Author Topic: Emperor Augustus (Read 10046 times)

Professoralstad · « **Reply #75 on:** March 05, 2010, 10:29:13 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 05, 2010, 10:19:53 AM

People seem to be hung up on the "not in battle" part of the Lampstand ruling. To me, it is all about the "protect" part.

I guess I assumed 'protect' targeted cards like any other abilities, so that the targets default to in play unless specified otherwise (and I've always thought 'not in battle' should mean 'anywhere in play not in battle').

Quote

Protection extending to hands is another story.

But if this is all that is changed, I would be satisfied. At least Mayhem would then work.

Master KChief · « **Reply #76 on:** March 05, 2010, 11:01:41 AM »

i completely agree, protect/immune/etc should operate as any other function and default to in play when not specified. doing this would take some much needed oomph out of lamp.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #77 on:** March 05, 2010, 11:45:37 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 05, 2010, 10:29:13 AM

I've always thought 'not in battle' should mean 'anywhere in play not in battle'

Just to give my opinion, I think that this definition is the most intuitive.

Normally cards target cards that are in play. Adding an exception ("not in battle") should further limit the targets (removing cards in battle from the choices) instead of increasing the targets (to include set-aside, hand, deck, discard pile, etc.)

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #78 on:** March 05, 2010, 12:43:27 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on March 05, 2010, 11:01:41 AM

i completely agree, protect/immune/etc should operate as any other function and default to in play when not specified. doing this would take some much needed oomph out of lamp.

Personally, I don't think Lampstand is especially OP, but...

browarod · « **Reply #79 on:** March 05, 2010, 01:42:11 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on March 05, 2010, 12:43:27 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on March 05, 2010, 11:01:41 AM
i completely agree, protect/immune/etc should operate as any other function and default to in play when not specified. doing this would take some much needed oomph out of lamp.
Personally, I don't think Lampstand is especially OP, but...

I don't think it's OP at all.

Bryon · « **Reply #80 on:** March 05, 2010, 04:07:38 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on March 05, 2010, 12:43:27 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on March 05, 2010, 11:01:41 AM
i completely agree, protect/immune/etc should operate as any other function and default to in play when not specified. doing this would take some much needed oomph out of lamp.
Personally, I don't think Lampstand is especially OP, but...

But... the resulting relative strengths of a card should not effect the ruling. I am not saying that you were thinking it should, I just make that point so everyone is aware of it. We don't go around saying "That would be a good ruling because it would make such and such card more balanced." If there is a problem with a card, we'll look to errata for that card before a rule change for the whole game. When making a rule change, three of the important factors to consider are:

(1) the current ruling (we don't want to change things too much or too often, or hosts can get out of the loop really quickly),
(2) consistency (we want words and phrases to mean the same thing regardless of where it appears as much as possible), and
(3) clarity and intuitive interpretation (we want cards to do what most players would assume they do at first read).

Often those conflict with each other, and something has to give.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #81 on:** March 05, 2010, 04:27:45 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 05, 2010, 12:52:58 AM

I don't think anyone tries to 'nitpick' just to make anyone's life more difficult.

Although I agree with most of what you said, I disagree with the above quoted statement in this situation specifically. My impression (which may still be incorrect) was that an extraordinary effort was put into making a ruling fail miserably so it would be overturned, or at least seem foolish. That is not "discovery" in my dictionary.

frisian9 · « **Reply #82 on:** March 06, 2010, 11:55:34 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 05, 2010, 04:07:38 PM

If there is a problem with a card, we'll look to errata for that card before a rule change for the whole game. When making a rule change, three of the important factors to consider are:

(1) the current ruling (we don't want to change things too much or too often, or hosts can get out of the loop really quickly),
(2) consistency (we want words and phrases to mean the same thing regardless of where it appears as much as possible), and
(3) clarity and intuitive interpretation (we want cards to do what most players would assume they do at first read).

Often those conflict with each other, and something has to give.

Wow. That's a powerful montra that I endorse fully. We should have a stamp made up.

Mike

STAMP · « **Reply #83 on:** March 06, 2010, 12:55:17 PM »

Quote from: frisian9 on March 06, 2010, 11:55:34 AM

Quote from: Bryon on March 05, 2010, 04:07:38 PM
If there is a problem with a card, we'll look to errata for that card before a rule change for the whole game. When making a rule change, three of the important factors to consider are:

(1) the current ruling (we don't want to change things too much or too often, or hosts can get out of the loop really quickly),
(2) consistency (we want words and phrases to mean the same thing regardless of where it appears as much as possible), and
(3) clarity and intuitive interpretation (we want cards to do what most players would assume they do at first read).

Often those conflict with each other, and something has to give.

Wow. That's a powerful montra that I endorse fully. We should have a stamp made up.

Mike

God already took care of that.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #84 on:** March 06, 2010, 01:30:10 PM »

.... one of a kind, highly collectible one too.

STAMP · « **Reply #85 on:** March 06, 2010, 04:17:49 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 06, 2010, 01:30:10 PM

.... one of a kind, highly collectible one too.

You're too kind.

I'm also one of a very popular group of board members with a highly attractive wife.

lightningninja · « **Reply #86 on:** March 06, 2010, 04:23:03 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on March 06, 2010, 04:17:49 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 06, 2010, 01:30:10 PM
.... one of a kind, highly collectible one too.

You're too kind.

I'm also one of a very popular group of board members with a highly attractive wife.

I forgot about all of YMT's "my wife is hot" jokes... good times, good times.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #87 on:** March 06, 2010, 04:49:30 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on March 06, 2010, 04:23:03 PM

I forgot about all of YMT's "my wife is hot" jokes... good times, good times.

Jokes? Who said I was joking? My wife is hot!

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #88 on:** March 06, 2010, 06:21:00 PM »

Quote

I guess I assumed 'protect' targeted cards like any other abilities, so that the targets default to in play unless specified otherwise (and I've always thought 'not in battle' should mean 'anywhere in play not in battle').

Quote

Protection extending to hands is another story.
But if this is all that is changed, I would be satisfied. At least Mayhem would then work.

-professoralstad

I agree with these statements and i thought that cards always defaulted to in play unless otherwise stated. If this is not in the rules then it needs to be.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #89 on:** March 06, 2010, 08:59:09 PM »

The thing about saying that something is so unless stated otherwise is that apparently people have different opinions on what "stating otherwise" means.

Currently, the PTB have taken the position that any time a location of a target is mentioned at all, the "in play" default is removed, or at least this seems to be the case when we look at the "not in battle" wording of Lampstand and how we play that. However, from what I have gathered, some people (the good Professor and others) believe that the "in play" default should not be removed uless the card with the target ability specifically mentions an area besides the "in play" area.

Personally, I like Lampstand, so I would rather not change to the latter point of view.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #90 on:** March 07, 2010, 06:19:21 AM »

will we hear anymore on this subject or will this thread just disappear over time until someone says "I remember something posted on that but it seems to be purged."

I think this is a something that needs to be put in stone so that other rulings can have a foundation to build upon.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #91 on:** March 07, 2010, 11:39:53 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on March 06, 2010, 08:59:09 PM

Personally, I like Lampstand, so I would rather not change to the latter point of view.

I like Lampstand too. It's nice not having to worry about an Artifact in your Artifact pile getting nuked by DoN, or having your opponent not be able to bury the 2-liner after having you rescue it twice. I just think it's a stretch to say that it protects your hand or LoR when no other cards (except maybe the ones STAMP mentioned in the other thread) could do so without specifically saying that they can.

Quote from: RTSmaniac on March 07, 2010, 06:19:21 AM

will we hear anymore on this subject or will this thread just disappear over time until someone says "I remember something posted on that but it seems to be purged."

I think this is a something that needs to be put in stone so that other rulings can have a foundation to build upon.

At present the ruling is that Lampstand renders every Evil Dom except Doubt and Christian Martyr ineffective. I know that there is at least one playtester who agrees with me, and since he is one of those responsible for the new REG, things may change.

Quote from: STAMP on March 06, 2010, 04:17:49 PM

I'm also one of a very popular group of board members with a highly attractive wife.

And in less than three months, I will be joining that group.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Emperor Augustus (Read 10046 times)

Professoralstad

Re: Emperor Augustus

Master KChief

Re: Emperor Augustus

Prof Underwood

Re: Emperor Augustus

BubbleBoy

Re: Emperor Augustus

browarod

Re: Emperor Augustus

Bryon

Re: Emperor Augustus

YourMathTeacher

Re: Emperor Augustus

frisian9

Re: Emperor Augustus

STAMP

Re: Emperor Augustus

YourMathTeacher

Re: Emperor Augustus

STAMP

Re: Emperor Augustus

lightningninja

Re: Emperor Augustus

YourMathTeacher

Re: Emperor Augustus

RTSmaniac

Re: Emperor Augustus

BubbleBoy

Re: Emperor Augustus

RTSmaniac

Re: Emperor Augustus

Professoralstad

Re: Emperor Augustus