Author Topic: Grapes of Wrath and Tying (Read 16268 times)

happyjosiah · « **Reply #100 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:31:09 AM »

Sweet, the grammar police have arrived now. I don't even understand this thread anymore. It's been pretty well established what the ruling is as well as the fact that it could have been clearer.

Oh and um... this post approved by Mike Berkenpas?

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #101 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:59:09 AM »

Yes...the "Mike Berkenpas Approves this post" button has been hit on all...i think 4 of my posts repeating what the ruling is in an attempt to end this argument.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #102 on:** August 06, 2009, 09:19:56 AM »

Thank you for the lovely contributions, people, but I think we already have a ruling.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #103 on:** August 06, 2009, 02:09:39 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef 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.

Right after I posted that , I said to my self it doesn't make a difference because they are the same thing. I was going to edit it but I didn't get the time.

"A more appropriate approach than this Socratic line of questioning is to determine exactly what you hope to achieve by asking them."

I hope to achieve a different ruling.

The First

So when in a tie both player don't have the most and they don't have the least (which is what your saying). Grapes of Wrath would trigger on the " if you don't have the most souls", allowing another rescue attempt. It would seem this is correct but lets look a little further. The intention of Grapes of Wrath was to give the player with the least amount of souls an extra rescue. Since you said that when somone is tied no one has the least, why are we giving this player another rescue? Let's look back to Jethro ( the set presedent). The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more. It sets the presedence for latter cards such has Grapes of Wrath (like you say). In this case a play as for Grapes of Wrath would be helpful (with the added clarifier), like Jethro and Nicanor.

My second argument

I personally think you are wrong on the quantity issue. Having the greatest quantity is used to say that someone has more apples than another person and it is also used to state the greatest quantity, whether somone also has the same quantity it doesn't matter. The fact remains that the greatest quantity at that time is x (x=number of apples) not the greatest quantity that can potential be in the future. And logically when you play a card you check what is happening at the time rather than checking what can happen in the future. I think this is were you are a little confused about. And maybe are you caught up on the fact that most is similar to more but not = to? Most is a broader word than "more". This is why parmenas has no clarifier, it doesn't need one whereas Jethro does because of his wording. You are treating Grapes of Wrath like it is worded as parmenas and Nicanor are. However Grapes of Wrath uses "most" instead of "more "(which parmenas has in his SA), when you should treat Grapes of Wrath like the card Jethro with the clarifier.

Parmenas
If your opponent has more cards in hand than you, you may draw two cards.

Jethro
The player with the most O.T. male heroes in territory may draw a card. (If there is a tie, do not draw.)

Thanks for your patience.

The Schaef · « **Reply #104 on:** August 06, 2009, 02:30:13 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 06, 2009, 02:09:39 PM

The intention of Grapes of Wrath was to give the player with the least amount of souls an extra rescue.

What makes you so sure of this? And either way you want to define the advantage (it's technically the same thing in a two-player game), wouldn't you agree that someone who is tied is not in the lead?

Quote

The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.

How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?

Quote

I personally think you are wrong on the quantity issue.

Well, then, you're just wrong, because that's an objective assessment based on the dictionary definition of most.

Quote

The fact remains that the greatest quantity at that time is x (x=number of apples) not the greatest quantity that can potential be in the future.

There is no potentiality in play here. You either have the most or you do not. If someone has the same as you, you do not have the most.

Quote

You are treating Grapes of Wrath like it is worded as parmenas and Nicanor are.

No, I am not. I am treating it exactly as I have laid out above. It would be easier to determine the validity of my arguments if you actually addressed those, and did not just toss them aside and make up something else that I'm supposed to be saying instead.

TimMierz · « **Reply #105 on:** August 06, 2009, 02:32:49 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 06, 2009, 02:30:13 PM

Quote
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.

How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?

I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.

The Schaef · « **Reply #106 on:** August 06, 2009, 02:45:23 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on August 06, 2009, 02:32:49 PM

I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.

But the condition of Jethro is not based on who benefits from it, it's based on a numerical assessment of greatest quantity.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #107 on:** August 06, 2009, 03:51:42 PM »

Is it possible that jethro and GoW could be played differently from each other or ruled in different ways? And either way I don't understand what more there is to argue about GoW. Schaef you are right about GoW that a tie means neither player has the most. The card was ruled that way and will be played that way. Anyone who thinks otherwise...well they shouldn't think otherwise haha

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #108 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:50:17 PM »

Quote from: ejberkenpas22 on August 06, 2009, 03:51:42 PM

Is it possible that jethro and GoW could be played differently from each other or ruled in different ways? And either way I don't understand what more there is to argue about GoW. Schaef you are right about GoW that a tie means neither player has the most. The card was ruled that way and will be played that way. Anyone who thinks otherwise...well they shouldn't think otherwise haha

Shaef is it really you? You know creating two profiles is against board policy.

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #109 on:** August 07, 2009, 07:10:16 PM »

Sorry to jump in this far into the discussion, but I just wanted to mention that I had Grapes of Wrath in my booster draft deck at Nationals, and it was ruled by Tim Maly and Bryon Hake that since two of us were tied for the most Lost Souls rescued, we both had the most, and there could not be another rescue. I didn't notice a post from them here, so I wanted to add it to the topic since those were 2 National judges who ruled it this way.

The reasoning was that if we both had 4 Lost Souls, no one had more than us, so we both had the most.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #110 on:** August 07, 2009, 07:52:42 PM »

Hmmm...that is interesting because while my Dad was not at Nationals he ruled it here as the opposite...I guess we kinda need to hear from Rob then...or our judges need to get together and on the same page haha

FresnoRedemption · « **Reply #111 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:05:20 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on August 06, 2009, 02:32:49 PM

Quote from: The Schaef on August 06, 2009, 02:30:13 PM
Quote
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.

How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?

I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.

Jethro and Grapes are two different cards, and should be treated as such. I think plain, simple English should be how the card abilities are used. And since Grapes only allows the current rescuer to make another rescue if he/she doesn't have the most, then if the two players are tied, the current rescuer does not have the most.

ejberkenpas22 · « **Reply #112 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:08:19 PM »

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on August 07, 2009, 08:05:20 PM

Quote from: TimMierz on August 06, 2009, 02:32:49 PM
Quote from: The Schaef on August 06, 2009, 02:30:13 PM
Quote
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.

How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?

I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.

Jethro and Grapes are two different cards, and should be treated as such. I think plain, simple English should be how the card abilities are used. And since Grapes only allows the current rescuer to make another rescue if he/she doesn't have the most, then if the two players are tied, the current rescuer does not have the most.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #113 on:** August 07, 2009, 08:44:28 PM »

This whole thing really comes down to what each player thinks "the most" means. If you think that only one person can ever have the most (which is how I think of it), then a tie would allow the rescuer a second battle. If you think that anyone who has the highest score has the most (in which case no one person would have the most in the event of a tie), then a tie would not allow the rescuer a second battle. Am I right?

The question then is: How does Rob see it?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #114 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:15:23 PM »

most (mst)
adj. Superlative of many, much.
1.
a. Greatest in number: won the most votes.
b. Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: has the most compassion.
2. In the greatest number of instances: Most fish have fins.
n.
1. The greatest amount or degree: She has the most to gain.
2. Slang The greatest, best, or most exciting. Used with the: That party was the most!
pron.
(used with a sing. or pl. verb) The greatest part or number: Most of the town was destroyed. Most of the books were missing.
adv. Superlative of much.
1. In or to the highest degree or extent. Used with many adjectives and adverbs to form the superlative degree: most honest; most impatiently.
2. Very: a most impressive piece of writing.
3. Informal Almost: Most everyone agrees.

Then you see it wrong.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #115 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:25:25 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 07, 2009, 09:15:23 PM

Then you see it wrong.

Oooh, look who knows everything!

You are not proving anyone's point with those definitions.

Greatest in number: won the most votes.
Greatest in amount, extent, or degree: has the most compassion.
Do either of these specify whether they refer to one or many items?

The greatest amount or degree: She has the most to gain.
This one uses a singular example!

Maybe you see it wrong sir.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #116 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:31:57 PM »

9/10 of those would agree that most=as many have the greatest. Or, since I like confusion:

Most say that most means multiple things if need be.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #117 on:** August 07, 2009, 09:48:14 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 07, 2009, 09:31:57 PM

9/10 of those would agree that most=as many have the greatest. Or, since I like confusion:

Most say that most means multiple things if need be.

Again, it depends on how you look at it.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #118 on:** August 08, 2009, 04:50:24 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 06, 2009, 02:45:23 PM

Quote from: TimMierz on August 06, 2009, 02:32:49 PM
I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.

But the condition of Jethro is not based on who benefits from it, it's based on a numerical assessment of greatest quantity.

The condition of Grapes of Wrath is also based on a numerical assement of the greatest quantity. You check the lost soul count whiuch is a quantitiy. What is your point?

Quote from: ejberkenpas22 on August 07, 2009, 07:52:42 PM

Hmmm...that is interesting because while my Dad was not at Nationals he ruled it here as the opposite...I guess we kinda need to hear from Rob then...or our judges need to get together and on the same page haha

Right, that is what the judges do they rule buy commitee. I guarantee you that there is a discussion on the playtesters boards about this, as we type.

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on August 07, 2009, 08:05:20 PM

Quote from: TimMierz on August 06, 2009, 02:32:49 PM
Quote from: The Schaef on August 06, 2009, 02:30:13 PM
Quote
The clarifying ability does not let you draw a card in a tie which you say supports your argument, and that may be true but it supports my argument more.

How does a card that says a tie is not the most, support your argument that a tie is the most?

I think he's saying that since Jethro doesn't give a benefit to a person involved in a tie, neither should Grapes.

Jethro and Grapes are two different cards, and should be treated as such. I think plain, simple English should be how the card abilities are used. And since Grapes only allows the current rescuer to make another rescue if he/she doesn't have the most, then if the two players are tied, the current rescuer does not have the most.

They are two different cards and are treated as such. The special abilities are alike and for consistency need to be ruled the same way every time.

Quote from: BubbleBoy on August 07, 2009, 09:48:14 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 07, 2009, 09:31:57 PM
9/10 of those would agree that most=as many have the greatest. Or, since I like confusion:

Most say that most means multiple things if need be.
Again, it depends on how you look at it.

We cant have rulings being relative, so it has to be ruled on past cards.

If I am in a three player multyplayer game, and I have 3 lost souls and my opponents each have 5 lost souls who won one the game?
How do you win the game of redemption?

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #119 on:** August 27, 2009, 10:45:55 PM »

Has this discussion been resolved?

browarod · « **Reply #120 on:** August 27, 2009, 10:48:55 PM »

According to this post, it seems like a tie means neither has most (or least as the case may be), however that thread hasn't received a confirmation by any moderator or playtester.

News:

Author Topic: Grapes of Wrath and Tying (Read 16268 times)

TheHobbit13

The Schaef

The Schaef

TheHobbit13

FresnoRedemption

TheHobbit13

browarod