Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: EmJayBee83 on August 10, 2014, 10:38:32 AM

Title: Two Quick Early Church Questions
Post by: EmJayBee83 on August 10, 2014, 10:38:32 AM
Two quick questions related to the Early Church cards I saw at Nats...

1) Does the capitalization of words in a Special Ability signify something and if so what?

2) How long will we need to to wait for Partners with Demons to receive its errata?
Title: Re: Two Quick Early Church Questions
Post by: YourMathTeacher on August 10, 2014, 10:49:00 AM
If these were rhetorical questions intended to pique interest in the new set, then it worked!  ;D
Title: Re: Two Quick Early Church Questions
Post by: Gabe on August 10, 2014, 10:50:44 AM
1) It means that those were overlooked in proofing. I've already given Rob notes about several cards so they can be corrected in the next printing.

2) It doesn't work they way you think it does. The exception applies to the entire sentence, not just the later half. We also intend to make that more clear with the next print run.
Title: Re: Two Quick Early Church Questions
Post by: EmJayBee83 on August 10, 2014, 11:32:23 AM
1) It means that those were overlooked in proofing. I've already given Rob notes about several cards so they can be corrected in the next printing.
I understand there are going to be proofing issues. My main question is what was capitalization supposed to signify (Card Types, Card Types and Identifiers, Card Types + Identifiers + ?).

If it would help I would be willing to serve as a final proof reader just to catch mechanical issues. (This would also make it a lot easier for me to keep the Lackey plugin up to date, whcih is my main reason for volunteering.)

Quote

2) It doesn't work they way you think it does. The exception applies to the entire sentence, not just the later half. We also intend to make that more clear with the next print run.
I guess it is a good thing that ANB already has an errata then, cause it is worded in the same way, and it would have been *actually* broken under this.  ;)  Seriously, though, a change like this should require an errata (as it is not how English grammar works).
 
If these were rhetorical questions intended to pique interest in the new set, then it worked!  ;D
That was indeed a secondary intent.  Just for folks who are similarly piqued...

SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal