Author Topic: Wool Fleece (Read 8985 times)

Arch Angel · « **on:** June 26, 2011, 12:44:50 AM »

Is Wool Fleece a Protect or a Prevent ability?

I was just told that, according to this thread, it is a protect ability due to its "May not" wording.

However, according to the Play As it has in the REG it is a prevent (in my opinion this is also the intrinsic reading of the card).

Wool Fleece doesn't seem to only limit the targets of special abilities, as a Protect ability should do, but it seems to stop certain characters from doing a certain thing, like a prevent.

So, how exactly does Wool Fleece work? Does it stop ECs from using band abilities (prevent), or does it keep ECs from being banded into battle (protect)? This makes a big difference for many cards, such as Gomer's CBN banding ability, and Seige's Band All ability (if it just protects ECs from being targeted, then you could play Seige just to band in all of your opponent's heroes.)

Wool Fleece (Pa)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No Evil Characters may band • Play As: Evil Characters are prevented from banding.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #1 on:** June 26, 2011, 08:55:36 AM »

Just pick two people, one to be "Protect" and the other to be "Prevent." Then play a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors, with the winner being how it will be ruled at your tournaments.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #2 on:** June 26, 2011, 10:00:20 AM »

I would say it's a protect, but YMT's method is much more accurate.

Gabe · « **Reply #3 on:** June 26, 2011, 10:21:20 AM »

It's still ruled as a prevent. We are discussing the pros/cons of ruling it a protect but no decision has been made on whether or not it will be changed.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #4 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:35:25 AM »

So the thread on how we classify old wording was just whistling into the wind?

Gabe · « **Reply #5 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:56:40 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on June 26, 2011, 11:35:25 AM

So the thread on how we classify old wording was just whistling into the wind?

No, there are people that believe the wording could accurately be interpreted both ways (prevent or protect). I'll leave it to them to explain their logic if it becomes necessary because I don't think I would do it justice.

theselfevident · « **Reply #6 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:02:55 PM »

This is not a negate card. It says "No Evil Characters may band." Plain and simply NO EVIL CHARACTERS MAY BAND. I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are.

Gabe · « **Reply #7 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:14:31 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 12:02:55 PM

I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are.

I'm sorry. I must have communicated very poorly if you think the elders are making "arbitrary rules". Most of the people making these decisions have a greater understanding of the rules than you or I. Although my previous post didn't attempt to explain their logic please don't take that to mean that it is not sound.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #8 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:25:20 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 12:02:55 PM

This is not a negate card. It says "No Evil Characters may band." Plain and simply NO EVIL CHARACTERS MAY BAND. I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are.

Both the REG and rulebook are outdated. You'll figure out pretty soon that there's a new REG in the works, but there isn't a release date (and you know what that means....)

The problem here is that there isn't a category for "No." We have cards that deal with protect and prevent. So, if I have banding that can't be prevented, can it get past wool fleece? What if I can band regardless of protection? (I'm sure there'll be some of this in the new set). We need to figure out exactly what Wool Fleece is doing (yes, no ECs may band, but why can't they band?)

theselfevident · « **Reply #9 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:36:52 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on June 26, 2011, 12:25:20 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 12:02:55 PM
This is not a negate card. It says "No Evil Characters may band." Plain and simply NO EVIL CHARACTERS MAY BAND. I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are.
Both the REG and rulebook are outdated. You'll figure out pretty soon that there's a new REG in the works, but there isn't a release date (and you know what that means....)

The problem here is that there isn't a category for "No." We have cards that deal with protect and prevent. So, if I have banding that can't be prevented, can it get past wool fleece? What if I can band regardless of protection? (I'm sure there'll be some of this in the new set). We need to figure out exactly what Wool Fleece is doing (yes, no ECs may band, but why can't they band?)

Because Wool Fleece does not give you permission (which is defined by the may not)

SomeKittens · « **Reply #10 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:38:52 PM »

In Redemption terms, what is permission?

lp670sv · « **Reply #11 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:39:51 PM »

Are we really going to argue the semantics of May vs. Can here?

May Not be Negated

Can Not be Negated

What is the difference between these two when it comes to redemption?
If we are just going on english conventions may not means you don't have permissions, cannot means its not possible. Permission can be overruled, impossible is impossible.

theselfevident · « **Reply #12 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:41:50 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 26, 2011, 12:39:51 PM

Are we really going to argue the semantics of May vs. Can here?

May Not be Negated

Can Not be Negated

What is the difference between these two when it comes to redemption?
If we are just going on english conventions may not means you don't have permissions, cannot means its not possible. Permission can be overruled, impossible is impossible.

Overruled by the card owner

theselfevident · « **Reply #13 on:** June 26, 2011, 01:05:30 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on June 26, 2011, 12:38:52 PM

In Redemption terms, what is permission?

Permission is neither protection nor negation (notice how the card does not say negate or protect), rather if you have a card that allows you to grant or deny permission, it allows you to control the allotment of the powers the card allows you to control. Essentially, you are (for a lack of a better term) "god".

SomeKittens · « **Reply #14 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:01:21 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 01:05:30 PM

Quote from: SomeKittens on June 26, 2011, 12:38:52 PM
In Redemption terms, what is permission?

Permission is neither protection nor negation (notice how the card does not say negate or protect), rather if you have a card that allows you to grant or deny permission, it allows you to control the allotment of the powers the card allows you to control. Essentially, you are (for a lack of a better term) "god".

Where'd you find that definition? Was it from an authoritative source? Did an authoritative source confirm it?

These are the questions you should ask yourself before answering a question on this sub-board.

theselfevident · « **Reply #15 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:09:10 PM »

I found it on the card. I does not say negate or prevent or protection. It says may. That's why I am saying that the rulings that the "authoritative" people come up with are arbitrary and subjective to their opinions. Not to what the cards say.

Who has the right to reword cards? Who says the REG and Rule Book are out of date? Rather subjective and arbitrary if you ask me.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #16 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:13:45 PM »

selfevident, let me clarify what is going on here:

Older cards were printed with somewhat vague wording.
Certain players took it upon themselves to use these cards in ways they were not intended.
The PTB had to give very specific rules and definitions for very specific words on cards to stop the misuse of cards.
Certain players took it upon themselves to find other cards that used the same redefined words, and misuse them the same way (or worse).
The PTB now have to keep changing the rules and definitions to thwart those certain people from making this game too annoying to play for the rest of us.
STAMP then retired (but he secretly reads the boards every day anyway).

theselfevident · « **Reply #17 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:14:10 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 08:55:36 AM

Just pick two people, one to be "Protect" and the other to be "Prevent." Then play a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors, with the winner being how it will be ruled at your tournaments.

This post proves my point.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #18 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:16:08 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 02:14:10 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 08:55:36 AM
Just pick two people, one to be "Protect" and the other to be "Prevent." Then play a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors, with the winner being how it will be ruled at your tournaments.

This post proves my point.

I was being facetious, mostly due to a moderator's post on a different thread. My apologies.

lp670sv · « **Reply #19 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:17:56 PM »

If the ruling is made by a none elder then you can ignore it. If an elder says thats how its played, and is not overruled by 2 or more elders, then that is how it is played. The Rulebook and Reg are outdated. Thats the purpose of the Elder system. What the Elders and Rob say is how it is played. They put a lot of discussion and thought in to each ruling so to say that it is arbitrary is offensive, and I'm not even an Elder.

theselfevident · « **Reply #20 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:19:48 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 26, 2011, 02:17:56 PM

If the ruling is made by a none elder then you can ignore it. If an elder says thats how its played, and is not overruled by 2 or more elders, then that is how it is played. The Rulebook and Reg are outdated. Thats the purpose of the Elder system. What the Elders and Rob say is how it is played. They put a lot of discussion and thought in to each ruling so to say that it is arbitrary is offensive, and I'm not even an Elder.

Not meant to be offensive, but it seems that cards are being reworded is all.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #21 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:24:12 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 02:09:10 PM

I found it on the card. I does not say negate or prevent or protection. It says may. That's why I am saying that the rulings that the "authoritative" people come up with are arbitrary and subjective to their opinions. Not to what the cards say.

Who has the right to reword cards? Who says the REG and Rule Book are out of date? Rather subjective and arbitrary if you ask me.

You're saying that Gabe and the rest of the elders are changing the cards any way they feel like it? Rob Anderson (The guy who invented Redemption) gave the elders permission to make authoritative rulings based on their years of experience. That's Objective. "No ... may" is not defined in the REG. Therefore, we need to figure out (in Redemption terms, i.e. Abilities that have been defined) what it's actually doing.

The Rulebook is five years old. That's a little out of date. Many major ruling changes have been made since then. The REG hasn't been updated to reflect most of these changes, and there's a lot of issues with Play As/Errata. This post is one such issue. The Elders are there to resolve such problems when they occur.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #22 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:24:56 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 02:19:48 PM

Not meant to be offensive, but it seems that cards are being reworded is all.

I, for one, do not find you as offensive. You represent the mainstream non-Message Board host who has no idea what has been happening over the past few years. You play the game and make rulings the way that seems logical, based on the wording of the cards. It is much more fun to play that way.

However, if you attend a State, Regional, or National tournament, you will be shocked to find out that everything you thought you knew is not the way it is done. The web of red tape that we have created here on the Boards is ridiculously excessive, which is why the "New REG" can not ever be released, since once it is, it will already be outdated.

lp670sv · « **Reply #23 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:29:25 PM »

Updating it at least brings the non-board goes up to speed on the rulings that have been made so far. The REG needs to be constantly changing, we are constantly finding new, unforseeable ways, in which it was broken. There are new cards that come out and make the REG broken. It's not a perfect process, few things in life are.

Maybe we could have some sort of discussion forum, where people could go to find new rulings. Or to as about particular rulings. And that it could be available to everyone. Wouldn't that be great?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #24 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:31:07 PM »

The trouble with the current REG is that no one is maintaining it. With the new one, the elders will do their best to keep it up to date with the new rulings.

News:

Author Topic: Wool Fleece (Read 8985 times)

lp670sv

lp670sv

lp670sv