Author Topic: Grapes of Wrath and Tying (Read 16269 times)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #25 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:47:41 PM »

I'm saying Nero's is an unnecessary clarifier and Jethro's is an ability clearing up how it works. One of them can be chopped away and the other can't.

The Schaef · « **Reply #26 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:49:52 PM »

I disagree, and therefore I don't consider my example "horrible" (thank you for that).

And it doesn't change the fact that we have an existing example of how to define most that can give us direction on how to treat other cards using the exact same phrase.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #27 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:51:06 PM »

But it doesn't have the same phase. It cut out the phasing on how it works, and so the only logical way to look at it is by reading what is said on the card, in which case I refer to my previous logic and most=most.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #28 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:55:04 PM »

I have to say that Schaef's is the only logic I can understand and thus agree with.

Hedgehogman · « **Reply #29 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:05:58 PM »

I agree with Schaef as well.

The Schaef · « **Reply #30 on:** August 03, 2009, 03:16:32 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 03, 2009, 02:51:06 PM

But it doesn't have the same phrase.

It doesn't say "the most"?

The Guardian · « **Reply #31 on:** August 04, 2009, 01:07:55 PM »

Official answer?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #32 on:** August 04, 2009, 01:13:08 PM »

A precedent was set by Jethro with a similar wording, and Schaef says "most" means "more than anyone else," so I'm going with that for now.

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #33 on:** August 04, 2009, 03:17:25 PM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 04, 2009, 01:13:08 PM

A precedent was set by Jethro with a similar wording, and Schaef says "most" means "more than anyone else," so I'm going with that for now.

I don't see anything wrong with this definition.

redemption99 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 04, 2009, 06:30:54 PM »

then if it's a tie you would get to make another rescue because you don't have the 'most' rescued.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #35 on:** August 04, 2009, 10:25:25 PM »

Two possible wordings here would have eliminated this whole discussion, depending on how it was intended:

If ties still allow a rescue:
"if no player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

If ties do not allow a rescue:
"unless the rescuing player has the most redeemed souls, or is tied for most, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

How did all you playtesters play this? Did this never come up as a question?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #36 on:** August 04, 2009, 10:34:14 PM »

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 04, 2009, 10:25:25 PM

C'mon Cactus, get it together

That's what we call an escalator.

Insulting Cactus will only make people mad at each other, so try using "I" messages instead, as in, "I'm annoyed that this card was worded the way it was." This will prevent angry outbreaks.

(Huh, maybe Issues & Wellness wasn't such a worthless class.

)

happyjosiah · « **Reply #37 on:** August 04, 2009, 10:41:37 PM »

You're right. That wasn't meant to be as harsh as it came off. I'm fine just getting a ruling and moving on. I just am baffled that no playtesters had this same question.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #38 on:** August 04, 2009, 10:47:17 PM »

Hey, it worked! Maybe I'll start trying to be that guy from now on; I seem to be pretty good at it.

In all seriousness though, while I do agree that the card could have been worded less suspiciously, it seemed relatively obvious to me from the beginning what the intent was.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #39 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:15:51 PM »

The way I saw it was If you are tied you both have the most and the least. That said thought it is very confusing and I just asked my Dad (Mike Berkenpas) which is a pretty final answer. Given the situation where grapes of wrath is played and the lost soul count is tied, the rescuing player (not having "the most" lost souls because of the tie) MAY make another rescue attemp. This should settle the argument

The Schaef · « **Reply #40 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:32:06 PM »

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 04, 2009, 10:41:37 PM

I just am baffled that no playtesters had this same question.

You assume too much.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 04, 2009, 11:35:16 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 04, 2009, 11:32:06 PM

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 04, 2009, 10:41:37 PM
I just am baffled that no playtesters had this same question.

You assume too much.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Smokey · « **Reply #42 on:** August 05, 2009, 12:27:02 AM »

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 04, 2009, 10:25:25 PM

C'mon Cactus, get it together:
Two possible wordings here would have eliminated this whole discussion, depending on how it was intended:

If ties still allow a rescue:
"if no player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

If ties do not allow a rescue:
"unless the rescuing player has the most redeemed souls, or is tied for most, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

How did all you playtesters play this? Did this never come up as a question?

Or you could be like me, and ignore this card completly because eventually no one will think its worth the card slot

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #43 on:** August 05, 2009, 12:35:45 AM »

Quote

C'mon Cactus, get it together:
Two possible wordings here would have eliminated this whole discussion, depending on how it was intended:

Edit this post. This comes off as rude and abnoxious. Look at the setthat just came out. How many powerful and great looking cards were released. I suggest go editing it and if I had the power to I would do it for you. Even if you said later that you didn't mean to come off harsh then you should edit it then.
Anyway, I would say if you are tied then you do not have the most which means you can make another. But by going to Jethro's SA a tie means nothing happens...

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 05, 2009, 12:38:07 AM »

Quote from: Mr.Hiatus on August 05, 2009, 12:35:45 AM

Quote
Anyway, I would say if you are tied then you do not have the most which means you can make another. But by going to Jethro's SA a tie means nothing happens...

I have confirmed and it will most likely be added to the REG that if there is a tie, neither player has the most therefore a second attempt can be made.

redemption99 · « **Reply #45 on:** August 05, 2009, 12:41:19 AM »

I don't seems wierd to me that that would happen...jethro and grapes are worded differently. Jethro says 'the player with the most' and Grapes says, 'if you don't have the most'. Which mean two different things....

also jethro has the thing that tells you what to do if there's a tie, (if there's a tie no one draws).

The Guardian · « **Reply #46 on:** August 05, 2009, 02:46:04 AM »

It did come up among the playtesters--I had forgotten about it though. The idea behind the wording was to keep a player in the lead from getting an extra shot but also not requiring that a player have the fewest LS rescued in a MP game--we wanted to give a 2nd or 3rd place player an extra rescue.

Personally I would much rather not give this extra power to Grapes, but it seems that is the way it's going to be.

The Schaef · « **Reply #47 on:** August 05, 2009, 07:22:29 AM »

Quote from: redemption99 on August 05, 2009, 12:41:19 AM

I don't seems wierd to me that that would happen...jethro and grapes are worded differently. Jethro says 'the player with the most' and Grapes says, 'if you don't have the most'. Which mean two different things....

Only in a yes/no fashion. If the cards said "If you have three Redeemed Souls" and "If you don't have three Redeemed Souls", they may calculate as two different things, but "three Redeemed Souls" means the same thing in both instances. So, too, should "the most" be calculated the same way everywhere it appears.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #48 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:03:00 AM »

"if any player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

Previous post edited. But read the above. Wouldn't that wording have eliminated this whole question? I just think we should keep our eyes open for alternate wordings that answer questions before they are asked. I'm glad at least it came up as a question in playtesting, but given that, I'm not sure why the wording wasn't changed. It's not that big of a deal.

I don't want to come across as overly critical or anything. The way it is written on the card is how it is and there's no use crying over spilled milk. I'm just trying to be proactive with new cards that may come out. On that note, pointing out how awesome this set is (which I agree with) and how much work went into it (clearly a lot) doesn't really have much to do with the subject at hand. Unless you mean to imply that because this new set is so good (which it is) I have no right to level any complaint, however minor, against it. Don't mistake my push for clearer wordings for dissatisfaction with an awesome new set.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #49 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:08:41 AM »

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 05, 2009, 09:03:00 AM

"if no player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

More? You mean fewer?

Even so, Justin said that wasn't the intent of the wording...

Quote from: The Guardian on August 05, 2009, 02:46:04 AM

The idea behind the wording was to keep a player in the lead from getting an extra shot but also not requiring that a player have the fewest LS rescued in a MP game--we wanted to give a 2nd or 3rd place player an extra rescue.

News:

Author Topic: Grapes of Wrath and Tying (Read 16269 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

FresnoRedemption

The Schaef

The Schaef