Cactus Game Design Message Boards

exactly...the way me you and josiah read it if it is tied...both players have the most. But the way the card is intended on being played is that a tie means neither has most so we all have to stick a cork in it if we disagree, give a big exhale and move on.

12FG...i assume you are talking about a big argument that I missed... and your use of the word "fun" was again extremely sarcastic?

Sounds like a blast! Gotta love side arguments...once one argument is finished...then there must be another argument to take its place so side arguments arise...I've been on this for like 3 days only and I can already see that that is how it goes...oh dear   

Perhaps I am recalling the argument wrong. But as I remember it, Maly, RDT, and I (ok, mainly Maly) argued that protection meant specials because numbers are not effects they are attributes. I thought we (Tim) won the argument. I am assuming you were on the opposing side and that you remember you won. It's been awhile since that argument, I might be remembering foggy.

NOOOO...i can see this going, oh about 6 pages. I was not part of that argument. I cannot answer your question.

Seeing as we are at 6 pages, I don't think that really matters.

Of course, but we here on the boards can't miss a way to nitpick your wording.

Haha. You could just get your dad to proofread any post you make in any rulings related thead. Then if we nitpick you can push the "Mike Berkenpas supported my post" button.

What is the final ruling on this thread?

But is it the right way?

We do want to get it right and we want to be consistent whether in Ohio or Minnesota.

When I first read the card I immediately thought that if the players were tied they would not be able to make a second rescue attempt. Why?

1. As a tournament host, when a muli player table is finished and the players report their scores I ask who had the most lost souls. If the game timed out and two players were tied at 4 LS they would respond by saying we both had the most Lost Souls.

2.  Based on precedent, two cards come to mind. On has already been mentioned, Jethro.
Jethro was designed to reward the player if he had the most  O.T. Hero’s in their territory. If they were tied they wouldn’t get rewarded. Another card is Nicanor.

Nicanor
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 5 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: If holder has fewer Redeemed Souls than opponent, holder may draw two cards.
Nicanor was designed to reward the player that has fewer Redeemed Souls. If they were tied they wouldn’t get rewarded.

Grapes of Wrath I assumed was designed to reward the player with the fewest Redeemed Souls. If they were tied they wouldn’t get rewarded.

3.  It just doesn’t seem far that in a 4-4 game, whether in 2-player or multi that one person would get to make another rescue attempt for the win during the same turn.

I could live with the ruling either way. Right now until it becomes official I would rule that a person who is tied can not make a second rescue attempt.

Perhaps I am recalling the argument wrong. But as I remember it, Maly, RDT, and I (ok, mainly Maly) argued that protection meant specials because numbers are not effects they are attributes. I thought we (Tim) won the argument. I am assuming you were on the opposing side and that you remember you won. It's been awhile since that argument, I might be remembering foggy.

I'm not sure I remember even being involved in that, much less having "won".  Suffice to say I don't think there is merit to the idea that any card only refers to specials when it doesn't say so (and there is precedent for that).  But that's another discussion.

The simple fact is nobody knows the principles behind English grammar. Most is not the same as the greatest. Most is a comparative adjective, and when both players have 3, neither has the most. The greatest number is a quantitative adjective, and when both players have 3, they each have the greatest number.

English being a derivative of Romance language, I mean exactly what I say. Talking about the principles behind grammar is different than talking about grammar. There is also an element of necessary inference in modern English that you seem to be unaware of. It would be silly to say "everyone doesn't know grammar," and then talk about grammar, so the only logical inference there is that an implied "just about" or even "except a few" in the sentence.

That's the lesson for today, and I am no longer involved in this. (For those who didn't catch it, there was an implied "thread" or "discussion" in that last sentence)

Talking about the principles behind grammar is different than talking about grammar.

Not in such a way that it detracts one iota from my previous assertion.  You are proposing a distinction without a difference.  Which is sort of the whole point to this exchange.  Read on.

There is also an element of necessary inference in modern English that you seem to be unaware of. It would be silly to say "everyone doesn't know grammar," and then talk about grammar, so the only logical inference there is that an implied "just about" or even "except a few" in the sentence.

Someone who has something to say about inference, I am certain is clever enough to know I am just as aware of it as he.  The irony of this statement is that you are demanding precision from others that you are openly expecting people to excuse you from, based on common knowledge that trumps the black-and-white letter of the law.  What you seem to have missed is that the entire purpose of the retort was to illustrate how being critical of grammar in these situations often involves an employed double-standard almost by default, and doesn't really add to the productivity of the thread.

The way people have been discussing "most" in this thread has been quite grammatically valid, but more to the point of the matter, their adequate adherence to the dictionary definition of the word demonstrates the discussion has also been semantically valid.