Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RTSmaniac on July 12, 2009, 10:37:56 PM
-
Battle Prayer
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search through your draw pile or discard pile and select one gold enhancement card. Shuffle card pile. • Play As: Search your deck or discard pile for any good gold brigade enhancement and add to hand. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon, Involves Music • Verse: Psalms 140:7-8 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Common)
can the warriors card search for an evil enhancement?
kirk dennison I please ask if you could refrain from posting on this topic until more post have been added.
-
Read the Play As, you cannot.
-
i need as many replies on this post as possible please
the correct answer is that you can but im trying to show a concensus that most if all of the board would answer differently
-
I don't understand why you need more input. The REG clearly states you cannot. Play As > Printed Card
Play As: Search your deck or discard pile for any good gold brigade enhancement and add to hand.
-
very well...
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14397.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14397.0)
it seems as stated through email from Rob that the above quote from the REG concerning Battle Prayer is indeed wrong. Not that this is a surprise to some because lets face it we all know that sometimes the REG is wrong and i personally thank everyone that contributes in helping to correct any mistakes or changes found.
Unfortunatly, i was under the impression that Battle Prayer did play as stated in the REG and was completely decimated by a certain someones combo deck after i explained that cards like great faith, battle prayer, ect. did not work to retrieve opposite allignments anymore and i was still confused as to why Gabriel (wa) discarded a good enhancement?
then im shown a printout of the email
does this sound fair to anyone?
-
I still argue that the REG is the official source of rulings, unless Rob or another Cactus person confirms it was an error. Since the REG was unchanged after that discussion, I would conclude the REG is right unless otherwise stated by an official source.
-
Popular opinion means nothing. According to the other post, three or four judges are in agreement that the REG is in error.
I agree with Cameron. Unless the REG is changed, or the PTB officially rule otherwise, the REG entry still stands.
-
I agree that there is a problem.
There have been two other threads in the past few months where that "play as" was stated for ruling purposes and noone commented otherwise. One of those threads had input from Schaef and Sir Nobody. We need an official word from Rob here on the boards, because there is clearly confusion and lack of consistency on who and where this is ruled.
For now, hosts are obligated to rule according to the rulebook and REG, which currently states "good gold."
-
unless someone shows up with a secret email from Rob i guess...
-
I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.
Hi Kirk:
In general, we aim to let cards do what they say unless a card is broken the way it reads. I don't consider Battle Prayer breaking anything even though thematically it's a bad fit if it grabs an evil enhancement. So, yes I am willing to allow it to grap an evil enhancement just as the Warriors version of Gabriel can discard a good enhancement from opponent's deck.
Sincerely,
Rob Anderson
Cactus Game Design, Inc.
I specifically referenced the mistaken REG quote in my e-mail to him. Bryon, Stephen, and Mike were included in the e-mail exchange, so the main PTB are aware of this.
Kirk
-
I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.
That's really the key isn't it, though? No official answer on the boards means that all rulings are required to follow the rulebook/REG. That's a pretty big email to not be mass distributed.
-
I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.
Hi Kirk:
In general, we aim to let cards do what they say unless a card is broken the way it reads. I don't consider Battle Prayer breaking anything even though thematically it's a bad fit if it grabs an evil enhancement. So, yes I am willing to allow it to grap an evil enhancement just as the Warriors version of Gabriel can discard a good enhancement from opponent's deck.
Sincerely,
Rob Anderson
Cactus Game Design, Inc.
I specifically referenced the mistaken REG quote in my e-mail to him. Bryon, Stephen, and Mike were included in the e-mail exchange, so the main PTB are aware of this.
Kirk
Well, that is indication that a change might happen in the future. However, I don't like the idea of using private conversation to directly overturn a formal, official rule.
-
yup
heres one from april
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15235.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15235.0)
-
Actually, in that post you quoted, you said just the opposite:
Same with gold cards-cannot search for evil gold
-
That is the point we're making here: Good gold only.
-
Well, that is indication that a change might happen in the future. However, I don't like the idea of using private conversation to directly overturn a formal, official rule.
Uhh an incorrect quote is not a formal, official rule.
Kirk
-
...unless Rob changes the rules and the REG publicly.
-
Uhh an incorrect quote is not a formal, official rule.
The point is that hosts "not in the know" would have to rule according to the REG. That is the only official source.
-
Can I ask how this ruling would affect the card play? Being from Mike's playgroup, he actually mentioned Krik's email last gamenight. We both agreed that although we didn't think it was a great ruling and maybe even the wrong ruling, it won't made a significant impact on any combos. Can you please inform us how uncreative we are?
A similar event occured at Northeast Regionals. Justin Sangillo arrived the second day with an email from Rob stating that Fortresses posses all 7 evil colors. Justin brought this ruling to Roy Cruz as soon as he arrived to make sure he was aware of it. When players overheard, the ruling was argued and brought into question. After alot of fuss, Roy made a quick call to Rob Anderson for an official ruling from the man himself. As it turned out, Justin had misunderstood the email (or someone misunderstood someone else). Either way, we established the precedent previous to competition.
If you have a "secret" email, I am of the opinion that the host needs to be notified previous to the competition's start. That's my only real beef with the above scenario as stated by RTS Maniac.
-
So Angel's Sword is not corrected in the REG either.... Therefore, the REG is no the only official source.
The point is, I posted in several Battle Prayer threads that I talked with Mike about this issue at nats last year. No one official posted the contrary.
Kirk
-
So Angel's Sword is not corrected in the REG either.... Therefore, the REG is no the only official source.
If I were to have been hosting the Florida State tournament yesterday, and I had to make a ruling on Battle Prayer, I would have said "good gold only." The reason I would say that is because I would have searched the REG and that's what it would have said. I knew nothing about an email from Rob or a PTB discussion of "Gee, is that a mistake?"
Do you really not see a problem with inconsistent rulings occurring?
-
I brought the issue to light SEVERAL times on the boards, telling everyone that the ruling was wrong after talking to Mike at nationals last year.
Kirk
-
The REG isn't the end all it once may have been. At this point, it is a somewhat safe bet to rule with your gut and various rulings gotten from these boards when they contradict the REG. But again, when you have an email from Rob, who clearly would be official, why wouldn't you make sure at least the host is aware of the ruling? Pulling out a ruling during the argument (which I have been led to believe is what occured, apologies if this is wrong) seems sketchy to me. It'd be similar to getting something like a FSP in your limited Booster pack for Booster Draft. Would you take it and be quiet til you draw it? Or would you immediately call a host to alert them of the fact that you opened the FSP in your pack?
-
I brought the issue to light SEVERAL times on the boards, telling everyone that the ruling was wrong after talking to Mike at nationals last year.
Kirk
I'm not saying that you didn't. I know you're an upstanding guy, because I've met you. But I hope that you can at least see how this could be problematic for those who were not privy to your posts.
-
The REG isn't the end all it once may have been. At this point, it is a somewhat safe bet to rule with your gut and various rulings gotten from these boards when they contradict the REG. But again, when you have an email from Rob, who clearly would be official, why wouldn't you make sure at least the host is aware of the ruling? Pulling out a ruling during the argument (which I have been led to believe is what occured, apologies if this is wrong) seems sketchy to me. It'd be similar to getting something like a FSP in your limited Booster pack for Booster Draft. Would you take it and be quiet til you draw it? Or would you immediately call a host to alert them of the fact that you opened the FSP in your pack?
I was the host. I know I wasn't judging the events I would play, but I specifically e-mailed Rob so as a host I could confirm the correct ruling.
I'm not saying that you didn't. I know you're an upstanding guy, because I've met you. But I hope that you can at least see how this could be problematic for those who were not privy to your posts.
I can see how it is problematic, but no more problematic then ruling Angel's Sword at tournaments. The fact is, if you didn't read the correct threads on the forums, you would rule it by the mistaken REG entries. So if you read the Angel's Sword thread, you would rule that right. If you read the few threads I posted on, you would rule it right.
Kirk
-
The REG isn't the end all it once may have been. At this point, it is a somewhat safe bet to rule with your gut and various rulings gotten from these boards when they contradict the REG.
This is another whole issue that will someday have to be resolved. It may be time for more people to get involved in updating the REG, especially since it should be the official guide for hosts.
-
Well, then in that case, the judge of the category, and in my opinion, you should probably have made sure people were aware of the ruling. I know your an upstanding guy, but if anyone who was hosting a tournament pulled a ruling like that out on my without me being previously made known of it, I would severely question the integrity of the tournament. Not because I think you (or whoever) is wrong or lying or whatever, but because hosts are now seemingly having secret email exchanges about rulings that only they know about.
You see how this is a slippery slope?
-
Can I ask how this ruling would affect the card play?
Well my brother (The Guardian) had a pretty devious combo awhile ago utilizing Battle Prayer, side battles, and Besieging the City. It was one of those decks built so that your opponent couldn't play. Ever. I don't remember all the details, but he probably would.
The fact that the REG is erroneous is definitely a problem. Unfortunately, Cactus can't afford to pay people to update it, so those who do volunteer to, but can only do it every once in awhile. From my perusing of the ruling questions that have come up in the past several months since I was not on the boards, it does seem like it could use a major overhaul. I'm sure many players would love to help, but in the interest of keeping it more or less official, only certain people should have access to it. I think the best thing we can do is find things we notice that need changing to make it easier on those who will do the changing. So threads like these are good.
-
Hey, I was there and as an unbiased observer, the only mistake I can see that Kirk made was in not letting the Judge of the category know of the precedent ahead of time. We all have combos that we think might be questionable in type 2 and we would be fools to advertize exactly what we are going to do ahead of time. This buisness of someone sneaking around the REG to ask Rob (or insert a judge here) directly is something many have done when feeling out how our combo will be ruled on. It isn't bad, it is being proactive and making sure that what we are doing is legal and within the scope of the game.
That Kirk did not make the judge of the category aware of the ruling change is his only mis-step. he did bring a print out of the ruling which was a very WISE decision because If he had not, the Judge clearly stated that He would have to rule according to the REG, Just as any judge would have to do.
Kirk did not do anything with malicious intent...that is unless you consider that they very object of a type two deck is often to destroy your opponents ability to do absolutely anything malicious... ;)
-
after i explained that cards like great faith, battle prayer, ect. did not work to retrieve opposite allignments anymore and i was still confused as to why Gabriel (wa) discarded a good enhancement?
You also said that Rob told y'all at NC state that Great Faith can pull evil enhancements....
And yes Alex, in retrospect, I do realize it probably would have been best to tell the judge up front.
Kirk
-
Not because I think you (or whoever) is wrong or lying or whatever, but because hosts are now seemingly having secret email exchanges about rulings that only they know about.
As a host, I can assure you that the only secret emails I get are the ones that say I won a million dollar lottery in Dubai. All they need is my SSN and birthdate.
-
it is not my intent to put you on trial kirk.
i just feel it is unfair for the community as a whole to believe that the cards we play with work a certain way (and even be printed to show such in an official guide ) only to be told otherwise in mid tournament/ midgame.
no thanx
-
it is not my intent to put you on trial kirk.
Well that is exactly what you did by mentioning my name in your post. Why else would you mention my name if you didn't intend to do so? You could have achieved your end result of finding out about incorrect REG entries without mentioning names.
Kirk
-
Tim and Mike are working on getting the REG in shape, which I believe we are all thankful for. It is rather disconcerting though that there's so many inconsistencies during the major tournament season... :-\
Does this mean the Women's Great Faith can also now pull evil enhancements again? :o
-
The point is simple: Unless an OFFICIAL ruling (not an email or opinion of X hosts) is made, the REG is the ONLY official ruling source besides the rulebook. Cactus states this as law.
We can argue over and over whether we think it is a error or should be changed, but popular opinion, even if it the REG is in error, NEVER overrides the REG.
-
Does this mean the Women's Great Faith can also now pull evil enhancements again? :o
From what I can gather...Yes.
-
The point is simple: Unless an OFFICIAL ruling (not an email or opinion of X hosts) is made, the REG is the ONLY official ruling source besides the rulebook. Cactus states this as law.
We can argue over and over whether we think it is a error or should be changed, but popular opinion, even if it the REG is in error, NEVER overrides the REG.
Angel's Sword proves you are wrong.
-
Correct rulings > REG.
-
I did not misunderstand the E-mail, Rob just changed his mind after talking to Stephen. The REG also lists some Fortresses as multi and some as colorless, so Rob was clarifying.
-
Ahh, my fault. I didn't get the entirety of the argument. I came in half way and was actually on your side, lol.
-
Well that is exactly what you did by mentioning my name in your post. Why else would you mention my name if you didn't intend to do so? You could have achieved your end result of finding out about incorrect REG entries without mentioning names.
Kirk
because i wanted to get a concensus of what the board thought before the truth was revealed concerning the ruling on these cards.
i believe as a whole we try to follow these rulings and to a degree place a bit of trust in them.
i knew as soon as you posted the email the debate would enflare and i wanted to see everyone tell me i was wrong first :laugh:
-
Tim and Mike are working on getting the REG in shape, which I believe we are all thankful for. It is rather disconcerting though that there's so many inconsistencies during the major tournament season... :-\
I know that this is true. I also know that they have been doing this for over a year now. I saw a preliminary draft of the new REG at Nats '08. I find it frustrating that now a year later, it still hasn't arrived. It (and the forum purge of '08) have caused some significant problems this year. I think that everyone will be glad to forgive these mistakes as long as they are learned from.
According to Schaef there won't be any more forum purges, so that problem is resolved. I think that in the future, the REG should be updated regularly with small updates. I think that we should avoid complete overhauls in the future, unless they are done by someone besides the person doing the regular updates, so that the regular updates will keep happening.
And as for this specific issue, I agree with what has already been said. Kirk was trying to be good by checking his strategy with Rob ahead of time, but should have also shown the email to the judge before the event started. I was the judge and felt like I had to rule according to Rob's wishes, but also felt badly about ruling contrary to the REG in the middle of a game.
-
I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.
When has something "official" on the boards ever go above the REG...? You read the REG I am sure before the tournament and did not agree on what it said due to your deck so you emailed Rob. Rob agreed with you without checking the REG. You both were in the wrong and me and Clift and Brad all said otherwise, yet you had an email which should never be used as a ruling over the REG even if the creator says so. That email possibly skewed the results in type 2 2 player. Lets learn from this.
1- An email is never used as a ruling.
2- The REG is there for a reason.
3- Anything on this forum is not official.
I am not picking on you Kirk, but what happened was wrong and you know it. I do love your deck and I agree that it should work the way it does but since it has been ruled otherwise and you knew that, you should not have gone above the REG to email Rob to get a different answer, because obviously you were expecting everyone to say the ruling, which is why you had your email. You are my friend but to me that seems like a dirty, low move. Had it been my tournament I would not have allowed it no matter if Rob himself was standing right there and said it works. The REG is made by very smart people, who know a lot about this game and those are the rules. The rules were not made so you can go over to the creator and get a different answer then what everyone else plays by. Had I been the judge things would have gone very differently.
-
And the REG is also admittedly out of date with current rules and rulings.
-
I know you might not want me to post Clift, but I e-mailed Rob about this last week because no official answer was ever posted on the boards.
When has something "official" on the boards ever go above the REG...? You read the REG I am sure before the tournament and did not agree on what it said due to your deck so you emailed Rob. Rob agreed with you without checking the REG. You both were in the wrong and me and Clift and Brad all said otherwise, yet you had an email which should never be used as a ruling over the REG even if the creator says so. That email possibly skewed the results in type 2 2 player. Lets learn from this.
1- An email is never used as a ruling.
2- The REG is there for a reason.
3- Anything on this forum is not official.
I am not picking on you Kirk, but what happened was wrong and you know it. I do love your deck and I agree that it should work the way it does but since it has been ruled otherwise and you knew that, you should not have gone above the REG to email Rob to get a different answer, because obviously you were expecting everyone to say the ruling, which is why you had your email. You are my friend but to me that seems like a dirty, low move. Had it been my tournament I would not have allowed it no matter if Rob himself was standing right there and said it works. The REG is made by very smart people, who know a lot about this game and those are the rules. The rules were not made so you can go over to the creator and get a different answer then what everyone else plays by. Had I been the judge things would have gone very differently.
This thread seems to be moving into the realm of personal attack. It would probably be best to resolve this matter privately.
-
Had it been my tournament I would not have allowed it no matter if Rob himself was standing right there and said it works. The REG is made by very smart people, who know a lot about this game and those are the rules. The rules were not made so you can go over to the creator and get a different answer then what everyone else plays by. Had I been the judge things would have gone very differently.
What do you do if your judging and player A plays Michael + Angel's Sword and Player B blocks with a WC dude wearing a Horse? Do you let A play the first enhancement because that's what's in the REG or does player B get to play the first enhancement because there was a huge thread and Rob ruled that any of the horsies trump Michael + AS?
-
because there was a huge thread and Rob ruled that any of the horsies trump Michael + AS?
Which I just read through again. :D
So, I assume Mr. Hiatus would just write off this post as non-official, since it's not in the REG?
I just heard back from Rob about whether to make "First enhancement" any different from "next enhancement" or "an enhancement."
Rob said, "It's fine with me that they mean the same thing. I pretty much saw it that way from the beginning. I've learned the hard way that saying the same thing two different ways leads to a search for different meanings."
This means I was wrong, and in a way I'm glad. This makes things much simpler. Any time you see "play first enhancement" or "play next enhancement", it ONLY means "play an enhancement."
That means you wait until ALL special abilities complete, including other "play an enhancement" special abilities, before AS triggers to allow you to play the enhancement. It also means that horses on any WC EC mean the EC gets to play before any angel with AS, including Michael.
Yay! Simpler rulings!
-
Can someone refer me to where the REG talks about Angel's Sword on Michael vs a WC "play next" enhancement?
-
"I know you're an upstanding guy, because I've met you."
The Math Teacher
I dont care what ProfessorUnderwood says about ya Kirk i agree with TMT
Kirk did not do anything with malicious intent...
Crustpope
I know you was trying to do what was right
You also said that Rob told y'all at NC state that Great Faith can pull evil enhancements....
And even though the creator of the game told me this, I still didn’t do it
I believe it needs to be in the REG/rulebook
This is not a personal attack, I just feel like we should all play by the same rules.
Maybe when Rob gets emailed a question,
goes to check it on the REG,
and notices a discrepency,
he could rule accordingly and change the REG
or someone else? (shrugs)
-
When has something "official" on the boards ever go above the REG...?
Angel's Sword is the first that comes to mind, and there are numerous other cases.
You read the REG I am sure before the tournament and did not agree on what it said due to your deck so you emailed Rob.
Of course, I read the REG all the time. I also read it before last nationals and asked Mike at nationals about this. I posted on the forums several times about it.
Rob agreed with you without checking the REG.
Actually, I cited the specific REG quote in my e-mail to him, so that would be a false assumption.
This is the exact e-mail I sent him. If you don't believe me, ask Mike, Rob, Schaef, or Bryon since they all have a copy of it.
"Good morning,
I write this e-mail simply to get a response I can print for tournament use to save time if a player asks about Battle Prayer (wa). If a player uses Gold offense with Gold defense and uses Battle Prayer (wa) to grab an evil gold enhancement, the opponent sometimes cites the a mistaken REG quote (Play As: Search your deck or discard pile for any good gold brigade enhancement and add to hand.) to try and prevent it.
I know I already asked you in person last year at Nationals, Mike, and I know the answer, unless things have changed very recently. I do believe it should still search for either a good gold or an evil gold enhancement, much like Gabriel (wa) still searches for a good enhancement or an evil enhancement.
I know a couple players in this area were hesistant to accept that it can search for evil gold enhancements still. As I am hosting regionals this weekend, I wanted to make things simpler.
Thanks!
--
God bless!
Kirk Dennison"
You both were in the wrong and me and Clift and Brad all said otherwise.... I am not picking on you Kirk, but what happened was wrong and you know it.... You are my friend but to me that seems like a dirty low move.
If you mean by "wrong" that I sought the truth and didn't think about showing the e-mail to the judge beforehand, that is an incorrect definition of "wrong." The only thing "wrong" about the situation is that the REG was outdated. Its pretty clear that you meant your post to be a personal attack.
you should not have gone above the REG to email Rob to get a different answer, because obviously you were expecting everyone to say the ruling, which is why you had your email.
The e-mail to Rob was not to get a different answer, but rather simply written proof of the correct answer I got last year at nationals from the creator of the REG. I would not have even bothered to e-mail Rob about it had Battle Prayer not come up in conversation at KY States. A couple players, such as Jonathan Pequinot, Jacob Stroh, and Mark Underwood were not sold on the REG entry being wrong. Outside of those three players, I did not think anyone else would try to cite an incorrect REG. It was simply proof for those guys.
Kirk
-
I know I already asked you in person last year at Nationals, Mike, and I know the answer, unless things have changed very recently.
What was the answer when you asked last year at nationals? If it was no then you knew it was no and was trying to get your deck to be ruled in your favor which I think is wrong. If it was yes it works then I think you are completely fine by having proof it works. Either weay you are a great player and even better person. But if you knew the answer was a no and still did this then I think that is wrong.
So, I assume Mr. Hiatus would just write off this post as non-official, since it's not in the REG?
Actually, yes I would. Rob himself told me at NC state that anything on the board is not official and to go by the REG. So until the REG is changed I would rule Michael+Angel's Sword works over any other enhancement. And this is my reasoning behind my ruling for that at a tournament until it is changed...not every player is on the boards! How is it fair that a ruling on the boards by the creator but yet is not in the REG is fair to players not on the board? I could not tell them, oh yeah sorry that does not work that way because of a ruling on the forums that is not official but the creator ruled it on the boards. No that does not work like that, if it is changed by the creator then it should be changed in the REG.
And to anyone coming to my tournaments go ahead and play Michael+Angel's Sword, you will probably win and I will rule in that favor because it has never been changed. And if anyone gets mad at me they can get over it and get mad at the people not changing the REG over important issues. ESPECIALLY DURING TOURNAMENT SEASON.
-
He knew the answer was yes. He got the email for clarification for the mentioned players. He's already said this.
-
In that case the reg is wrong and Kirk did the right thing.
-
And to anyone coming to my tournaments go ahead and play Michael+Angel's Sword, you will probably win and I will rule in that favor because it has never been changed. And if anyone gets mad at me they can get over it and get mad at the people not changing the REG over important issues. ESPECIALLY DURING TOURNAMENT SEASON.
Let me ask you this then, since the previous ruling is flawed. This is the example I used that brought about the change in the first place:
Mike + AS vs assyrian archer with 2kh on him. Does AS activate before Assyrian archer can band, since Weapon Class enhs activate before banding does.
I'm not trying to start that AS Vs 2kh debate again, but rather asking how you would rule that, since the current REG says NOTHING about how that is ruled.
-
I already said why I would rule it the way I would. It is only fair to people that are not on the boards. A ruling on the board is not official until it is in the REG. If the REG is updated before my tournament this weekend I will rule it that way, but I will NOT rule it if the REG has not been changed since the ruling has been made on the boards. It is simply not fair to players that do not know of the ruling that was made on the board.
-
So you would let AS play before the archer can band... remind me not to play at your tournament because that rule is flat out flawed.
I bet everyone who plays there will use silver now!
-
I already said why I would rule it the way I would. It is only fair to people that are not on the boards. A ruling on the board is not official until it is in the REG. If the REG is updated before my tournament this weekend I will rule it that way, but I will NOT rule it if the REG has not been changed since the ruling has been made on the boards. It is simply not fair to players that do not know of the ruling that was made on the board.
Since I asked the question originally, thank you for your answer. I haven't ruled this way in the past, but I appreciate the consistency of your position and the reasons behind it.
Two open questions for the PTB (and anyone else who would like to chime in)...
Is this how judges are supposed to handled non-REG PTB approved rulings?
Would it be possible to create a simple online REG page that simply included recent ruling that haven't been properly incorporated into the REG? I'm thinking of something along the lines of a one line summary and a link to the post with the final ruling? That would be completely separate from the REG proper so the main work could be farmed off to someone other the Mike and Tim even if they end up posting the final file.
-
You mean like this one?
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=6537.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=6537.0)
-
A ruling on the board is not official until it is in the REG.
Since when?
-
Wow, Miraculous Hankerchiefs is officially changed, I didn't catch that. I knew it was going to eventually be changed, but thats good to know its official now. Thanks for posting the link to that thread, Justin!
Couldn't another moderator edit Mike's post there to reflect recent changes? Therefore, once a final decision is made, someone like Tim could edit the thread Justin referenced and that could be official for tournament use?
Kirk
-
The Angel's Sword ruling is not on there. There is an issue that needs to be fixed ASAP. Inconsistent rulings/confusion. This can all be fixed by updating the REG. Also this needs to be done before nationals! Also lambo, how can I rule something that was said on the board to someone who has the REG and argues that the ruling is in there? That is not fair to pretty much ruin the player's deck because he was not aware of a ruling on the boards.
Since when?
Is this a serious question?
It is people like you that think, oh it is on the boards that means it is in the REG and ruled that way. If it is on the boards it is NEVER official. Ask the creator of the game and other top players/playtester, I would hope they agree with me, I know Rob Anderson will. The boards is not used to make rulings, but it can be used to post new rulings that have been made in the REG. It can be used to let everyone know what is going and get discussion about things that might get changed and get input. But the final result is never official. The only thing official is the rulebook/REG.
-
Sounds like what everyone desires is a shorter cycle between forum rulings, and REG updates. Maybe we could invest some of our energy in finding a solution to that and maybe make everyone happy? Maybe set up an official thread/category, that would override the REG. In that case the REG would be the authority, unless something in that one specific thread/category overrules it? That would seem to solve it nicely, the REG is still the main source for rules, unless something has changed and those changes can be in one easy to find place. What do you guys think?
-
You mean like this one?
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=6537.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=6537.0)
Yeah, only with regular updates and an agreement that it is official. It also wouldn't need to be as formal, just a list of "major" (whatever that means) rulings and a link back to the decision itself.
Decisions that should definitely (IMHO) be included...
Stan's Folly cannot be played out of battle.
Protection of Angels vs. Twelve-Fingered Giant
Battle Prayer (wa)
Angel's Sword vs. the Horsies
-
All we would need is an established order of operations and some member of the PTB to "bless" the rulings and update the one thread for all of our enjoyment! We might even be able to get this in place before Nationals. I'll even Volunteer to manage the Update Thread if no one else is desired by all. I just would like to see a conclusion to this issues that has been around for a while.
-
The Angel's Sword ruling is not on there. There is an issue that needs to be fixed ASAP. Inconsistent rulings/confusion. This can all be fixed by updating the REG. Also this needs to be done before nationals! Also lambo, how can I rule something that was said on the board to someone who has the REG and argues that the ruling is in there? That is not fair to pretty much ruin the player's deck because he was not aware of a ruling on the boards.
Since when?
Is this a serious question?
It is people like you that think, oh it is on the boards that means it is in the REG and ruled that way. If it is on the boards it is NEVER official. Ask the creator of the game and other top players/playtester, I would hope they agree with me, I know Rob Anderson will. The boards is not used to make rulings, but it can be used to post new rulings that have been made in the REG. It can be used to let everyone know what is going and get discussion about things that might get changed and get input. But the final result is never official. The only thing official is the rulebook/REG.
New rulings are almost always made on the boards, and the REG is updated to reflect those rulings. Again, if the thing has obvious errors, it is obviously not a completely accurate authority on some issues, so outside rulings should be followed for the instances that the PTB say it is in error.
The only reason that the REG is considered official, and not just a 'guide' as the name implies, is because Rob said it is. His authority is higher than the REG's, and should be respected more than the outdated guide he approved.
All we would need is an established order of operations and some member of the PTB to "bless" the rulings and update the one thread for all of our enjoyment! We might even be able to get this in place before Nationals. I'll even Volunteer to manage the Update Thread if no one else is desired by all. I just would like to see a conclusion to this issues that has been around for a while.
I agree that we need this, but it needs to be updated by a mod/playtester so that it will be taken seriously.
-
I don't care who does it, but it (or something like it) needs to happen, and since I always try to "put my money where my mouth is", I volunteered. I am thankful for all the work that mike has done, and is doing on the REG, but the community seems to have grown quickly and it requires more frequent "tending" too. If any of the playtester/mods see this, feel free to weigh in. If this idea is junk I would like to know, so I don't waste anymore of peoples time with it.
-
One way or another, sooner rather than later, the REG needs to be updated more regularly. Mike cannot be expected to do it all by himself.
-
WOW... Stamp hasn't posted yet... he's always the first to argue for good/evil gold being the same when printed on cards. ;D
-
The REG was intended to be a way of keeping the game played consistently from one group to another. The main description sections were meant to provide enough guidelines to make rulings consistent, without necessarily having to include any rulings in the REG itself. It simply fills in guidelines that are more specific than the rulebook, clarifying what is gray or not addressed in the rulebook. Since we have moved farther and farther from the REG being a "rulings" archive, I don't see it going back there again. You may like to have rulings in the REG, but I can tell you it only leads to confusion, obsolete entries, and contradictions. At present there are really very few changes I see that are necessary - we simply need to use these discussion boards to understand how to interpret the guidelines.
I can look through the threads and come up with a list of minor mods that may need to be made, but they will not come out before nationals. My guess is that most will be updated "play as" in the card section, with few changes in the guidelines section.
I am sorry that I haven't posted updates to the REG in a while - the software I use (DocToHelp if any of you wonder what I use) doesn't compile it properly, so I am in the middle of a major rebuild of the base documents. I expect to have it done after nationals (ok, but not the day after). Understand that the REG as a document and online web page is thousands of pages of code and takes hours to compile - when it works. I have no time to go and modify the 3,000+ indvidual HTML files generated. Nobody has that kind of time.
I take your comments as constructive, and am thankful you all care. I'll be active in looking and listening and responding in the fall when the changes won't effect major tournaments.
Mike
-
One last note - the REG entry for Battle Prayer was official for a long time ("good" was meant to be operative). The recent private email from Rob didn't go through regular approval channels, but instead came directly from Rob. That was irregular, but it was official. Hence, what Kirk stated was correct. Until I hear otherwise, I am going to change that particular entry in hte online REG to reflect what Rob's ruling was. It will be there shortly (if I can upload then changed files from my hotel room). I think it was an oversight that Rob didn't post something online for us all to see - Rob is very prompt at bringing rulings out publicly. When he does so publicly, it gives us all a chance to ask further questions as to the rationale for the change in ruling. Often we are all as interested in "why" as "what" and we all benefit from seeing it.
By the way, I thought there was a lot of "heart" in this thread and no personal put-downs. It's okay to call things into question that are a question. I am only sorry there wasn't much word from other playtesters (including myself). My apology for not seeing this as it developed.
Mike
-
Mike, it's good to have you back. :) Your knowledge and wisdom about this game have been missed!
-
Thanks Gabe.
I don't have enough "stuff" in the hotel to fix the Battle Prayer online. Hard to believe when I take so much stuff along with me when I'm out of town ;) I'll do it when I'm home this weekend.
Mike
-
WOW... Stamp hasn't posted yet... he's always the first to argue for good/evil gold being the same when printed on cards. ;D
Good gold demons CAN be redeemed. Evil gold demons cannot.
Wait. What?
-
Hey,
First a comment about the REG. It is ALWAYS up to the judge to interpret the REG, and the judge always has the final say. But it is the judge's responsibility to make rulings in accordance with the REG to the best of his knowledge and ability. The REG is the guidebook, but the judge is the end all be all of what is "official."
Two open questions for the PTB (and anyone else who would like to chime in)...
Is this how judges are supposed to handled non-REG PTB approved rulings?
Would it be possible to create a simple online REG page that simply included recent ruling that haven't been properly incorporated into the REG?
To answer your second question, that sort of thing has been tried a couple times, but it has always ended up just as poorly updated as the REG. I am working with Mike much more on the new REG than I have on REG updates in the past, so hopefully between the two of us we will be able to do something like that once the new REG is up and running.
To answer your first question, the REG says, "[T]ournament hosts should always defer to the 10th Anniversary Rulebook and Exegesis Guide. However, if they wish to cite a new ruling on a newsgroup prior to update in the Exegesis Guide, then do so." That quote gives hosts permission to use non-REG PTB approved rulings at tournaments, and considering how outdated the "current" REG is, I would say that any host that is not utilizing that permission to implement some of the rule changes made since May 2007, is doing a disservice to the players that attend their tournaments.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I would say that any host that is not utilizing that permission to implement some of the rule changes made since May 2007, is doing a disservice to the players that attend their tournaments.
Even if that host is not online and has never heard of the Message Boards? ;)