Author Topic: Asa's Good reign (Read 4939 times)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #25 on:** February 21, 2010, 06:20:48 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 21, 2010, 06:03:56 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 20, 2010, 07:51:47 PM
All means all. Are you suggesting that AoCp cannot discard ECs in territory?
Are you suggesting Captain of the Host negates special abilities on Lost Souls, artifacts, fortresses, sites, etc.?

"Interrupt the battle" has never interrupted Guards.

Interrupt the battle only interrupts cards in ... battle.

In order to interrupt everything, it would have to say "Interrupt all cards."

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 21, 2010, 05:52:29 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2010, 05:43:46 PM
Perhaps because its effect is INSIDE the battle.

Not everyone thinks like you, so to treat people of differing opinions as simpletons is annoyingly elitist.

Well, not everyone thinks like you, so to treat people of differing opinions as elitist is annoyingly petulant.

Dude... not everyone thinks like you either, so to treat people of differing opinions as petulant is annoyingly simple minded.

...

Hurray for going full circle! I call copyright on a new game idea. Simpleton, Elitist, Petulant... the argumental version of Rock paper scissors!

Just kidding.

Bryon · « **Reply #26 on:** February 21, 2010, 06:22:55 PM »

Does Captain say "Interrupt the battle"?

Interrupt the battle interrupts the BATTLE, not outside cards. It has been that way since Warriors, at least. If the current version of the REG left that out, that was an oversight. It has been asked many times over the years on the newsgroup and messageboards, and always the same answer has been given: Interrupt the battle does not interrupt cards outside of battle.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #27 on:** February 21, 2010, 06:27:32 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on February 21, 2010, 06:22:55 PM

Does Captain say "Interrupt the battle"?

No it doesn't, which is why you should not have brought it up in the first place. However, your point afterward still needs addressing. Does CotH interrupt Asa's Good Reign or not?

Quote from: Bryon on February 21, 2010, 06:22:55 PM

Interrupt the battle interrupts the BATTLE, not outside cards. It has been that way since Warriors, at least. If the current version of the REG left that out, that was an oversight. It has been asked many times over the years on the newsgroup and messageboards, and always the same answer has been given: Interrupt the battle does not interrupt cards outside of battle.

I was not around during the "newsgroup," and any rulings on the "message boards" did not encounter territory class cards. Why would anyone have to remember past threads anyway? Isn't that what the REG is for?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #28 on:** February 21, 2010, 06:32:52 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2010, 06:27:32 PM

No it doesn't, which is why you should not have brought it up in the first place.

I just looked that up after he posted, and it says:

Play As: Negate all special abilities on characters and enhancements (except banding, weapons, and Captain’s special abilities).

Which brings up a totally unrelated point, that play as for CotH says NOTHING about not negating WC Character abilities. If thats the case, CotH just got a heck of a lot stronger.

crustpope · « **Reply #29 on:** February 21, 2010, 07:03:05 PM »

Wow.. um..

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2010, 05:43:46 PM

Perhaps because its effect is INSIDE the battle.

Not everyone thinks like you, so to treat people of differing opinions as simpletons is annoyingly elitist.

If I came off as an elitist, I apologize. I merely meant to say that my argument would be that the ITB cards limit the scope of their interruption to the battle regardless of what the REG says. I know that others would argue it differently and I was hoping to hear more on those arguments to come to some kind of consensus on this issue. I never meant to sound like someone elses view was wrong, I was merely presenting the way I see it, and an equally valid (read: not superior) alternative to resolving the conflict. I thought I made that clear...but clearly I did not.

I would appreciate it though if you would try to get clarification from me next time before you resort to biting my head off.

Second, Bryons example of "Guards" ( who uses that anyway?) is a great example of what I am talking about. it is an enhancement that is not in battle with an ongoing ability. That is my argument. Asa's good reign, if placed on a king in Territory, should still grant immunity to a Purple King even if someone blocks with Rabby + 2khorses + slave trade or any other battle winner that tries to capture, remove or d/c my King.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #30 on:** February 21, 2010, 07:03:59 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 21, 2010, 06:32:52 PM

Which brings up a totally unrelated point, that play as for CotH says NOTHING about not negating WC Character abilities. If thats the case, CotH just got a heck of a lot stronger.

Um, that's been known pretty much since the WC Captain came out. That's why a lot of people will use the WC Captain and the Warriors TSA, since they both stop WC EC's, but Captain has the benefit of being WC.

Bryon · « **Reply #31 on:** February 21, 2010, 07:17:35 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 20, 2010, 07:51:47 PM

All means all. Are you suggesting that AoCp cannot discard ECs in territory?

My comment about Captain not negating lost souls and artifacts and fortresses was directed at this comment. It has as much to do with the thread as a question about AoCp.

If you want to stick to the actual question at hand, the answer has already been given multiple times:
Interrupt the battle has only ever interrupted special abilities IN BATTLE. I gave the example of Guards, which has existed since Warriors. Interrupt the battle has existed since Women. The ruling has always been the same. I and another playtester both explained that if the old REG is missing that detail, it was an oversight. PLEASE just accept that. I am having to "interrupt" my edits to the new REG to come here and explain this over and over again.

If your intent is to point out that the old REG contains an oversight, then I agree. We've clarified it here. It is in the new REG. Let's move on, please.

If your intent is to argue for a change to the ruling, then I'll let others debate that.

*goes to edit next section of new REG*

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #32 on:** February 21, 2010, 08:49:00 PM »

Let's recap the thread from page 2:

Tim made a ruling and explained the reason why the REG differed, and he even included an example of how even recently "top judges" needed to confer about the conclusion. He was giving credence to my opinion, while informing me of its error. I was fine with this post and would have said nothing more.

That's when Crustpope then posted twice about his opinion that Tim didn't even need to give credence to my opinion since that's the way it should have been ruled anyway. Hence my "petulant" response.

Finally, you (Bryon) interject with an unrelated example directed at an earlier post of mine that was related. Why? In the REG ItB says "all ongoing abilities on enhancements" and AoCp says "all evil characters in play." All means all. CotH says "negate all SAs on characters and enhancements," then he brings up LSs, fortresses, etc. All enhancements means all enhancements. All ECs means all ECs. All enhancements and characters does not mean all cards, nor was I ever implying that. I said repeatedly that my opinion was based on the fact that AGR was an enhancement.

I stated my ruling opinion based on what the REG states. I was wrong and Tim told me why. It could have ended there, but it didn't, yet you are making it seem like I caused that. I will defend my opinion if it is treated as idiotic, which is how Crustpope and Bryon treated it. Tim treated my opinion respectfully and for that I am grateful. As far as I can remember, he was editing the "New REG" too.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #33 on:** February 21, 2010, 09:01:08 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 21, 2010, 07:03:59 PM

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 21, 2010, 06:32:52 PM
Which brings up a totally unrelated point, that play as for CotH says NOTHING about not negating WC Character abilities. If thats the case, CotH just got a heck of a lot stronger.

Um, that's been known pretty much since the WC Captain came out. That's why a lot of people will use the WC Captain and the Warriors TSA, since they both stop WC EC's, but Captain has the benefit of being WC.

... I never realized that till now. LOL. I had always thought CotH let WC characters go by un-negated. Learn something new every day eh?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #34 on:** February 21, 2010, 11:02:17 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 21, 2010, 09:01:08 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 21, 2010, 07:03:59 PM
Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on February 21, 2010, 06:32:52 PM
Which brings up a totally unrelated point, that play as for CotH says NOTHING about not negating WC Character abilities. If thats the case, CotH just got a heck of a lot stronger.

Um, that's been known pretty much since the WC Captain came out. That's why a lot of people will use the WC Captain and the Warriors TSA, since they both stop WC EC's, but Captain has the benefit of being WC.

... I never realized that till now. LOL. I had always thought CotH let WC characters go by un-negated. Learn something new every day eh?

Dangit, I was hoping to use my thing for school today. Thanks a lot, Lambo!

crustpope · « **Reply #35 on:** February 21, 2010, 11:27:03 PM »

Im gonna let this Drop. I have my answer. as far as I am concerned this thread is done

frisian9 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 25, 2010, 10:17:53 AM »

Wow, another good plug for why we need a new REG. It doesn't change the status quo, but helps define it better. How sweet it is!

Mike

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Asa's Good reign (Read 4939 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

Re: Asa's Good reign

Bryon

Re: Asa's Good reign

YourMathTeacher

Re: Asa's Good reign

Lamborghini_diablo

Re: Asa's Good reign

crustpope

Re: Asa's Good reign

Professoralstad

Re: Asa's Good reign

Bryon

Re: Asa's Good reign

YourMathTeacher

Re: Asa's Good reign

Lamborghini_diablo

Re: Asa's Good reign

BubbleBoy

Re: Asa's Good reign

crustpope

Re: Asa's Good reign

frisian9

Re: Asa's Good reign