Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Hey,

Quote from: The Schaef on August 13, 2008, 10:31:08 PM

Defeat is determined in Battle Resolution.  Defeated characters are characters who participated in the losing side of a battle.  The two are equivalent.

I disagree with this, among other things in your post.  If Potiphar's Wife blocks a banding chain, converts one of them, and then looses the battle to the rest, she defeated the character she converted and would cause it to be captured despite the fact that it was not on the loosing side of battle.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

zing!

i have no further need to add anything to this discussion. the top players (that just happen to think very analytically) have all made it known you indeed cannot use a negate-last card to interrupt the conversion, while others close their ears to the voice of reason. so im already fairly confident which way the PTB will rule this. logic will always win over those who blow hot air all over the place. people tend to lose credibility when its known they simply argue just for the sake of arguing. it gets prety old, pretty quick.

I disagree with this, among other things in your post.  If Potiphar's Wife blocks a banding chain, converts one of them, and then looses the battle to the rest, she defeated the character she converted and would cause it to be captured despite the fact that it was not on the loosing side of battle.

Except this is not correct.  If she loses, she captures no Heroes.

the top players have all made it known you indeed cannot use a negate-last card to interrupt the conversion

I would disagree that this has been "made known" considering all the reasons given are either not being played correctly or have counter-examples to show that we do in fact play X when Y condition exists.  I'm also a little puzzled that you seem to want to define "the top players" as being limited to Gabe Isbell and Tim Maly (and one might assume, yourself); on top of which, Gabe has come to understand my position and does not seem to subscribe to your rant that logic is a one-way street in this discussion.

...while others close their ears to the voice of reason. so im already fairly confident which way the PTB will rule this. logic will always win over those who blow hot air all over the place. people tend to lose credibility when its known they simply argue just for the sake of arguing. it gets prety old, pretty quick.

I have responded to every point you have tried to make, using the facts and the rules.  You have typed in gigantic font and typed the same sentence repeatedly as if doing so would preclude you from actually explaining why that would take precedence over my examples and responses.  Not to mention these little sidebars where you like to stop talking about the cards and turn the threads into personal attacks.  Are these the kind of methods that you equate with logic and analytical thinking?

Quote shortened for brevity.

And can I request that all around, we do away with the whole zing and zowie and booyah and whatever?  This is not some contest for people to punk each other, and I am concerned that it's just going to continue to escalate and result in cheap shots and hurt feelings all around.

I didn't want to embarrass the others by having you dwarf their presence.

I didn't want to embarrass the others by having you dwarf their presence.

Good point.

If Miriam can play a green negate, I think that this example needs to be specifically put in the REG.  As Gold Shield is a new type of card (converting a hero to another brigade), it causes alot of confusion.  I, for one, would love it to work where Miriam cannot play a green negate.  I agree with the logic of that side.  Please let me know if the PTB decide to rule differently than what Schaef has posted.

Kirk

This really is 12 angry men. Shaef v.s. everyone.

Well, I'd say you're crazy, but since we are all krazy that makes you the anti-krazy?

Are you from Romania?

I'm a young man and I side with Schaef and Stamp...maybe it's my bits of gray that are deluding me...

If you attack with Jacob banded to Michael, I block with Potiphar's Wife, and I play Evil Spirit on Jacob.  I then loose the battle and die.  Did I stop Jacob from achieving his goal in battle?  Sure seems like it to me, in which case by the very definition you quoted Potiphar's Wife defeated Jacob.

You are not reading the definition of defeat correctly.  It is determined at battle resolution based on who wins the battle.  Potiphar's Wife is one of the key cards used to help develop the resolution steps.

which doesn't make any sense because the second part of the definition of defeat was added _because_ of Potiphar's Wife's ability.

And the specific example given is stalemate, an end-of-battle condition.

I believe these threads would be much more profitable and much shorter if you spent more time trying to understand the opposition's position and less time trying to respond to their every point.

You might want to pause for a moment and consider that one has to understand before one can properly respond.  If I'm responding, maybe you can give me the same courtesy that I give you, and give benefit of the doubt that I understand.  The only part of your argument I do not understand is where you got the term "character-defeating ability", and I expressed such confusion quite explicitly.

I will be forced to disbelieve you entirely and disregard all comments you make on this thread.

I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this would be any different from how you've been treating my comments to this point.

Because with the level of skill and intellegance of the players that you disagree with, it is simply absurd to claim that they have not made a single valid point in nine pages.

Feel free to list the valid points in question, which are relevant to the topic and which are not contradictory to the rules.

For example, one can argue that Jon's Third Heaven example is "valid", in that it is an accurate statement of the ruling, but to say that the ability resolves has been a known quantity for the entire discussion, and does not address the issue at hand.  Further, since it deals with whether or not you have a card in hand to play, its relevance to characters in battle is suspect at the very very best credit I can give it.

For example, your explanation of Potiphar's Wife is not correct because you have the ruling wrong, and the Play As which I quoted to you lays this out even more clearly.

So far, I have seen and/or given examples where a character with initiative can interrupt-last under the following conditions:
- being removed by the special ability
- being affected but not removed by the special ability
- being completely unaffected by the special ability
- having no characters in battle after resolving the abilty
- having no matching brigades in battle after resolving the ability
- losing/mutual/stalemate by special ability
- losing/mutual/stalemate by the numbers

What I have not seen is a single example of a card, played against an opponent, which gives him initiative, but that character is unable to interrupt the last Enhancement played, provided a). he has an interrupt in hand which matches any brigade (immediately) previously or currently in battle, and b). the card CAN be interrupted.  If someone has shown such an example, I must have missed it, and will welcome a correction.

I disagree.

You're welcome to have an opinion about anything you want, but it doesn't change the facts.  Defeat is an end-of-battle condition.  The winning characters defeat the losing characters.

Stalemate situation.  Attacker plays Coat of Many Colors.  Defender plays Disobedience to negate Coat of Many Colors.  It is my understanding that at that point the attacker can only negate disobedience with a negate that does not depend on Coat of Many Colors to be playable.

So you have nine pages of material to choose from, you complain that I'm not giving anyone credit for making a valid point, and your response is to generate a brand new example?  How am I being unfair, again?

This has been the closest thing to what one might call a "valid point", depending on how much arguing about that really matters.  But you're talking about negating an Enhancement, which means you are stopping a special ability from taking place.  Under that circumstance, you do have to negate under the present conditions, specifically because the ability to play more colors was negated.

How do you apply that to a situation where the ability to play green Enhancements was not based on a special ability and was not negated?

So we disagree on this topic.  Is there any chance that I am right and you are wrong?

Zero.  The definition of defeat is factual and established.  It has absolutely nothing to do with someone being right or wrong, that's just what it says.

Defeat is caused when a character’s toughness is less than or equal to an opposing character’s strength.

Winning by the numbers.

A defeat also occurs when a character is stopped from achieving his goal in battle.

How exactly does one stop a character from "achieving his goal"?

A Hero(es) is defeated when the Hero(es) in battle are discarded, repelled or otherwise fails to make a successful rescue such as in a stalemate.

Defeated by special ability or stalemated, in addition to losing by the numbers above.

The Evil Character(s) is defeated when the Evil Character(s) in battle are discarded, ignored or otherwise fails to stop the Hero from making a successful rescue such as in a mutual destruction by numbers.

Defeated by special ability or number-mutualed, in addition to losing by the numbers above.

The first part describes winning/losing by the numbers.  The second part generally states that there are other ways to cause a defeat.  The third and fourth part elaborate on the second by describing how that works for Heroes and ECs, respectively.  All situations described are situations listed in the ways the battle outcome is determined in Battle Resolution: win, loss, mutual, stalemate, either by numbers or by special ability.