Author Topic: Card Browarod inspired (Read 6947 times)

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #25 on:** November 09, 2011, 05:15:31 PM »

If anyone is interested, I found two errors in SomeKitten's posts. There may very well be more, as I did not look carefully. I'm not sure on the acceptability of using the term "REPs" without defining it beforehand, so I am not counting that.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #26 on:** November 09, 2011, 05:17:16 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on November 09, 2011, 04:37:24 PM

Card Effect...don't need to be capitalized

Irony.

Quote

Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
Insitive passes as usual + u can still die if u lose by the numbers, because it's not the opponent, its a game rule.
~~It's~~ The words are spelled "initiative," and "you." The + symbol should also be expanded out to "and." If a card is protected, it cannot be discarded. Protect can absolutely protect from game rule; see Uzzah...

Quote

Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
Protection & Immunity do not affect Initiative. You are still losing regardless. At that means is that ur Opponent can't target u for a Card Effect.
and the actual term is "special ability". Protection and immunity absolutely affect initiative. If you can't discard me, then you're not winning, and you have initiative.

Quote
Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 03:50:50 PM
Also we can call this 'bureaucrat' ...lol
There should be a comma or colon after "Also." Also, (see, there it is!) I doubt the prospect of naming this bureaucrat has you laughing out loud. Secondly, "we" will not be calling this anything, as this is my card. If anyone else gets author credit, it will be Browarod.

See how annoying that is? I'm all for correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, however, correcting someone's post with faulty mechanics is poor form. What Megamanlan posted was a popular belief up until recently, and he should not be faulted for being under that impression; I would think that someone of your sizable set of accomplishments in the past two years would seek to help those who had incorrect thinking in a less snarky way.

megamanlan · « **Reply #27 on:** November 09, 2011, 06:30:05 PM »

This is an Internet forum, there is no law that states that 'You must use proper Grammer when you post online.'
Next, Protection is NOT immunity. Immunity gives you infinite toughness and cannot be affected by opponents card effects. Protection only protects the character from a card effect. There was already a debate on here if 'Protect from Opponent's includes game rules and the ruling was no. You can be discarded if you lose the battle because your opponent is not actually discarding you. Opponent means Opponent's card effects. You are not 'winning' a battle. I know because I play all these cards, I may not have won any rookie of the year award, (most likely because I haven't been able to get to a tournament higher than my state tournament.) but I try to keep up w/ the effects as best as possible and this is the ruling that has been made and is upheld at our tournament.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #28 on:** November 09, 2011, 06:40:36 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 06:30:05 PM

This is an Internet forum, there is no law that states that 'You must use proper Grammer when you post online.'
Next, Protection is NOT immunity. Immunity gives you infinite toughness and cannot be affected by opponents card effects. Protection only protects the character from a card effect. There was already a debate on here if 'Protect from Opponent's includes game rules and the ruling was no. You can be discarded if you lose the battle because your opponent is not actually discarding you. Opponent means Opponent's card effects. You are not 'winning' a battle. I know because I play all these cards, I may not have won any rookie of the year award, (most likely because I haven't been able to get to a tournament higher than my state tournament.) but I try to keep up w/ the effects as best as possible and this is the ruling that has been made and is upheld at our tournament.

I guess to be fair, I should address a couple things: First, spelling and grammar are important, both so people can understand you better, and so they take your post seriously. Posts with tons of spelling/grammar errors are annoying, and if you can take a few minutes to review what you write, it really does help.

Second, protection from cards DOES now include protection from numbers, i.e. if you block Thaddeus with a 10/10 EC and X=11, then if the battle ended there, Thad would survive. The proposed card would be the same way. This hasn't always been a consistent ruling (some people played it that way, some didn't) but it was recently clarified that protection from cards basically functions like immunity.

megamanlan · « **Reply #29 on:** November 09, 2011, 06:45:33 PM »

Well, REG disagrees,
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. (See Cannot be).

This states only Special Abilites. Not the numbers.

Red Wing · « **Reply #30 on:** November 09, 2011, 06:47:41 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 06:45:33 PM

Well, REG disagrees,
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. (See Cannot be).

This states only Special Abilites. Not the numbers.

Actually, Professoralstad is correct.

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/rule-changesclarifications-for-2011-2012-tournament-season/

browarod · « **Reply #31 on:** November 09, 2011, 06:50:12 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 06:45:33 PM

Well, REG disagrees,
Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities. (See Cannot be).

This states only Special Abilites. Not the numbers.

And if something specifies an ability, then the protect only protects from that (such as Lydia, Di sites, etc.). However, if it doesn't specify an ability (Thaddeus) or specifies something that is a game rule and an ability (Joseph 2011) it protects from everything associated with that (in the case of Thad, anything that is related to an EC; in the case of Joseph, any discard whether special ability or game rule).

Instaposted - Red Wing is also correct.

megamanlan · « **Reply #32 on:** November 09, 2011, 06:58:47 PM »

The these 'clarifications' need to be put on REG since a lot of people (including me) use REG as the final source not the forums.
And REG still states that it's only Card Effects. I still don't like that... It makes it a better version of Immunity which is dumb and makes the game more confusing. Plus PoA states effects, so that puts the ruling in question to me.

browarod · « **Reply #33 on:** November 09, 2011, 07:04:32 PM »

The ruling is referring to the Priests version of PoA which says "evil cards."

Also, any of the REPs, and Ken as official judge, at our tournaments would have been ruling protection this way at least the last few months, so I don't know why you hadn't heard that this was the case.

megamanlan · « **Reply #34 on:** November 09, 2011, 07:26:34 PM »

It was ruled differently in one if my rounds.

And it says Special Abilities on Evil Cards.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #35 on:** November 09, 2011, 07:31:03 PM »

That would be errata disguised as play-as, therefore we are to disregard it.

megamanlan · « **Reply #36 on:** November 09, 2011, 07:54:45 PM »

No, that's what the Card says, the errata didn't change it.

browarod · « **Reply #37 on:** November 09, 2011, 08:03:08 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 07:54:45 PM

No, that's what the Card says, the errata didn't change it.

The card says exactly this: "Interrupt the battle and protect all Heroes in play and set aside areas from evil cards until end of turn."

That is the printed special ability.

megamanlan · « **Reply #38 on:** November 09, 2011, 08:15:40 PM »

I play the card, I do know what it says.

browarod · « **Reply #39 on:** November 09, 2011, 09:20:15 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 08:15:40 PM

I do know what it says.

Evidently not if you think it says "special abilities" anywhere on it....

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #40 on:** November 09, 2011, 10:06:42 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 09, 2011, 07:26:34 PM

It was ruled differently in one if my rounds.

And it says Special Abilities on Evil Cards.

megamanlan · « **Reply #41 on:** November 09, 2011, 10:51:08 PM »

Whatever, that's not how I've ever played it and I don't want to play it like that. Why don't we just make all the Protect cards just "Ignore Evil Cards"? It's the same difference.

browarod · « **Reply #42 on:** November 09, 2011, 11:12:30 PM »

It's not the same difference. Ignore means they get infinite initiative. With protection, as soon as they're not dying they don't get initiative anymore (because then it would be a stalemate). Protection is not a battle winning ability, ignore is.

Also, how you want to play it doesn't really matter, you have to follow the rules in official tournaments.

megamanlan · « **Reply #43 on:** November 09, 2011, 11:41:48 PM »

How it's put by the new rules makes it another version of ignore. Ur unaffected by Opponents number's so its like their always 0/0 to you. How does that pass initiative?

browarod · « **Reply #44 on:** November 09, 2011, 11:46:34 PM »

You're unaffected by their numbers, yes, but they're not unaffected by yours (which they are if you're ignoring them, hence why they're not the same thing). Therefore, if they can get their toughness higher than your strength they cease to be dying and the battle becomes a stalemate. In a stalemate, initiative passes to the person who did not play the last card.

megamanlan · « **Reply #45 on:** November 10, 2011, 04:31:33 PM »

Argh!
I almost want to start playing the 4th Seal & Burning Sensor again!
That makes sense for Immunity but not on Protection. It doesn't follow the definition of 'Protect' in the English language.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #46 on:** November 10, 2011, 04:35:02 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on November 10, 2011, 04:31:33 PM

Argh!
I almost want to start playing the 4th Seal & Burning Sensor again!
That makes sense for Immunity but not on Protection. It doesn't follow the definition of 'Protect' in the English language.

Good thing we're based on Hebrew and Greek.

megamanlan · « **Reply #47 on:** November 10, 2011, 05:08:23 PM »

Hebrew and Greek don't have that either.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #48 on:** November 10, 2011, 05:12:02 PM »

If you've got an issue with a ruling, post that in the "Ruling Questions" section. Otherwise, anyone have suggestions/opinions/thoughts on the card itself?

browarod · « **Reply #49 on:** November 10, 2011, 05:52:09 PM »

I still like it. I don't think I'll ever not like it.

News:

Author Topic: Card Browarod inspired (Read 6947 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

Lamborghini_diablo

browarod

browarod

browarod