Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Gabe on July 02, 2009, 11:05:22 AM
-
Shortly after Priests came out TPTB made a ruling about ANB shuffling characters in KotW or Goshen. The basis of the ruling (as I remember it) is that cards "held by" or "placed on" another card follow the "holder" or share the fate of the card they reside in/on.
I cannot find anything in the REG to support that ruling. I looked under the "discard" and "placed" sections.
Last night a situation came up on a game where KotW was being discarded by The Lord Fights for You. My opponent said that the characters held in KotW are returned to territory and found this quote from the REG to support it:
If Goshen or Kingdoms of the World are discarded, all characters held are returned to owner’s territory.
That quote comes from a page of "Special Conditions" (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=specialconditions10.htm) in the REG that is not accessible (as far as I can tell) from the normal Index on the left. It only turns up if you search the REG.
Directly above that quote is this one:
Although characters in Goshen or Kingdoms of the World are protected, the Fortress itself is not protected and can be shuffled into the draw pile by A New Beginning. Any characters inside them are no longer protected and are shuffled into the draw pile as well.
So my questions are:
1) Do cards that are placed/held on another card follow their holder (lost souls and weapons being the exceptions)? Or did I make this up?
2) What is the game rule that causes protected characters in a Fortress to be shuffled by ANB?
3) Is there an exception to what happens to characters in KotW/Goshen when the Fort is discarded? If so, why?
-
That quote comes from a page of "Special Conditions" (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/default.htm?turl=specialconditions10.htm) in the REG that is not accessible (as far as I can tell) from the normal Index on the left. It only turns up if you search the REG.
Actually it can be found under:
Ongoing Abilities -> Protect -> Special Conditions
-
Ah, that helps. Protect is missing the "special conditions" link in the index, which is why I couldn't find it. :P
-
At least someone is willing to try to answer. ::)
-
At least someone is willing to try to answer. ::)
I hesitated to answer because I don't like this whole situation :)
KotW says that it protects the ECs inside. Unless this is negated, then those ECs should not be able to be affected at all. That means that they shouldn't be discarded or shuffled even if the KotW itself is discarded or shuffled.
The ruling in the past was that the ECs were protected from SAs on cards, but not from game rules, and that the "cards in a fortress follow the fortress" thing was a game rule. So therefore, ANB shuffles KotW and the game rule shuffles the ECs, without them ever being targeted. Similarly, the Lord Fights for You discards KotW and the game rule shuffles the ECs, without them ever being targeted.
But I never liked that ruling to begin with. It goes against common sense about protection. And SAs on cards supersede game rules all the time, so I still think KotW's protection should save the ECs. I think that to discard or shuffle ECs in KotW, you must either negate, discard, or shuffle the fortress first, and then play a separate card that would then target the ECs that were now unprotected. However, I'm going to guess that I will lose this argument just like I did the last time :)
-
I am hiding in a bunker. The bunker protects me from bombs. If the bunker gets tossed into the ocean, where do I go?
I stay in the bunker. So, I am in the ocean.
Nowhere on Kingdoms of the World does it say that "If this fortress is removed from play, return the contents to location X."
Returning them to territory just because you think that makes KotW "better" makes no more sense than discarding them, or shuffling them, or removing from the game, or tossing them out the window. If a card doesn't say to do something to another card, you do the default.
The default is that cards follow their hosts.
-
so the REG quote about discarding KotW is wrong?
-
Similarly, the Lord Fights for You discards KotW and the game rule shuffles the ECs, without them ever being targeted.
Did you mean discard instead of shuffle?
The default is that cards follow their hosts.
Thank you for confirming what I thought to be the case. Is that rule written in the REG or rulebook anywhere?
So the quote from the REG about characters in KotW or Goshen being returned to territory is obvioulsy wrong. Is it left over from an era when that was the rule?
-
I was wondering, if KotW or Goshen gets discarded, so the characters get discarded with it, could I play a heal to save (a) character(s)?
-
Yes, you can always heal a character when being discarded. Even if you discarded a hero from your hand to d/c pile, you could heal.
-
So the quote from the REG about characters in KotW or Goshen being returned to territory is obvioulsy wrong. Is it left over from an era when that was the rule?
But the REG quote cannot be wrong:
All rulings in the REG are considered Official for tournament play. If there is a discrepancy with the latest edition of the rulebook, the REG overrules the rulebook. - Rob Anderson
-
We know the REG is official, and is the final source, but the REG sometimes has the incorrect ruling. The REG is MASSIVE, and sometimes is not updated.
-
So the REG is "obvioulsy wrong" just because Bryon says:
The default is that cards follow their hosts.
with out any backing?
-
Yes and No,
Yes the REG is wrong, but No its not just because Byron says so, its because Byron is one of the lead playtesters, and Gabe agrees with him, and not that it matters but so do I.
-
Yes and No,
Yes the REG is wrong, but No its not just because Byron says so, its because Byron is one of the lead playtesters, and Gabe agrees with him, and not that it matters but so do I.
Ok so the REG is "obvioulsy wrong" just because Bryon says:
The default is that cards follow their hosts.
with out any backing, and Gabe and Red Dragon Thorn agree with him.
I would still like some backing to that statment.
-
You must not know who Bryon is... ;) ::)
No, but joking aside, Bryon is THE card maker/playtester/head honcho in terms of testing, making and knowing about cards. Things are put into the REG BECAUSE Bryon makes the ruling. It would almost be like Rob saying so, since Rob basically wrote the REG, it must be wrong.
Think of it this way. If I wrote a book about redemption, and then you asked me, yes, the book would be wrong if I disagreed with it. Because I am the author. I must have made a mistake. So similarly, Bryon, Schaef and the other top people write the REG, so if they say it's wrong, it's wrong.
My last point is that Bryon designs over 50% of the cards. So since he is designing most of the cards, he knows what they are supposed to do and the purposes they are supposed to fulfill, even if he and the playtesters write something incorrect into the REG.
:preach:
-
Hey,
So the REG is "obvioulsy wrong" just because Bryon says:
The default is that cards follow their hosts.
with out any backing?
Look at the first post in this thread. There are two quotes in it, both from the REG and those two quotes pretty clearly contradict each other. That is the reason the REG is "obviously wrong."
Bryon was just explaining which one of the two conflicting statements is correct.
An additional point to what Bryon said, Goshen and Kingdoms protect from "harm and effect" both harm and effect in the REG glossary only refer to the abilities of cards and not to game rules. A New Beginning does not shuffle characters in Goshen or Kingdoms, but it does shuffle Goshen and Kingdoms themselves, which triggers the game rule that says "cards placed on other cards follow the cards they are placed on" and that game rule shuffles the characters inside the fortresses.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
IMO the two quotes do not contradict each other at all. The quote about ANB seems to say that the fortress, which is not protected, is shuffled into the draw pile at which point the characters loose their protection and are able to be shuffled in by ANB. What am I missing? ???
-
IMO the two quotes do not contradict each other at all. The quote about ANB seems to say that the fortress, which is not protected, is shuffled into the draw pile at which point the characters loose their protection and are able to be shuffled in by ANB. What am I missing? ???
All targets are chosen at the same time. When ANB targets "all cards" for shuffle the characters in KotW/Goshen are protected so they cannot be chosen. The fact that they're still shuffled is an example that the characters in the fortress follow the fortress.
-
In light of this ruling, is the errata on Vengeance of Eternal Fire wrong when it says "Evil Characters return to owner’s territory."?
Vengeance of Eternal Fire
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 1 / 1 • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard Kingdoms of this World and two Lost Soul sites from one player's territory and discard all Evil Characters placed on Lost Soul sites to "guard" them. • Errata: Discard Kingdoms of the World and two Lost Soul sites from one player’s territory and discard all Evil Characters placed on Lost Soul sites to “guard” them. Evil Characters return to owner’s territory. • Identifiers: NT, Based on Prophecy • Verse: Revelation 20:14-15
-
Hey,
In light of this ruling, is the errata on Vengeance of Eternal Fire wrong when it says "Evil Characters return to owner’s territory."?
If it was play as it would be wrong, since it's errata it can say whatever it wants. But that errata is a bit suspicious.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Okay... maybe don't post in ruling questions for a while. ::)
-
If I was standing in my house, protected from outside influences, would that protection matter if the house was SET on FIRE?
Didn't think so.
-
Fine. I am in vegatative state and can not control my actions.
Heroes don't just magically move around. They only can do what their caretaker, the player, directs.
-
The ruling in the past was that the ECs were protected from SAs on cards, but not from game rules, and that the "cards in a fortress follow the fortress" thing was a game rule. So therefore, ANB shuffles KotW and the game rule shuffles the ECs, without them ever being targeted. Similarly, the Lord Fights for You discards KotW and the game rule shuffles the ECs, without them ever being targeted.
If a character is "protected from discard" it is protected from discard both by special abilities and by game rules. If a character is "protected from discard abilities" it is protected from discard by special abilities but not by game rules.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Which is true?
-
I refer to my older post. You're talking to the top people who establish rules. They are making sense, even if you don't understand them. I don't all the time as well. It's perfectly fine. Just don't be all up in their faces, and stop being rude. If you can't follow a ruling don't try.
-
Your posts betray your understanding.
-
Hey,
Which is true?
Both, except for the typo in the end of the first quote that says shuffle when it should say discard.
so are we gonna cheat and not play by game rules or are we gonna play by game rules?
Cheating is bad, we're not going to do that :) I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at with your post. Sometimes one game rule supersedes another game rule which causes the lesser game rule not to be followed, but that's still following the game rules as a whole.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Which is true?
Both, except for the typo in the end of the first quote that says shuffle when it should say discard.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
How can it be true that both cards that are protected from effect are not protected from effect by game rules, while at the same time cards the are protected from discard are protected from game rules?
-
Hey,
How can it be true that both cards that are protected from effect are not protected from effect by game rules, while at the same time cards the are protected from discard are protected from game rules?
"effect" in Redemption is a word we use to refer to the strength, toughness, and special abilities of one or more cards. So a card that is protected from "effect" is protected from special abilities (and strength and toughness, but that's kinda irrelevant). Game rules are not an "effect" so being protected from "effect" does not protect you from game rules.
You have to be careful when applying English meanings to word used in a Redemption context because often the Redemption meaning of a word isn't exactly the same as the English meaning of the word.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Yeah, to protect from discarding in the territory, not shuffle when the game resets.
-
Yeah, to protect from discarding in the territory, not shuffle when the game resets.
This discussion is not relating to ANB.
the way i see it is that people put goshen/KoTW in their deck for a reson. to protect, but, if it doesnt protect what is the meaning of it?
+1 Goshen and Kingdoms of the World have become much less powerful.
-
How so? Much? Maybe a little yeah, but not much. I would say protecting from shuffle would make the OP'd. ANB reset Type 2 decks would be pwnage, and Prophets are already widespread enough.
-
I don't really care about ANB(I think that ruling is correct because the REG says it is), but placing characters in Kingdoms of the World is just giving your opponent an easy way to discard 3 evil characters.
-
Since when is discarding NT fortresses easy? OTs are hard enough.
-
Well maybe not "easy" but it has happened to me more then once, so it can be done.
-
If it isn't likely to happen constantly, why get upset about it? Theres's much more devastating rules out there.
-
Since when is discarding NT fortresses easy? OTs are hard enough.
im sorry did we say it was easy? we didnt mean to. and stop refering to ANB it has nothing to do with this topic this topic is about KoTW and the lord fights for you and those two cards only. stay on topic.
ANB is on topic. It's a precedent to compare the discarding scenario to. SJS agrees that ANB should shuffle character in KOTW. Naturally, Logically, one would assume then, that guys in a KOTW being discarding would be discarding as well. Makes sense to most people, and is hardly gambreaking. It probably improves the game, aside from the fact that it brings in some consistancy.
and lets put it this way ok? vengance of eternal fire discards a lost soul site so does that mean that the LS is discarded as well since it is obviously following the site just like evil characters follow KoTW?
this topic is about KoTW and the lord fights for you and those two cards only. stay on topic.
Don't say things you don't mean and maybe you'd get more respect.
P.S. That's an exception to the rule due to game state (Location being in the land of bondage) jsut as much as captured heroes are exceptions to certain rules, etc.
If it isn't likely to happen constantly, why get upset about it? Theres's much more devastating rules out there.
i dont know if you have noticed this or not.. but people seem to discus things like this all the time on here... :/
Because your version of discussing is going better? You rehash things repeatedly and then get mad once your point is clearly rebutted by much more expirienced rule enforcers and from the REG. This argument was done halfway through page 2 on both logic and game rule.
-
REG > Discard and Remove > Default Conditions:
• If a site, artifact, or character is discarded or returned to hand, discard all cards placed on it. If a card leaves the Land of Bondage, discard all evil cards placed on it other than Lost Souls or captured characters.
• The following is understood when discarding a site: “If site still holds a Lost Soul, Lost Soul is returned to general Land of Bondage. Discard any other cards in that site.” Unless stated otherwise, holder chooses which site (occupied or unoccupied) to discard.
-
Because your version of discussing is going better? You rehash things repeatedly and then get mad once your point is clearly rebutted by much more expirienced rule enforcers and from the REG. This argument was done halfway through page 2 on both logic and game rule.
Crearly rebutted by the REG? The REG sides with us on this point.
-
Yes, the online REG does agree with you. However, it's been shown to be outdated and it's been stated by Tim Maly and Bryon that it is outdated and that it need to be changed. Somewhere, there is a correct REG. It's entirety however, is not online currently, so we must learn to deal with it. Most of the problems are in smei-obscure rulings like this.
EDIT: King David isn't a musician in the REG. Does that mean he is not a musician in the game currently?
-
What offline REG?
-
Da Muzik Maker, your posts don't make sense. First you say that the REG is ALWAYS right. Which is obviously not the case. There are countless threads where we are still finding faults with the REG.
Secondly, you talk about game rules and how no card can upset a game rule. Then why can Jephtah discard the top card of your deck? No game rule says that you can discard cards. But if a CARD SAYS SO, it's done. That's kind of the point of special abilities.
Lastly, how good Kingdoms of this world is has no relevance of what the card should do. We base rules on what special abilities say, not on how good we want cards to be and how good we want cards to stay. Also, if kingdoms protects cards IN THE FORTRESS from harm, and there is no more fortress, how can the cards be protected?
-
I'm going to change my wording up there. It's poor phrasing. I just updates that need to be made to the REG are clearly kept somewhere and there is a foolproof REG somewhere. It's clearly offline, and so, I used the phrase offline REG.
PS @ Da Muzik Maker: If I discard your Goliath with Goliath's Armor on it with The Lord Fights for You, his armor stays in play right? I mean, I targeted Goliath, not the armor.
-
Assuming you meant an evil card, it's because we are following a default game rule. If kingdoms are gone, there is no special ability that says to return them to territory, so they are discarded with kingdoms. It's a rule. What exactly are you trying to argue?
-
Notice the ignorance of similar situations establishing precedence for my example. At least counter our arguments please.
-
what is the point of a protect card if the protect card doesnt protect? hm? what is the point? help me out here.
The point of kingdoms is to protect your evil characters from cards like AOC and sampson sacrifice. It also stops choose the blocker extremely well. However just like every other card in the game it has it's weekness's and this is one of them.
the lord fights for you discards "A" evil card not "A" evil card and all evil cards following it. cause that would mean if i made a block using all my sadducees and you discarded one of them with a good enh would the rest of the sadducees get discarded? No.
The lord fights for you is only discarding one evil card in this scenario. The cards in kingdoms are being discarded by a game rule, not by The Lord Fights For You.
-
Protect is an ability that means a special ability or other effect cannot target the card in question. This is in the REG, if not also in the rulebook.
Kingdoms of the World protects the Evil Characters inside, meaning that an effect cannot target them.
If a card or cards have been placed "on" - or "in" or what have you - another card, then those cards follow the original. This is in the REG.
Lost Souls are an exception because the REG states that they remain in the Land of Bondage. This is in the REG.
Weapons have their own special rules regarding how they are treated. This is in the rulebook.
Therefore, when a card targets Kingdoms of the World, it is KotW that is discarded, or shuffled, or whatever. The other cards follow it by game rule. They are not being targeted by the card that was played, they are following the card they're in.
The protection may not be applicable if you are targeting the Fortress directly, but the fact remains that the protection still stops them from being targeted by other cards. You cannot play Angel of the Lord on an Evil Character in the Fortress. You cannot target any of those Evil Characters with Zeal for the Lord. David's Music does not affect them. The protection may not be as complete as you think because there's a back door to get rid of them, but it is still there, and still effective.
-
If a card or cards have been placed "on" - or "in" or what have you - another card, then those cards follow the original. This is in the REG.
Really where in the REG does it say this.
-
Gabe quoted the relevant section of the REG in his opening post, which was the entire reason for his question.
I'm really not interested in playing this game. Everything I stated above has been posted on this thread at some point. All of the statements I have made are what the current rules are. That is how the cards are played and the reasons they are played that way.
-
And again, the REG has been known to be outdated. This is not new news, and in fact, the goal of this thread is to clarify a section of the REG thought to be outdated. Have a nice day.
-
You also might have read the wrong one of Gabe's posts. I believe he's posted several times in this thread. :)
-
Must have missed that. ;D
Although even still Music maker, you were still wrong. Read the second REG quote, which is the one Schaef was referring to. The two contradicting REG statements prove that the REG is not always correct. :o
-
No, read both of Gabe's REG quotes. They contradict.
-
Gabe quoted the relevant section of the REG in his opening post, which was the entire reason for his question.
I'm really not interested in playing this game. Everything I stated above has been posted on this thread at some point. All of the statements I have made are what the current rules are. That is how the cards are played and the reasons they are played that way.
Am I to believe that this whole ruling is based on a "precedent" derived from a single scenario, which comes from the same page in the REG as the quote that says that characters in Kingdoms/Goshen? What is to say that the other ruling is the one that is wrong?
All rulings in the REG are considered Official for tournament play. If there is a discrepancy with the latest edition of the rulebook, the REG overrules the rulebook. - Rob Anderson
I know that your just going to tell me that parts of the REG are wrong and that all does not mean all, but I believe that all should mean all including "wrong" rulings. I believe that we should follow every ruling in the REG whether or not it is correct. I know that the REG is "outdated", but what's to stop it from being updated more frequently (If Mike is to busy to do it I’m sure someone can be found to help/take over). The reason I believe this is because if we don't have a completely official source of rules all tournament hosts would have to be required to follow and remember the outcome of every ruling question on these boards which is clearly not possible. If we have a National rating system (which we do) we should also have a consistent set of rules at all tournaments, which is impossible with an outdated rules source.
-
and ANB shuffles ALL cards that means ALL. and the lord fights for you discards A evil card that means A (one) evil card.
So if you DoN (Discard ONE active artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.) Book of the Covenant, what happens to any covenants on it? They can't be discarded (that would be more than one card), but you can't have 2 active wherever they may be.
To add protection into the scenario, what if Worshipping God (Set a Hero aside. While set aside, holder's covenants are protected from being discarded or deactivated by evil cards.) had been played?
-
Then you really don't understand how redemption works. You're not going to change the game. So either you don't understand the rule, or accept it. But I think by now you understand how the rules work. Just accept them.
-
I want quotes on this, now. Or it didn't happen.
-
REG > Discard and Remove > Default Conditions:
• If a site, artifact, or character is discarded or returned to hand, discard all cards placed on it. If a card leaves the Land of Bondage, discard all evil cards placed on it other than Lost Souls or captured characters.
Since this discard is by a game rule (not an evil card), Covenants on a DoN'd BoC would be discarded. It's in the REG, so it must be correct.
And why are fortresses not mentioned in that quote?
-
No. It's not sourced. How do I know he didn't make it up?* Where did that come from?
*This is not an accusation.
-
Click Here (http://www.redemptionreg.com) Look to the bottom of the page.
-
Thank you for sourcing.
I'd have to say that it's been known for the past 2 or more years that the REG has been outdated. Rob and Bryon have made posts in rulings questions saying as much, with comments equating to "we need to change this in the REG". However, no changes have been done.
EXAMPLE: The most recent Angel's Sword vs. 2k Horses isn't in the REG. Does that mean we still use the old, wrong version?
What's more important, listening to a flawed ruling because it's online, or playing the game the correct way as interpreted by every major playtester and player who has posted in the thread?
No. It's not sourced. How do I know he didn't make it up?* Where did that come from?
*This is not an accusation.
CAUSE SJS WOULD NEVER LIE! ASK CAMERON THE SPY AMELO!AND ASK ME HE ISNT A LYAR! >:(
Must I spoonfeed you?
-
I'm so tempted to just lock this thread to stop this senseless complaining about the official ruling but...
I'm also tempted to let it continue to see if Rob himself will post to quiet up the naysayers...
:-\
-
I think the complaining is over the fact that Rob hasn't taken time away from making Redemption better to update the REG or state the correct ruling in this situation.
-
I believe that we should play by the REG (see above post). If a tournament host has not read that thread they would not know that ruling. I believe the most important thing is consistency.
-
You can lock it, Gabe. I think pretty much everyone gets the ruling, since Bryon said so himself. If one or two don't accept it, not his fault.
-
He can do it as much as you can. Your allowed to take some initiative, you know. It'd be good for you probably. His email should be with his account on here.
-
Why? If I have read the thread, your asking me to intentionally rule something wrong "because it's online". That's called cheating. If you want to explain that to the 10 year old kid that the ruling went against, go for it, but I won't.
-
According to Rob if its in the REG its official, where has he said that ruling questions on this board overrule the REG?
-
For argument's sake, Rob has posted stating the REG is wrong. The question comes up inthe tournament. Would you seriously try to rule with the REG just becuase it's the REG?
-
I'm aware of what he asked, and I responded with a hypothetical intent on determining his intent. My bad for not having obscure topics on speed dial.
-
did you even read that link? its says: "if goshen or Kingdoms of This World are discarded then the heroes or evil characters return to territory."
Yes, I read it. Again, it was in Gabe's first post. Again, that was the whole reason for the question. Again, the proper ruling and the proper reasons for the ruling are exactly as I have given them to you.
Am I to believe that this whole ruling is based on a "precedent" derived from a single scenario, which comes from the same page in the REG as the quote that says that characters in Kingdoms/Goshen? What is to say that the other ruling is the one that is wrong?
No, it is derived from several scenarios that are all ruled the same way. And who is to say that this other, contradictory ruling is wrong? We are. Because it contradicts the general rule that cards follow the cards they're on.
I know that your just going to tell me that parts of the REG are wrong and that all does not mean all, but I believe that all should mean all including "wrong" rulings.
This is a nonsensical position. It is logically impossible to follow "all" parts of the REG if two parts directly contradict. If you discard the ECs, you are violating the part of the REG you and Muzik are focusing on. If you protect the ECs, you are violating the part of the REG which states what we have been telling you. It is 100% impossible to follow them both at the same time.
The ruling you have been given in this thread is the correct ruling. I cannot imagine any situation where it is acceptable for a judge to deliberately give an incorrect ruling at a tournament.
Mike Berkenpas is your man to see about the REG. Rob makes final rulings but the management of the document goes through Mike. And either way, I don't think any of us are in a position to make judgments about how these people spend their time.
-
So a tournament is played by players who haven't read this thread and another tournament is played by players that have. The two tournaments would be played differently yet would still count the same in RNRS even though the tournament was played under incorrect rules.
No, it is derived from several scenarios that are all ruled the same way. And who is to say that this other, contradictory ruling is wrong? We are. Because it contradicts the general rule that cards follow the cards they're on.
Please tell me another scenario where this is the case (involving fortresses).
-
Any Fortress discarded while holding an artifact within.
-
Prof from the REG please.
I'm so tempted to just lock this thread to stop this senseless complaining about the official ruling but...
I'm also tempted to let it continue to see if Rob himself will post to quiet up the naysayers...
:-\
Yes please lock it. I don't even know why I'm posting any more.
-
Just saying again, here's some examples of the ideas you illustrate.
Goliath's Armor stays in play when Goliath is discarded, because cards say "evil character" not "evil character and connecting enhancements".
Lampstand of the Santcuary stays in play when I play Battering Ram on Z's Temple which holds it because discarded Fortresses don't take their occupancies with them.
Please don't tell me you want this. Seriously.
-
I don't want you to give up I want you to have a mindset change to what is the currect ruling and mindset.
Next time you witness, just give up and say the Muslims are right.
-
+1 I guess I just didn't like my evil characters getting discarded. Sorry if I got carried away. +1
-
We used great analogies and many precedents to explain ourselves. Bryon's bunker analogy was among the best. If you don't want to agree so be it, but the relativism you exude right now is bad.
PS talking to muslims isnt bad
PSS you misinterpreted the sarcastic analogy i was using with that post
PSSS next time i hear you say something wrong theologically, ill not try to help correct because your allowed to have your own opinion
PSSSS that was sarcasm btw.
-
We used great analogies and many precedents to explain ourselves. Bryon's bunker analogy was among the best. If you don't want to agree so be it, but the relativism you exude right now is bad.
PS talking to muslims isnt bad
PSS you misinterpreted the sarcastic analogy i was using with that post
PSSS next time i hear you say something wrong theologically, ill not try to help correct because your allowed to have your own opinion
PSSSS that was sarcasm btw.
:rollin:
-
Let me rephrase my last post.
+1 With everyone. I just didn't like my evil characters getting discarded and got carried away sorry.
-
However, I'm going to guess that I will lose this argument just like I did the last time :)
I go away for a few days and this thread explodes. And my prediction of course comes true.
It also occurs to me that in both this example as well as the PoA vs. 12FG debates that I have engaged with Bryon, he has ruled against protection both times. I think that perhaps Bryon just really doesn't like the protection part of the rock-paper-scissors game :)
-
Wait till you see the cards he made in the new set. ;)
-
What is to say that the other ruling is the one that is wrong?
Because the same kind of question has been asked many, many, many times. Every time, the PTB rule that the characters follow the fort. Since the single statement that says otherwise is contradictory to the other REG quotes, and because the PTB (see: Bryon, among many others) agree with the other quotes, it is obvious the one is outdated and in error.
All rulings in the REG are considered Official for tournament play. If there is a discrepancy with the latest edition of the rulebook, the REG overrules the rulebook. - Rob Anderson
I believe that we should follow every ruling in the REG whether or not it is correct. I know that the REG is "outdated", but what's to stop it from being updated more frequently (If Mike is to busy to do it I’m sure someone can be found to help/take over). The reason I believe this is because if we don't have a completely official source of rules all tournament hosts would have to be required to follow and remember the outcome of every ruling question on these boards which is clearly not possible. If we have a National rating system (which we do) we should also have a consistent set of rules at all tournaments, which is impossible with an outdated rules source.
First off, the REG is a guide. It is not infallible law for the game. It overrides the rulebook, sure, but not Rob or Bryon (or a couple of other Playtesters when they are making official rulings). It can be changed and fixed. Just because it hasn't yet been repaired doesn't mean it doesn't need to be or won't be.
Second, it has been mentioned that the REG needs to be updated many times. It has been stated that one person running the REG is better than multiple heads, so it is updated entirely based on Mike's availability. The PTB have decided that the best way for a full update to happen is to do a complete reworking of the REG, which is rumored to be released in September. I personally agree that we need the updates, but at least we finally know that they are going to happen (rather than 2 years of just waiting).
Third, we have had such a case of needing to refer to the boards for more current rulings at several of Bryon's tournaments. These rulings, when made by someone official, are official rulings that are to be followed, and even if they don't actually show up in the REG yet. Not all that many of the threads are complete rule changes, and most side with the REG in one way or another and are just clarifications, and the copule left can just be bookmarked or printed out for quick access. Another couple months and all will be solved.
i am not, going to talk to, a muslim, unless, God, tell me to.
Mark 16:15 - Then he said to them, "As you go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to everyone..."
Looks like He did :)
-
So a tournament is played by players who haven't read this thread and another tournament is played by players that have. The two tournaments would be played differently yet would still count the same in RNRS even though the tournament was played under incorrect rules.
A person is judging using the printed version of the REG. The online version of the REG was recently updated. The person using the printed version will be judging differently than the one using the online version.
A person is judging based on a ruling he read online on Wednesday. An update to that rule is made on Friday. The person using the ruling he read on Wednesday will be judging differently than the one who looks it up on site.
well ther are a bunch of things in life that condradict. just think about it please,
I am thinking about it. And all I'm telling you (with details and examples) is that it's not possible to follow 100% of the rules 100% of the time when any two rules say the exact opposite thing. Following one of those rules MUST break the other, there's no way around that. That's the reason that this has to be resolved, and one (old, obsolete) rule fixed.
There are a dozen different possible ways a tournament could be judged differently by people who are acting honestly and trying to do the right thing. There is no way to avoid that; it's going to happen sometimes. It's the same thing as the scenario you just gave to me. The difference between all of those and what you suggested earlier, is that you are suggesting people deliberately make the wrong ruling based on what someone else may or may not know. That would not be fair to someone who is keeping up to date on the rules and makes a combo based on something he came here, asked us for help with, and confirmed that he could do it. I'm a lot more comfortable living with the possibility of people making honest mistakes than asking them to give people a wrong judgment on purpose.
Please tell me another scenario where this is the case (involving fortresses).
Enhancements in Storehouse,
a Hero in Judge's Seat,
Heroes in Obadiah's Caves,
Artifacts placed on Solomon's Temple/Z Temple/Tabernacle,
human characters in City of Refuge,
an Evil Character in The Darkness,
a weapon in David's Tent,
Enhancements in Musician's Chambers,
a demon in The Pit,
Heroes in Stronghold in the Desert,
Artifacts on High Priest's Palace,
Heroes in House of Bethany,
an Artifact on Temple of Dagon.
-
This thread has run it's course and we have a definitive conclusion. Thanks for taking the time to talk this through so everyone understands it.
P.S. - I think we should blame Schaef for locking it. :D