Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Really, I think it's the Lost Souls that are the problem.  We should get rid of those.

Rob, we were specifically told that you had addressed this issue. In this thread, we were told...

Quote from: The Schaef

...Rob has ruled this deck legal, and it sounds like other "elders" have done the same in the tournament year.

I'm a little concerned that you consider repeating hearsay as being specifically told.  The reason I said that is because I was specifically told...

I can tell you that a Highway getting back Highway combo was legal last year prior to Nats, I used it at Nats with high level judges looking on, and there was no complaint on legality.

... and...

Here is my answer, YMT. The general issue about decks like these has already been ruled on by Rob.

You also seem to have discarded all of the significant context to my post while quoting it.  I said that I would not arbitrarily overturn a significant ruling during a tournament season.  I also said that I did not expect the rule to change.  Saying that I'm not going to go off and do my own thing, and that I don't think it will be addressed at large, is not some kind of unilateral commandment that Thou Shalt Not Change Thy Rulings Against My Expectations.

It seems the harder I work to qualify a statement, the more eager you are to pin me down with it.  The irony is that you're doing the exact same thing now that you did in that thread.  Back then, you claimed I was contradicting myself by saying two different things for Mo Change and Highway, just because I was repeating what someone else had said.  The most significant piece of context missing from that discussion is that I had supposed BACK THEN that this combo should probably be illegal, but that events had transpired without my knowledge and I was not in a position to contest it AT THAT TIME.  In short, I was TAKING MATT'S SIDE in that discussion, but was deliberate in NOT issuing some unilateral fiat.

I can name about 4 more But I never heard that Schaef was..... Is this a recent addition?

Hey! I was in that thread! Does that make me important?

Is there really an Open Discussion board or is this just some sick joke?

@ schaef.  The only playtest game I ever played in was with you anr Brian Ried.  I will let you guess which one is still around...

Don't you think that comment is a little insensitive?

Brian was never a playtester, he simply had access to the cards in development.  I don't remember exactly who brought him in on it, maybe Mike or Bany.  So when I am aware of who has an official part of the playtest staff off and on for the last six years, and I hear you say that one of them has died, and I don't know that information, you don't think I'm going to be a little curious about that?

Tom and I have both been on the staff for years, and we've had some minor discussions about several of the sets that have been wrapped and on their way to the printer, so I also think it's reasonable to think it strange that after all that, Mike Bryon and Rob are still the only ones that spring to your mind.

Here is Rob on this general topic in January of 2009...

There is one combo that I think has been abused for a while.

The combo starts off with Choose the Blocker where you pick your own character to block that would grant you initiative (like Red Dragon).  Then you play some cards that allow you to draw cards and discard cards from your opponent, then play a Withdraw card and keep it going...  

[further discussion of possible options deleted...]

Note:  whatever we decide would likely happen soon (before state and regional events, rather than after nationals).

Many posts later...

Here is my read on it at this point:  Most people don't want to see any of the options I listed become a rule.  However, if forced to choose they pick their least objectionable option. Given the lack of consensus here and among the playtesters, I have decided to leave things alone for the remainder of this tournament season.  We have some new cards coming in the next set that will affect this type of combo and it's not a piece of cake to pull off at any rate.  We can revisit the issue if needed after Nationals and after the new cards make their way into decks.

Given this (and especially the parenthetical remark in the first post), it appeared that the default PTB position was to not make major ruling changes--even ones to tamp down solitaire decks--once the major tournament season commenced. I am not sure what changed about the combo decks in the year and a third since then that forced a re-evaluation of this position, but apparently it has. Even if you disagree with the contention that such ruling instability is unfair to the players, I think everyone can agree that Matt Archibald's frustration is not out of place here, especially when last year at this time his concerns about the exact same deck were treated rather disparagingly.
 

I can tell you that a Highway getting back Highway combo was legal last year prior to Nats, I used it at Nats with high level judges looking on, and there was no complaint on legality.

This was true.

Here is my answer, YMT. The general issue about decks like these has already been ruled on by Rob.

This is correct if you are speaking about combo decks in general, which is quite clear from context (i.e.,YMT's "word games that lead to 'awesome combos,'", my "decks likes these") that both YMT and I were. I have quoted the sections from Rob's posts up above that make it clear that was I was saying was a fair assessment of the situation as it stood in April of last year.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 22, 2010, 10:37:05 AM

Rob, we were specifically told that you had addressed this issue. In this thread, we were told...

Quote from: The Schaef

...Rob has ruled this deck legal, and it sounds like other "elders" have done the same in the tournament year.

I'm a little concerned that you consider repeating hearsay as being specifically told.  The reason I said that is because I was specifically told...

My bad. In the passage I quoted (the entire post) I assumed that you were talking about the deck under discussion (which implied the Highway recurring Highway combo) specifically--especially given that you were responding to Prof Underwood's post which was quite focused on that point. I didn't realize you were relying on a misreading of what I wrote when you made your original claim. Nor having quotes scattered over four pages previous was it particularly obvious you were doing so. I apologize for my misinterpretation.

And from many of your posts you seem to give the impression that you arent always in the "know" about reent rulings so that lead me to believe that there was even a hierarchy among those who are on the inside.

I don't think there's any single person that's aware of every single ruling made at any given time.  For many, the role is a part-time one when they're not bogged down with other things, so not everybody gets in on every discussion.  In particular, I was out in the main hall of the hotel managing the tournament when the 2008 discussion was taking place among the judges inside, so obviously I was out of the loop at that time.  I consider that a very good visual example of how this kind of thing can happen at times.

In that very thread you even admitted that there was no consensus regarding the Highway ruling at that time.  How is that anyway to run the way rulings are made?  It only breeds confusion and hurt feelings in the end.

You think there's anyone in this room that's more frustrated with that situation than I?

...it appeared that the default PTB position was to not make major ruling changes--even ones to tamp down solitaire decks--once the major tournament season commenced. I am not sure what changed about the combo decks in the year and a third since then that forced a re-evaluation of this position, but apparently it has. Even if you disagree with the contention that such ruling instability is unfair to the players...

And why would I disagree with that contention?  Especially when I made the effort to explain to you in the other thread that I specifically would not do that myself and would not expect the others to do it?

To make one last point, the thrust of my various posts through that discussion was to the prevailing logic that if Mo Change was ruled in order to prevent infinite looping turns, then other combos should probably be ruled based on that same logic.  An argument to prevailing logic is an argument to a general issue, just as you and YMT were discussing, even if it is directed at a specific instance as with Mark's post.

There is the eratta list and it is already stickied.  I don't knwo what other rulings you would want to include on that.

I didn't mean the answer to EVERY thread, but rather a list of every CHANGE to rulings or cards. Most of the threads in that forum are just asking how a situation plays out, a simple explanation is given, and thats the end of it.

Matt himself referred to the errata thread.

I'm pretty sure that's been a rule for years.  Isn't it in the withdraw section of the older REG?

Normally I would agree, and there's still some 70% accuracy to that list, but it's six years old.  Not a reliable resource in this case.

Don't forget John Michasomeatorother, And I guess technically we should add Schaef to the list Not sure if Roy is officially a playtester or not, but he's in the loop for sure.