Author Topic: First Article for New Set (Read 12094 times)

Bryon · « **Reply #50 on:** June 25, 2011, 10:28:20 AM »

Quote from: Daniel on June 24, 2011, 09:44:13 PM

Are all future articles just going to be links to the Cactus website...? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the article section?

Rob prefers to post the articles on the Cactus website first. After they have been there for a month or two, I post them in the article section of the board, too.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #51 on:** June 25, 2011, 10:29:22 AM »

Quote from: Daniel on June 24, 2011, 09:44:13 PM

Are all future articles just going to be links to the Cactus website...?

Set preview articles have always been posted first to the Cactus website. For all Rob gives us for free, asking us to visit the Cactus main site (letting him do a little marketing in this area) doesn't seem too much to ask.

As a special added benefit just for board members, however, I can pass along a tip about a possible Easter egg. The url for the preview articles always has something that denotes the article number. In past years if you requested a url with an article number for an article that hadn't been released, Rob and/or Bryon would have a little message for you. The message would extoll the virtues of patience or let you know that cheaters never prosper or...

I checked and there is no message currently, but that could change.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #52 on:** June 25, 2011, 11:05:37 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 25, 2011, 10:23:59 AM

Quote from: Ring Wraith on June 24, 2011, 11:13:29 AM
Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?
A long time ago, negating Flaming Sword "negated" the numbers. But that went away years ago.

Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt only target special abilities on the card.

And yet Protect does include the numbers.....

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #53 on:** June 25, 2011, 11:26:31 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 25, 2011, 11:05:37 AM

Quote from: Bryon on June 25, 2011, 10:23:59 AM
Quote from: Ring Wraith on June 24, 2011, 11:13:29 AM
Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?
A long time ago, negating Flaming Sword "negated" the numbers. But that went away years ago.

Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt only target special abilities on the card.

And yet Protect does include the numbers.....

Because, silly, everyone knows that it is the exception that proves the rule.

(FWIW, I fall in the "sides with YMT" camp on this one.)

STAMP · « **Reply #54 on:** June 25, 2011, 06:28:03 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 24, 2011, 12:14:48 PM

Quote from: STAMP on June 24, 2011, 12:12:28 PM
...and it's become another "3 Stooges"-type thread...as if that's a surprise.

And as always, your input is much appreciated...

And as always, I side with the alphabet crew (YMT & MJB)...

Bryon · « **Reply #55 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:56:58 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 25, 2011, 11:05:37 AM

Quote from: Bryon on June 25, 2011, 10:23:59 AM
Quote from: Ring Wraith on June 24, 2011, 11:13:29 AM
Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?
A long time ago, negating Flaming Sword "negated" the numbers. But that went away years ago.

Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt only target special abilities on the card.

And yet Protect does include the numbers.....

Negate/Prevent/Interrupt are Paper abilities. They target special abilities only.

Protect/Immune/Ignore are Rock abilities. They target the card that is gaining protection.

Those effects are not in the same category.
Those effects do not target the same things.
They are completely different special abilities with completely different targets. How could they be inconsistent?

Smokey · « **Reply #56 on:** June 26, 2011, 01:00:47 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 12:56:58 AM

Protect/Immune/Ignore are Rock abilities. They target the card that is gaining protection.

Those effects are not in the same category.
Those effects do not target the same things.
They are completely different special abilities with completely different targets. How could they be inconsistent?

... So we made multiple Rock cards that can't be targeted by Paper.

I think that analagy is outdated for this game considering the amount of times it gets broken.

Bryon · « **Reply #57 on:** June 26, 2011, 01:18:11 AM »

Rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock.

I admit it is somewhat tricky for new players when a card is both a Rock and a Scissors, but that doesn't mean it is broken.

Protection of Angels used by Michael is a powerful Rock+Scissors, and it hasn't caused too many questions.

Or by "broken" did you mean "too powerful" rather than "the analogy doesn't work"?

Smokey · « **Reply #58 on:** June 26, 2011, 01:35:43 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 01:18:11 AM

Rock beats scissors beats paper beats rock.

I admit it is somewhat tricky for new players when a card is both a Rock and a Scissors, but that doesn't mean it is broken.

Protection of Angels used by Michael is a powerful Rock+Scissors, and it hasn't caused too many questions.

Or by "broken" did you mean "too powerful" rather than "the analogy doesn't work"?

In order of appearance:

Implying I'm a new player?

Assuming you meant imbalanced when you said broken, I never said Rock / Scissors combos are broken, I said they break the Rock / Paper / Scissors balance triangle.

If Protection of Angels + Michael is powerful, what do you call Thadd?

I don't understand this line.

"A country's power can be judged by the quality of its infastructure"
The same goes for game infastructure.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #59 on:** June 26, 2011, 08:50:45 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 01:18:11 AM

Protection of Angels used by Michael is a powerful Rock+Scissors, and it hasn't caused too many questions.

LOL. This is the EXACT question that I am asking, and that ALWAYS causes different opinons at my tournaments.

I have ALWAYS ruled that PoA does NOT protect from the numbers, because the glossary said that Protect targets SAs. It wasn't until later that I learned people had been ruling Protect ALSO protects from the numbers.

If you do not see that a new host would be confused as to why Negate does not negate numbers, but Protect does protect from numbers, then you are doing so by choice, since several of us have already explained that it is confusing to us and confusing to explain to new players. Sweeping away our confusion with an annoying old analogy is insulting.

Bryon · « **Reply #60 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:31:51 AM »

Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.

Smokey · « **Reply #61 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:35:11 AM »

So now I'm waiting on responces to two posts.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #62 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:36:23 AM »

On topic: ETA for next article?

Gabe · « **Reply #63 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:01:15 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on June 26, 2011, 11:36:23 AM

On topic: ETA for next article?

Quote from: SomeKittens on June 02, 2011, 12:22:45 AM

If it's anything like last year, The first article will come out Monday before Nats, with the rest in December.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #64 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:28:18 PM »

That can't be! I make it a point of personal pride that nothing I say about the new set is right.

Smokey · « **Reply #65 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:33:10 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on June 26, 2011, 12:28:18 PM

That can't be! I make it a point of personal pride that nothing I say about the new set is right.

Made me think of...

I'm Your Father

SomeKittens · « **Reply #66 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:40:59 PM »

Gabe is my father? This explains so much!

No it doesn't. I can't grow a beard at all....

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #67 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:43:57 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 11:31:51 AM

Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.

Bryon, I am having a difficult time following your argument here. Can you please explain why you think this response provides a substantive answer to YMT's plaint? Or what is (I believe) YMT's major concern; namely...

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 08:50:45 AM

If you do not see that a new host would be confused as to why Negate does not negate numbers, but Protect does protect from numbers, then you are doing so by choice, since several of us have already explained that it is confusing to us and confusing to explain to new players. Sweeping away our confusion with an annoying old analogy is insulting.

STAMP · « **Reply #68 on:** June 26, 2011, 12:59:16 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 11:31:51 AM

Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.

Wait a tic! My memory is fuzzy from not being online in a long time. I thought protect did NOT protect from everything? I distinctly remember joking with RDT that a card was not protected from the artwork, border, and jelly on the card (or something like that...)

(777Godspeed: If we ever get back in the game, we'll need to enroll in a refresher course...but it seems it's an upper level course now.)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #69 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:05:05 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 11:31:51 AM

Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.

I love your semantic games (no... not really), however page 51 of the rulebook very clearly states:

"Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities."

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #70 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:21:51 PM »

Imo protecting from numbers make sense. The Flaming Sword ruling doesn't make as much sense, however, it was neccessary to say negate targets special abilities and not the cards because otherwise you could never negate a protect (that would be broken). So you could say that protect only protects from specials to keep things similar, but to me I would rather have one ruling that makes send and another that makes sense given the state of the game then two rulings that don't make much sense at all.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #71 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:43:41 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 02:05:05 PM

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 11:31:51 AM
Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.

I love your semantic games (no... not really), however page 51 of the rulebook very clearly states:

"Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities."

The REG has the exact same definition as well.

Bryon · « **Reply #72 on:** June 26, 2011, 04:20:50 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 02:05:05 PM

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 11:31:51 AM
Please quote where the rulebook says that Protect targets special abilities. It has never targeted anything but the proteted card.

I love your semantic games (no... not really),

These are not semantics games to me. I am making a very important point.

Negate/Protect/Interrupt target special abilities.

Protect/Ignore/Immune target the protected card.

The targets are not the same. Is that clear? I can move on to other parts of the discussion later, but it is extremely important (foundational, actually) to know what the target of a special ability is.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 02:05:05 PM

however page 51 of the rulebook very clearly states: "Protect allows cards to be unaffected by specified special abilities."

I think you already know that this is an incomplete definition. If the protect card specifies special abilities (example: Prince of Persia), then it protects from special abilities. But sometimes you can protect from more than special abilities. If you honestly believe that this is a complete definition of protect, then how does Belshazzar's Banquet work? There isn't a hero in the game with a rescue special ability.

So yes, the old REG and rulebook have incomplete definitions of protect. There are at least a half-dozen cards that protect from things other than special abilities. Protection of Angels, Thaddeus, Belshazzar's Banquet, Failed Objective, High Priests' Palace, and others I'm sure.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #73 on:** June 26, 2011, 04:38:33 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 04:20:50 PM

Protect/Ignore/Immune target the protected card.

Wouldn't that mean that Thaddeus, with the appropriate number of disiples in play, protects evil characters from being immune to him? Just like he can protect gomer from banding to another evil character?

Bryon · « **Reply #74 on:** June 26, 2011, 04:47:17 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 26, 2011, 04:38:33 PM

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 04:20:50 PM
Protect/Ignore/Immune target the protected card.

Wouldn't that mean that Thaddeus, with the appropriate number of disiples in play, protects evil characters from being immune to him? Just like he can protect gomer from banding to another evil character?

Great question. That is exactly what Thaddeus did, until we made the rule that says that a card cannot be protected from itself.

News:

Author Topic: First Article for New Set (Read 12094 times)

TheHobbit13

Lamborghini_diablo

TheHobbit13