Author Topic: Grapes of Wrath and Tying (Read 16287 times)

happyjosiah · « **Reply #50 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:16:23 AM »

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 05, 2009, 09:08:41 AM

Quote from: happyjosiah 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"
More? You mean fewer?

Erm, no. That wouldn't work. I fixed it above.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #51 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:20:47 AM »

It was worded how it was worded and there is no point in arguing about "it should have said this" or "it should have said that"...The ruling on the card says that if there is a tie neither player has the most...whether that makes sense or not it is how the card is intended to be played. But I do think Cactus could avoid things like this by being a little more careful with the way they word things but again its never that big of a deal because they always clear things up for us by telling us how a card is to be interpreted.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #52 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:25:56 AM »

Quote from: ejberkenpas22 on August 05, 2009, 09:20:47 AM

It was worded how it was worded and there is no point in arguing about "it should have said this" or "it should have said that"...The ruling on the card says that if there is a tie neither player has the most...whether that makes sense or not it is how the card is intended to be played. But I do think Cactus could avoid things like this by being a little more careful with the way they word things but again its never that big of a deal because they always clear things up for us by telling us how a card is to be interpreted.

This is what I'm trying (and failing) to say. I'm not trying to dwell on the past and nitpick every little thing, I just would like to see less of it in the future.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #53 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:27:14 AM »

Quote from: happyjosiah on August 05, 2009, 09:25:56 AM

I'm not trying to dwell on the past and nitpick every little thing

The problem is, that's exactly what you're doing.

The Schaef · « **Reply #54 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:28:56 AM »

If cards looking for this condition all say "most" and "most" means the same thing in all circumstances, I'm not sure where a problem would arise.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #55 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:28:56 AM »

I realize it's coming across that way, so I am going to shut up now. My goal was only ever to keep it from happening in the future.
As a side note, there's a bit of irony in calling me critical with a post like that.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #56 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:29:59 AM »

Ok well we can drop this now right? haha. Its funny what posts can lead to. This Topic started as a simple question of how to play a card. Just like my "hi everyone post" that turned into a DISASTER! haha. (jo I have a super speed deck that I can't wait to play tonight....its got some secret weapons!)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #57 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:06:19 AM »

I'll have to rebuild my speed bane deck.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #58 on:** August 05, 2009, 02:26:30 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 05, 2009, 09:28:56 AM

If cards looking for this condition all say "most" and "most" means the same thing in all circumstances, I'm not sure where a problem would arise.

The problem arises when a clarifier (that for all I know could be ment as an execption ) on an older card is deemed presedence because the rule for most is on the card? What? 1. Since when did we have a rule for most, it is rather self explanitory 2 Since when do cards make there own rules? I think Jethro is a moot point.

May we do a question and answer session to illustrate the other side of the argument?

Now pretend you are in a very very dark room, and there is no light except the light of my 500 watt bulb. You cant see me but I can see you through a two way mirror *manical laugh*. The hour is six, the swet is starting to run down your face and if you don't answer the questions in a manner to my liking I will pwn ur trollz!

1. If I have three lost souls and my opponent has three lost souls, how many lost souls does each of us have?

happyjosiah · « **Reply #59 on:** August 05, 2009, 02:27:20 PM »

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #60 on:** August 05, 2009, 03:49:33 PM »

That wasn't much of a question there Hobbit.

The Schaef · « **Reply #61 on:** August 05, 2009, 04:17:07 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 05, 2009, 02:26:30 PM

The problem arises when a clarifier (that for all I know could be ment as an execption ) on an older card is deemed presedence because the rule for most is on the card?

Yes. that's what clarifiers do, they clarify things that are unclear.

Quote

1. Since when did we have a rule for most, it is rather self explanitory

It's so self-explanatory that we're sitting here having this discussion even before I bring up Jethro?

Quote

2 Since when do cards make there own rules? I think Jethro is a moot point.

The entire purpose of a special ability is for a card to make its own rules. You cannot turn an Evil Character into a Hero by normal game rules. A conversion ability makes its own rule that allows that play.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #62 on:** August 05, 2009, 08:26:40 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 05, 2009, 04:17:07 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 05, 2009, 02:26:30 PM
The problem arises when a clarifier (that for all I know could be ment as an execption ) on an older card is deemed presedence because the rule for most is on the card?

Yes. that's what clarifiers do, they clarify things that are unclear.

Quote
1. Since when did we have a rule for most, it is rather self explanitory

It's so self-explanatory that we're sitting here having this discussion even before I bring up Jethro?

Quote
2 Since when do cards make there own rules? I think Jethro is a moot point.

The entire purpose of a special ability is for a card to make its own rules. You cannot turn an Evil Character into a Hero by normal game rules. A conversion ability makes its own rule that allows that play.

Let's move on from Jethro. My second question for Schaef (assuming he agrees with the answer of the first). I am not saying I am right , I just want to get this cleared up in el head.

In the same game I have three lost souls and so does my opponent. What is the number of the most rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?

The Schaef · « **Reply #63 on:** August 05, 2009, 08:34:26 PM »

Nothing. There is no player that has the greatest quantity of Redeemed Souls.

everytribe · « **Reply #64 on:** August 05, 2009, 08:53:34 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 05, 2009, 02:26:30 PM

May we do a question and answer session to illustrate the other side of the argument?

Now pretend you are in a very very dark room, and there is no light except the light of my 500 watt bulb. You cant see me but I can see you through a two way mirror *manical laugh*. The hour is six, the swet is starting to run down your face and if you don't answer the questions in a manner to my liking I will pwn ur trollz!

1. If I have three lost souls and my opponent has three lost souls, how many lost souls does each of us have?
Quote from: happyjosiah on August 05, 2009, 02:27:20 PM
3
Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 05, 2009, 08:26:40 PM
Quote from: The Schaef on August 05, 2009, 04:17:07 PM
Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 05, 2009, 02:26:30 PM
My second question for Schaef (assuming he agrees with the answer of the first). I am not saying I am right , I just want to get this cleared up in el head.

In the same game I have three lost souls and so does my opponent. What is the number of the most rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?

3

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #65 on:** August 05, 2009, 10:05:27 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 05, 2009, 08:34:26 PM

Nothing. There is no player that has the ~~greatest~~ most quantity of Redeemed Souls.

You mean most, right?

here is another,
What is the number of the least rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?

Arch Angel · « **Reply #66 on:** August 05, 2009, 10:17:18 PM »

Most is synonymous with Greatest, so I don't understand what your point was with editing his quote.

Also, the answer to this one is...

Quote from: The Schaef on August 05, 2009, 08:34:26 PM

Nothing. There is no player that has the greatest or least quantity of Redeemed Souls.

Bold added by myself.

The Schaef · « **Reply #67 on:** August 05, 2009, 10:44:52 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 05, 2009, 10:05:27 PM

You mean most, right?

You should know by now that what I type is what I mean. The definition of "most" is the "greatest quantity". That is the exact reason I used that exact phrase. So please don't try to tell me what I mean.

Quote

What is the number of the least rescued lost souls (per player) at this point in the game?

Nothing, because no player has the smallest quantity of Redeemed Souls.

A more appropriate approach than this Socratic line of questioning is to determine exactly what you hope to achieve by asking them. If you want me to acknowledge that there is more than one possible way to interpret "most", I said as much when I pointed out there was a discussion before there was a mention of Jethro (something you neglected to note when asking me to "move past" Jethro). If you want me to say that two tied people each can have "the most", I already noted the two differing possibilities and noted which side I came down on and why. If you want me to change my mind and agree with that perspective, I would question why I could be asked to keep rulings consistent, and then be asked to rule the same phrase differently on different cards.

In other words, we've been down this road and I am wondering what it is you are driving at, that you don't think has been discussed so far.

LukeSnyder · « **Reply #68 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:03:21 PM »

I think the easiest way to explain this is to say that "most" is superlative, and can therefore only refer to a single player. If both players have the same number of redeemed souls, can either one of them be the only player with the most souls? Of course not.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #69 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:32:00 PM »

Prove this by logic or whatever means that you want to prove it by. It is ruled that a tie means neither player has the most. That is the easiest way to look at it.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #70 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:54:54 PM »

But is it the right way?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #71 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:56:18 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 05, 2009, 11:54:54 PM

But is it the right way?

I think in a case when people are divided like this, and the issue in itself is relatively minor, easier equals better.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #72 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:58:04 PM »

Whether its the right way or not (which I kinda sensed some sarcasm in that lol) its the way that the creaters and playtesters want it to be played. FINAL! ha

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #73 on:** August 05, 2009, 11:59:04 PM »

Judging from the conversation we had at your house, I'd say I was being sarcastic.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #74 on:** August 06, 2009, 12:00:11 AM »

Yeah thats what I thought...in that case it makes me laugh haha. Especially if people jump on what you said and tear you down which is probably likely to happen because everyone seems to love an argument wherever it is to be had!

News:

Author Topic: Grapes of Wrath and Tying (Read 16287 times)

The Schaef

TheHobbit13

The Schaef

TheHobbit13

The Schaef

TheHobbit13

The Schaef

Chronic Apathy