresses:
Redemption® Rulebook -> Diagram of a Turn -> Preparation Phase -> Fortresses
You may place any number of fortresses on the table as described on the fortress. You may add or remove cards in a fortress as described on the fortress. You may only hold your own cards in a fortress unless a card states otherwise. A fortress may not be used to gain access to an opponent’s sites.
Likewise, the SA of the fortress is intended for the holder, unless the card says otherwise, which it does not. Cards that "say otherwise" specify "all" or "any" or "each players'."
... and it's not a change of precedent.
It is setting a precedent. No other fortress has ever benefitted anyone other than the holder.
Ruling Garden Tomb as we're talking about it here, is consistent with the policy of doing what the card says the way the card says it.
This policy has been taken to such an extreme that experienced hosts have to keep up daily so as not to miss changed rulings, current hosts have to keep up daily so that they will know how to rule correctly in spite of their own interpretation, and future hosts will have to pour over these threads for hours or face the embarassment of ruling by logic rather than semantics which is now entirely incorrect.
-
What I want to know is if this means I can put my enhancements in my opponent's Storehouse ;D (Yes I know I wouldn't be able to get them back)
This would also be awesome in teams.
I would like some clarification though. The way I read Garden Tomb is that if the opponent of the card's owner has a redeemed soul, then the ability is in effect. If my opponent has Garden Tomb in play and I do not, but I have one redeemed soul and he does not, my Garden Tomb Heroes still ignore, correct?
-
By reading TGT I initially assumed that it only worked for me. I found out I was wrong by sitting down at a T1-MP table with Justin Alstead and Chris Bany and had it used against me. I came back and posted the question here where Bryon and Schaef both confirmed that it was ruled correctly.
Obviously the intent of the card was to allow it to be used against you. It's part of what balances a card that many people have stated is "over powered".
After having it explained I see now why it works for other players. TGT grants an ignore ability to specific characters. It doesn't matter who owns or controls those characters. As long as the condition is met the characters listed on TGT will gain the ignore ability.
I'm a little confused about how the condition works. From who's perspective is the condition "If opponent has a redeemed Lost Soul," read?
For example, I have TGT in a multiplayer game with Joe and Jim. I have a redeemed Lost Soul. Joe and Jim do not. Can Joe use a TGT Hero against me since I'm his opponent or does it only work if he has a redeemed Soul since he's my opponent? What if Joe rescues against Jim since I'm an opponent and I have a redeemed Lost Soul?
-
This has larger ramifications in the game.
In a multi-player game, if the player to the left of me attacks the player to the right of me, are either one of them my “opponent”?
We have played these Forts & Arts that you can:
- Unknown Nation (If opponent’s Hero is in battle, you may discard this card to search draw pile for a human Evil Character and add it to battle. Cannot be interrupted.)
- Madness (If opponent’s Hero is in battle, you may convert this card to an orange brigade Evil Character and add it to battle. Cannot be interrupted.)
- Pharaoh’s Throne Room (Protect Egyptian Evil Characters in your territory from discard and conversion. While you have an Egyptian king or Pharaoh in play, negate all “ignore” abilities on opponent’s Heroes.)
- Satan’s Seat (Place on your single-color Site to negate all protect abilities on opponent's Heroes. If a Hero rescues a Lost Soul from that Site, discard that Hero.)
We have played Raider’s Camp that you cannot:
- Raider’s Camp (If your human Evil Character captures a Hero, place it here. When opponent makes a successful rescue attempt or battle challenge, instead of surrendering a Lost Soul, release all Heroes from here back to owner. Does not count as redeemed soul.)
I don’t know what the ruling on Judge’s Seat in a multi-player game is. (Each upkeep phase, you may discard an Evil Character with toughness greater than X. Opponent may discard a card of matching brigade from hand or territory instead.) Can the player to my left discard a card matching the brigade of the Evil Character I’m discarding that belongs to the player on my right?
Interestingly, all of the Lost Soul cards clearly state “an opponent” or “each opponent”. Obviously, we should make sure we are consistent with the play-as for all the cards.
-
It is a manipulation of semantics because the only reason the ruling has been made is because the card doesn't say "your" or "holder's."
The only reason the other one's are different is because they do say "your" or "holder's".
I would argue that it doesn't have to, based on the rules for whose characters are allowed in fortresses:
That has nothing to do with how Special Abilities work. Especially when the contents of the Fortress now appear in identifier text.
It is setting a precedent. No other fortress has ever benefitted anyone other than the holder.
No other Fortress has ever been worded to benefit anyone other than the holder. Again, the ruling is consistent.
This policy has been taken to such an extreme
I can't imagine it's taking anything to an extreme, that when a card says "Salome ignores Evil Characters", it means that Salome ignores Evil Characters. Don't you think you're overstating the case a little? Or a lot?
-
After having it explained I see now why it works for other players. TGT grants an ignore ability to specific characters. It doesn't matter who owns or controls those characters. As long as the condition is met the characters listed on TGT will gain the ignore ability.
Bingo. TGT does not give any ability to you/its holder. It only gives an ability to characters. Just like Crown of Thorns doesn't specify. It just effects the characters. TGT was specifically worded that way during playtesting to specifically allow it to work for ALL copies of those characters. It is part of the balance of the card.
The "you" or "your" on ANY card applies ONLY to the holder of the card. So TGT is read from its holder's perspective always. If YOUR opponent, the current opponent of the holder of TGT, has a redeemed soul, then it grants the ignore ability to the 6 heroes.
-
REG - Glossary - Opponent
An opponent is any other player in the game. However, the word opponent can be specific or general: “Opponent”, “your opponent’”, or “opponent's” means the other player whose character is fighting your character in battle. However, “an opponent”, “any opponent”, “one opponent”, “opponents' ”, or “each opponent” is any player in the game other than you.
What defines when an "opponent" is any other player in the game vs. when the word is specific to the other player whose character is fighting your character in battle? TGT gives the character a special ability, yes, but it is conditional upon the state of my opponent - which seems to me to lean towards the specific understanding.
-
I don't understand the question, since the answer is in the paragraph you quoted. "Opponent" is the guy you're fighting. "AN opponent" is one of your choice. It depends on the language.
That means that the only two times it applies is when you are attacking someone with these characters, or someone is attacking you with same.
-
OK, I think I get it. So if Gil attacks Bryon with Joanna then he doesn't the bonus from my TGT since neither of them are my opponent for purposes of the current battle?
-
TGT was specifically worded that way during playtesting to specifically allow it to work for ALL copies of those characters.
Well playtesters, once again we find that you guys play test a card that can only be defined by playing against one of the playtesters. This is a very frustrating aspect of this game. And to ignore this condition of how cards are clear only to those who have a hand in creating them will be the downfall of this game. I realize that there is some marketing appeal to last minute revelations of new cards, but it would be nice if someone in the play testing group had enough incite to prepare the community with these types of precendents. There can be no doubt that this is a new precedent for a fortress. I suggest that when the new cards are revealed that some effort is given to alert the community of new precedents rather than allowing the playtesters the advantage in game play without an explanation even in the REG to support them. How hard can it be with cards that set a new precedent? Go ahead world of play testers ignore the reality of the situation and lawyer my comments to death.
-
"it would be nice if someone in the play testing group had enough incite to prepare the community with these types of precendents."
I think they have. It has been misunderstanding on our part in regards to 1) whose cards it applies to (your misunderstanding, Fount --> I understood this correctly) and/or when "an opponent" is my "opponent" (my misunderstanding). BTW, it'll get killed quicker than lawyered to death :-)
Along those lines, I had the understanding that in a multi-player game, if the player to my left attacks the player to my right, I can use my Unknown Nation to bring an EC into battle. Of course, I can't find any discussion on it, but it seems to be incorrect now, right?
-
TGT was specifically worded that way during playtesting to specifically allow it to work for ALL copies of those characters.
Well playtesters, once again we find that you guys play test a card that can only be defined by playing against one of the playtesters. This is a very frustrating aspect of this game. And to ignore this condition of how cards are clear only to those who have a hand in creating them will be the downfall of this game. I realize that there is some marketing appeal to last minute revelations of new cards, but it would be nice if someone in the play testing group had enough incite to prepare the community with these types of precendents. There can be no doubt that this is a new precedent for a fortress. I suggest that when the new cards are revealed that some effort is given to alert the community of new precedents rather than allowing the playtesters the advantage in game play without an explanation even in the REG to support them. How hard can it be with cards that set a new precedent? Go ahead world of play testers ignore the reality of the situation and lawyer my comments to death.
Wow. Um, Crown of Thorns has been around for a long time. So has Taskmasters (deck C). A lot of cards effect everyone's characters. TGT sets no new precident. If a card doesn't specify WHOSE characters are effected, they all are, right? Must we make a trumpet fanfare announcement that this applies even on fortresses? We didn't make that announcement when it first appeared on a character, or on an artifact. So you misunderstood a card. No one is angry with you. I don't see the need to get defensive, or lash out, or foretell "the downfall of the game."
-
Byron,
Sorry for the lashing out. The precendent is that this is the First Fortress to be used this way. I only want the brain trust to recognize the precedents for what they are and then lay it out there for all.
Back to my old man porridge. ;)
-
Along those lines, I had the understanding that in a multi-player game, if the player to my left attacks the player to my right, I can use my Unknown Nation to bring an EC into battle. Of course, I can't find any discussion on it, but it seems to be incorrect now, right?
If you're not being attacked then you can't use Unknown Nation to add a character to battle. I thought the same thing shortly after Priests came out. It would have been a lot cooler card in multiplayer if it worked that way.
The reason for this is that is specifies "opponent's". If it was worded opponents' then it would work the way you thought.
-
As, at this point in time, Garden Tomb's ability is not constant in a multi-player game (I have no redeemed souls, players A and B each have one redeemed soul, Player A rescues against Player B with Mary Magdalene, and she doesn't ignore because he attacked the wrong person? Wha?), I think the play as for Garden Tomb should say "If AN opponent has a redeemed soul" for consistency
-
Well playtesters, once again we find that you guys play test a card that can only be defined by playing against one of the playtesters.
Or by reading the card and doing what it says. You are only assuming it is supposed to apply only to you based on the way other cards behave, even though it's different than what the card says.
There can be no doubt that this is a new precedent for a fortress.
A new precedent because it has an ability that works differently than the way other cards have worked? Okay. I thought that was the point of new cards, was not to rehash the same old stuff.
Discarding all cards in battle was ruled a few years ago to be a win for the blocker because it was essentially an evil ability designed to stop a rescue. Then came Samson's Sacrifice, which was a good card that discarded all cards in battle. Is this a wild new precedent? Or do you just do what's on the card and play it like any other card worded the same way, awarding the battle to the blocker? If we suddenly decided that Samson's Sacrifice was a WIN for the good guys, THAT would be a radical change because it goes against the consistency between wording and gameplay. But Samson's Sacrifice's discard-all works the same as Deluge's discard-all.
This is not a radical change in the way Fortresses work; there is no rule that says they only benefit one player. It just happens that they have been worded in such a way that they have only behaved that way so far, and this happens to have one way that an opponent can turn it against you.
-
I agree with the Count that it would be a good idea to preemptively make announcements about new abilities or new uses for card types, prior to their release. I've seen other games do this when cards are being released that introduce a new aspect to the game. Not only does it head off confusion and rules questions but it's a great way to build hype for the new set prior to it's release.
Bryon gave us several great preview articles last summer including one for The Garden Tomb. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/red_game_articles_RoA_Garden_Tomb.php) In the future, one approach to take might be to showcase cards with a new "twist" on a card type or ability and spend some time explaining what's new. In the case of TGT, a Fortress that can also be used by an opponent. A better example of a card that introduced a new way to use an ability is Golden Shield.
Schaef brings up a good example with Sampson's Sacrifice. The preview article is no longer available but I believe it did explain the new aspects on that card. I think it mentioned both the negative number and that a good card that discards all cards in battle would not win a Lost Soul. So Count's suggestion is something that's already being done to a certain extent.
It's great how the playtesters are coming up with new uses for card types and abilities that expand the way we play the game. Wouldn't it be boring if they just kept rehashing the same old abilities on different cards? It shows that there's a lot of design space for this game to continue to grow and expand for a long time to come. I feel like sometimes we get the impression that being a playtester is all fun and games. That's certainly part of it but they also put in a lot of hours of hard work to give us a quality card set. It's not realistic to think that they would be able preempt everything, despite their best efforts. (well, maybe Chris Bany could but that's because he's Chris Bany!) :)
-
It's interesting that the preview article mentioned did give an explanation of how to play it. Unfortunately, it was prefaced with "If TGT is in play" which is not quite correct in a multi-player game. If Count Fount had based his understanding of TGT on that article, it would be easy to see how it was misunderstood. We don't hold those articles as official and, therefore probably shouldn't be looked at to introduce and fully explain these new twists. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I see a good forum for accomplishing this outside of fine-tuning the rules beforehand and sticking to them (like it seems to me we have through this thread/ruling).
L8er,
Gil
-
+1 with Schaef and Bryon. There's nothing really new and shocking with TGT. Samson's Sacrifice was also easy for me to digest. If anything, I had more questions and issues with Gold Shield, but in the end like the newness of it for the game in general.
Look, some of us by nature accept change more readily than others. So I will sympathize with those that have sounded the "apocolypse alarm" over TGT.
But I look forward to more new strategies and ideas for Redemption, especially that new type of card Rob was mentioning. ;)
-
Denial Denial Denial...It can't be dark outside because I can't see it. ???
-
Besides, you can't expect an old dog to learn new tricks, right? :laugh:
-
Denial Denial Denial...It can't be dark outside because I can't see it. ???
I think we have enough Egyptians for now. :P
Besides, you can't expect an old dog to learn new tricks, right? :laugh:
:rollin:
What are you talking about? It's the old dogs who caught on with the new tricks in the first place! (or should I say, oldER dogs? :D )
-
What I want to know is if this means I can put my enhancements in my opponent's Storehouse ;D (Yes I know I wouldn't be able to get them back)
This would also be awesome in teams.
Actually, TEAM mates were both allowed to put enhs into and take enhs out of the same Storehouse last year, so this isn't anything new for that event.
-
Wow. Um, Crown of Thorns has been around for a long time. So has Taskmasters (deck C). A lot of cards effect everyone's characters. TGT sets no new precident.
Crown of Thorns is an artifact. The rulebook specfically says, "Some artifacts affect all players," on page 11. Character/enhancement abilities are already known to affect all players since the beginning of the game (i.e. Authority of Christ). The rulebook does not say, "Some fortresses affect all players." If this is just common knowledge as y'all are suggesting, then why have the page 11 quote for artifacts? Would that not be superfluous?
-
Hey,
When storehouse was printed fortresses were "fortress sites" that held characters, but no one argued that storehouse couldn't hold enhancements because fortresses only hold characters. Special abilities on cards always supersede pre-existing assumptions or statements about card types.
The Garden Tomb is a pretty confusing ability but that is hard to avoid when we're trying to create complex abilities and not cover the entire artwork with six point font. The playtesters did a good job of making an ability that is interesting and can be adequately understood if you look at the words on the card carefully enough.
Isn't The Darkness precedent of a Fortress that affects all players?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Isn't The Darkness precedent of a Fortress that affects all players?
No. All players do not benefit from the SA. The holder must turn the character over first, by choice.
Special abilities on cards always supersede pre-existing assumptions or statements about card types.
Then why does the rulebook say, "Some artifacts affect all players," on page 11? Why would something so terribly obvious be stated?
-
Two reasons:
1). It's a carryover from when Artifacts were brand-new
2). The rules on which Artifacts benefit only the player and which ones affect all players is a bit screwy, compared to other cards that rely solely on the wording. Otherwise, Thirty Pieces would force you to discard your own Hero after you rescue.
3). What does a stated but "obvious" rule about one type of card have to do with a discussion about a completely different type of card?
-
Interesting you should ask #3 since that is the rationale that has been presented.
Here is my question: Why state that "Some artifacts affect all players," but not state "Some fortresses affect all players," since they are both static cards that remain until removed?
-
Hey,
Here is my question: Why state that "Some artifacts affect all players," but not state "Some fortresses affect all players," since they are both static cards that remain until removed?
Because the last time the rulebook was printed "Some fortresses affect all players" wasn't true. I wouldn't be surprised if the next rulebook did say something to that effect.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Here is my question: Why state that "Some artifacts affect all players," but not state "Some fortresses affect all players," since they are both static cards that remain until removed?
Did you read the other two at all? It answers the question exactly, just as it did the first time you asked it.
-
Because the last time the rulebook was printed "Some fortresses affect all players" wasn't true.
Exactly. Which is why TGT sets a precedent....
... and it's not a change of precedent.
TGT sets no new precident.
-
Exactly. Which is why TGT sets a precedent....
That is like saying Pharaoh's Throne Room sets a precedent because no other Fortress ever protected Egyptians before. Having a slightly different ability than other Forts is not a paradigm shift.
-
+1 with YMT. If the rulebook needs to be changed to accommodate this fortress, it is obviously a change in precedent. Until now, fortresses have only benefited the holder. Since now, there is a fortress that benefits both players, the whole thought upon fortresses has changed.
Though some of you may have thought the entire time that fortresses could benefit both players if it was worded correctly, most of us had not until TGT started getting ruled as such. I think that's why we have some people saying it's new, different, and should have had a better presentation upon it's release, and others are saying that it makes sense and it was presented fine.
-
Hey,
Exactly. Which is why TGT sets a precedent....
Um...why does it matter if TGT sets a precedent? It does what it does regardless of whether we've had cards before that do the same thing.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Um...why does it matter if TGT sets a precedent?
Because that is the main point CountFount was trying to make on the previous page, and his conclusions were tossed aside with careless disregard. A simple acknowledgement was all he requested, but that still seems too much to ask.
Fini
-
I'm just saying things the way they are. I'm not going to acknowledge something I don't agree with. And I can't say that I appreciate having such a response characterized as "careless disregard". It smacks of irony coming from someone who is claiming that people need a fair shake.
-
I'm just saying things the way they are.
The things we say are important, but the things we don't say are just as important, if not much more so.
-
You're going to need to explain why you're lecturing me about body language with regards to a written forum.
-
I'm not interested in chasing you down any rabbit holes.
-
You were the one who took a discussion about how a card is played and turned it into an inquisition on my bedside manner, and topped it off by accusing me of hypocrisy, all for the crime of being analytical. If the best you have to say to me any more is to try and turn my own words against me, then I guess there's nothing more to be said on the matter.
-
Wow. Um, Crown of Thorns has been around for a long time. So has Taskmasters (deck C). A lot of cards effect everyone's characters. TGT sets no new precident.
Crown of Thorns is an artifact. The rulebook specfically says, "Some artifacts affect all players," on page 11. Character/enhancement abilities are already known to affect all players since the beginning of the game (i.e. Authority of Christ). The rulebook does not say, "Some fortresses affect all players." If this is just common knowledge as y'all are suggesting, then why have the page 11 quote for artifacts? Would that not be superfluous?
Yes. It is superflous. There is a lot of superfluous stuff in the rulebook. It is 4 years old, and even when it was written we did not remove all the redundancies. We figured saying too much was better than saying not enough. Apparently we were wrong. For THAT, I am honestly really sorry. I didn't know the problems it would cause.
Apparently, saying too much back then somehow set a precident for the future. According to some, that precident forces us to continue to say too much or else we'll be blasted for not announcing any time a card of a certain type does some same OLD ABILITY that previously only cards of other types have done. What bothers me is that we didn't need to do that for artifacts that banded heroes or ECs into battle, or for evil fortresses that give first strike to both good and evil characters, or for sites that place themselves beneath deck, or any other OLD ABILITY that that is put on a different card type (which we have done a lot in the last few years, since the rulebook was printed). For some reason playtesters are to blame when some players think that an ignore ability on a fortress is to be treated differently than an ignore ability on a character, enhancement, or artifact. All because we were not extra redundant in the fortress section of the rulebook. Ugh. We should have dropped every instance of redundancy when we had the chance.
-
Hey,
Okay, we have our ruling lets move on. If you have more to say, say it in a PM.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly