Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Minister Polarius on December 16, 2010, 01:24:43 PM

Title: WoNL
Post by: Minister Polarius on December 16, 2010, 01:24:43 PM
Since I've asked over and over again why WoNL is not a HT Artifact and been thoroughly ignored every time, I figured I'd make a thread about it. Why is WoNL not a Herod's Temple Artifact? Is there any good evidence to show that Herod's Temple did not have narrow widows?
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Alex_Olijar on December 16, 2010, 01:42:28 PM
There is not. I always assumed that was a REG error.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: TheJaylor on December 16, 2010, 02:13:23 PM
WoNL can't go in there? that's weird i thought it could.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: SomeKittens on December 16, 2010, 02:39:49 PM
Since I've asked over and over again why WoNL is not a HT Artifact and been thoroughly ignored every time, I figured I'd make a thread about it. Why is WoNL not a Herod's Temple Artifact? Is there any good evidence to show that Herod's Temple did not have narrow widows?
Is there any good evidence showing that it did?
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Minister Polarius on December 16, 2010, 02:54:06 PM
The burden of proof lies the other way. If all the other temples had it, you have to have proof that Herod's didn't.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Korunks on December 16, 2010, 02:58:42 PM
The burden of proof lies the other way. If all the other temples had it, you have to have proof that Herod's didn't.

Especially since they are the same structure.  Unless they replaced all the windows during Herod's "renovation" with larger ones this seems like an odd reason to exclude it.  And I would ask for proof that window enlargement was performed during Herod's renovation.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: SomeKittens on December 16, 2010, 02:59:23 PM
As you can see, the windows were quite square.

(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fcd%2FSecond_Temple.jpg%2F800px-Second_Temple.jpg&hash=7ad2e00c133b0076fc69bc7981b7be1b5a30530c)
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Korunks on December 16, 2010, 03:01:54 PM
They look rectangular to me not perfectly square, regardless narrow doesn't mean non-square.  They can be square and still be narrow.


*** The windows in the back section look narrow to me.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Professoralstad on December 16, 2010, 04:35:36 PM
I see no reason why the Windows should be in ZT but not HT, as some brief research revealed that they are believed to be the same structure, but HT is just a renovation and expansion of ZT. I have brought this issue before the Elders, and we will see what happens.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on December 16, 2010, 05:27:22 PM
I looked at the card again, and discovered something in the identifiers. Take a second look...

(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi189.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz18%2FLambo_Diablo_Svtt%2FHT.jpg&hash=d906d729f1b6354a56308d398efa6a91688cb87c)
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: YourMathTeacher on December 16, 2010, 05:46:24 PM
..., regardless narrow doesn't mean non-square.  They can be square and still be narrow.

Geometrically speaking, this is not true. Here is the definition of narrow:

narrow  (ˈnærəʊ)  
— adj  
1.  small in breadth, esp in comparison to length  

------------------------

However, I agree that there are several sets of windows in the picture that are not square, and should therefore be considered narrow.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: STAMP on December 16, 2010, 07:32:29 PM
It's the light that's narrow, so square windows with blinds count.  :P
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: SomeKittens on December 16, 2010, 08:16:56 PM
Well that depends on if light is photons or waves.  Still waiting for a ruling from the elders on that one too.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Minister Polarius on December 17, 2010, 02:53:40 AM
Well that depends on if light is photons or waves.  Still waiting for a ruling from the elders on that one too.
Idk why that post got thumbed down, but I thought it was quite witty.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: The Guardian on December 17, 2010, 04:15:21 AM
Well that depends on if light is photons or waves.  Still waiting for a ruling from the elders on that one too.

I defer to Einstein...
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Prof Underwood on December 17, 2010, 09:21:30 AM
Well that depends on if light is photons or waves.  Still waiting for a ruling from the elders on that one too.
Clearly, light is made of photons...that are moving in wave-like patterns :)

And ftr, I thought the comment was funny, too.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Warrior_Monk on December 29, 2010, 11:47:32 AM
bump. Any decision made?
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on December 29, 2010, 01:46:20 PM
bump. Any decision made?
Are you going to steal my deck? >:c
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Warrior_Monk on December 29, 2010, 01:54:14 PM
bump. Any decision made?
Are you going to steal my deck? >:c
Building it now.  :maul:
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on December 29, 2010, 02:00:52 PM
Then you might want to see this: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24798.msg392070#msg392070 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=24798.msg392070#msg392070)
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Warrior_Monk on December 29, 2010, 02:08:09 PM
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good find. Wow. That's sick. Enhancementless deck FTW.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: The M on December 29, 2010, 03:07:48 PM
I already have one so you are both stealing my idea!!!
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on December 29, 2010, 04:49:28 PM
Having a card doesn't mean you had an idea. I demand proof you had it before us >:c
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: The M on December 29, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
I have no proof, but I already have a WoNL Disciples deck.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Korunks on December 30, 2010, 09:34:13 AM
Yeah and me and a freind of mine dreamed a WoNL deck like two months ago, but we never built it.  It has loads of potential.  I bring this up to make a point. Just because you have a great idea for a deck, and haven't seen anyone else talking about it or making it.  Please do not assume that you are the first or that it is your idea even if you build it first.  Laying claim to a deck that uses no special ability disciples and WoNL is not an original idea.  If I though of it, I am sure many of the elite players have already thought of it too.  I guess my point is (in my meandering way of saying things) is don't get upset if someone is building a deck like yours, its going to happen alot, especially as you become a better player.  There are a good number of viable strategies, but not enough where everyone's deck can be different.  Lets not bicker over who "owns" what deck type, because in the end there will almost always be someone who thought of it and used it earlier.  thats just my  :2cents:
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Prof Underwood on December 30, 2010, 10:15:56 AM
Lets not bicker over who "owns" what deck type
"Let's not bicker and argue about oooo killed oooo."
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: The M on December 30, 2010, 10:45:09 AM
How about we have an unofficial multi at Nats with only WoNL disciples decks?
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on December 30, 2010, 11:57:46 AM
Yeah and me and a freind of mine dreamed a WoNL deck like two months ago, but we never built it.  It has loads of potential.  I bring this up to make a point. Just because you have a great idea for a deck, and haven't seen anyone else talking about it or making it.  Please do not assume that you are the first or that it is your idea even if you build it first.  Laying claim to a deck that uses no special ability disciples and WoNL is not an original idea.  If I though of it, I am sure many of the elite players have already thought of it too.  I guess my point is (in my meandering way of saying things) is don't get upset if someone is building a deck like yours, its going to happen alot, especially as you become a better player.  There are a good number of viable strategies, but not enough where everyone's deck can be different.  Lets not bicker over who "owns" what deck type, because in the end there will almost always be someone who thought of it and used it earlier.  thats just my  :2cents:

I hope you realize he's not being super duper serious.  :P
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on December 30, 2010, 12:59:44 PM
Yeah and me and a freind of mine dreamed a WoNL deck like two months ago, but we never built it.  It has loads of potential.  I bring this up to make a point. Just because you have a great idea for a deck, and haven't seen anyone else talking about it or making it.  Please do not assume that you are the first or that it is your idea even if you build it first.  Laying claim to a deck that uses no special ability disciples and WoNL is not an original idea.  If I though of it, I am sure many of the elite players have already thought of it too.  I guess my point is (in my meandering way of saying things) is don't get upset if someone is building a deck like yours, its going to happen alot, especially as you become a better player.  There are a good number of viable strategies, but not enough where everyone's deck can be different.  Lets not bicker over who "owns" what deck type, because in the end there will almost always be someone who thought of it and used it earlier.  thats just my  :2cents:
FTR, I honestly don't care (nor does it matter) who came up with the idea. I originally referred to it as "my deck" as that was the deck I was planning to use for the next tournament, and beyond that was poking fun at the m.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Korunks on December 30, 2010, 02:25:37 PM
FTR, I honestly don't care (nor does it matter) who came up with the idea. I originally referred to it as "my deck" as that was the deck I was planning to use for the next tournament, and beyond that was poking fun at the m.

I hope you realize he's not being super duper serious.  :P

I thought that might be the case, but I have come across this attitude in others in the redemption community and felt this was a good place to get on my soap box for a moment.  Some people take children's card games a little too seriously. ;)
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: 3-Liner And Bags Of Chips on December 30, 2010, 03:17:13 PM
Yeah and me and a freind of mine dreamed a WoNL deck like two months ago, but we never built it.  It has loads of potential.  I bring this up to make a point. Just because you have a great idea for a deck, and haven't seen anyone else talking about it or making it.  Please do not assume that you are the first or that it is your idea even if you build it first.  Laying claim to a deck that uses no special ability disciples and WoNL is not an original idea.  If I though of it, I am sure many of the elite players have already thought of it too.  I guess my point is (in my meandering way of saying things) is don't get upset if someone is building a deck like yours, its going to happen alot, especially as you become a better player.  There are a good number of viable strategies, but not enough where everyone's deck can be different.  Lets not bicker over who "owns" what deck type, because in the end there will almost always be someone who thought of it and used it earlier.  thats just my  :2cents:

yay i got a shout-out whoo-whoo!
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Korunks on December 30, 2010, 03:46:27 PM
yay i got a shout-out whoo-whoo!

Yay although I like the offense you came up with better than the WoNL one I came up with ;)
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: 3-Liner And Bags Of Chips on December 30, 2010, 03:54:56 PM
yay i got a shout-out whoo-whoo!

Yay although I like the offense you came up with better than the WoNL one I came up with ;)

I'm pretty sure you did since you ended up using it in my tourney xp
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on December 30, 2010, 04:51:40 PM
Some people take children's card games a little too seriously. ;)

Who doesn't.... IN AMERCIA
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.wikia.com%2Fyugioh%2Fimages%2F4%2F49%2FBandit_Keith.PNG&hash=8f33ddb78a26a272ac935797166126e51ea6bdc1)
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Warrior_Monk on December 30, 2010, 06:17:40 PM
FTR, I honestly don't care (nor does it matter) who came up with the idea. I originally referred to it as "my deck" as that was the deck I was planning to use for the next tournament, and beyond that was poking fun at the m.
If you want to use it, I can build a different one. Although I guarentee that my version will be VERY different than yours.

Also, the WoNL/Disciples isn't the sole concept of the deck. I only plan on using 6-12ish no-sa's.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Rawrlolsauce! on December 30, 2010, 07:22:45 PM
Nah, its all good. I'm making Lambo build me a deck. He now must listen to every command I give him beings I wrecked him in a certain game 50 times in a row <3
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Lamborghini_diablo on December 30, 2010, 07:26:32 PM
Nah, its all good. I'm making Lambo build me a deck. He now must listen to every command I give him beings I wrecked him in a certain game 50 times in a row <3

Just you wait till I get a rapier of my own. I refuse to sell my shiny armor though.  :P
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: Warrior_Monk on January 14, 2011, 09:45:27 PM
BUMP.
Title: Re: WoNL
Post by: The Guardian on January 20, 2011, 10:02:27 AM
This is now listed in the REG Corrections thread.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal