Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yes, JT is a protect ability now.

And if the change was made just to "Make JT playable" then I'd like to re-visit Split Altar

How is any judge who didn't read this (or any related thread) on the board supposed to know which (if any) of these are the case (and hence have the capability of ruling correctly)?

I would not expect a judge to know every single REG entry by heart, but if it comes up during a game, the REG is correct so a judge would simply need to have access to the current REG to rule on this particular card. Also, "restrict" will be added as a definition in the new REG.

Quote from: MJB

How is any judge who didn't read this (or any related thread) on the board supposed to know which (if any) of these are the case (and hence have the capability of ruling correctly)?

I would not expect a judge to know every single REG entry by heart, but if it comes up during a game, the REG is correct so a judge would simply need to have access to the current REG to rule on this particular card. Also, "restrict" will be added as a definition in the new REG.

Jerusalem Tower (Pa)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No opponent may remove a card from holder's draw pile. Draw pile may still be searched and/or shuffled. • Play As: Restrict opponents' from removing cards from holder’s deck. Deck may still be searched, revealed, and/or shuffled. • Identifiers: Play to territory. • Verse: Nehemiah 12:38 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)

Guardian, how does that help?

Someone raises the question, so I go look at the REG, and I see "Restrict opponents..." For as long as I have been playing/judging "Blah-blah-blah opponents yada-yada-yada" has always been the wording used for negates[1]. The wording used for protects has always been "No so-on-and-so-forth can be..."[2]. Looking at the REG entry, I would rule that JT is a negate.

If you are claiming that the word "Restrict" denotes a protect--and as such overrules the years of using the phrasing to decide sa intent--how is a judge to know that outside if this (and possibly related) threads on the board?

[1] See REG entry for Hezekiah's Signet Ring both SA and Play As, as an example.
[2] See REG entry for Blue Tassel's both SA and Play As, as an example.

Jerusalem Tower (Pa)
...
 • Play As: Restrict opponents' from removing cards from holder’s deck.
...

This is most certainly not your grandfathers' english grammar.   

Cute, but even a prevent ability only affects SAs on cards.

It seems to me that there is a typo in this REG entry. STAMP pointed out the unusually placed apostrophe. However, it is possible that the word "cards" was supposed to come after "opponents'."

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 31, 2010, 12:05:47 AM

Cute, but even a prevent ability only affects SAs on cards.

It prevents your opponents' special abilities from removing cards from your deck

And right now it restricts your opponents' special abilities from removing cards from your deck, so your point is moot.

I think the elders need to find out whether this was indeed a misprint and "cards" was supposed to be typed next to "opponents'."

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 31, 2010, 02:12:53 PM

I think the elders need to find out whether this was indeed a misprint and "cards" was supposed to be typed next to "opponents'."

And once you add the word "cards" the Play As  is still phrased exactly as a prevent ability.

No, it is phrased exactly as a "restrict" ability. However, there is no current REG definition of "restrict."  

So--getting back to my original point--after reading the REG (which I did prior to my first question), even an experienced judge has absolutely no chance of ruling on ReyZen's question correctly unless they read this (and possibly related) threads.

This is a problem.

I do not disagree. This has been a problem for quite some time. There are many threads that have illuminated this problem. If you are just adding more light, then welcome to the club.  

In the mean time, we hosts just do the best we can, realizing that we may make a ruling that is completely wrong and will be contradicted in the involved players' next tournament. Then, friends of those players will post on here about how the host made an incorrect ruling and lead all their sheep astray.

Poop sounds alot like scoop, but they don't do the same thing.

Poop sounds alot like scoop, but they don't do the same thing.

I agree with LN, this was quoteworthy

Poop sounds alot like scoop, but they don't do the same thing.

Too bad we're talking about definitions

Quote from: JSB23 on January 01, 2011, 11:40:32 PM

Too bad we're talking about definitions

We were? Oh, my apologies. Please quote me the REG definition of "Restrict" used for Redemption game play purposes and I'll be happy to continue talking.

OK

Also, "restrict" will be added as a definition in the new REG.

Oops, it appears that restrict does not have a definition in the current REG.

For every other word that does not have a specific in-game meaning, standard English usage takes precedence. Given that JSB's definition is a (more-or-less) standard definition of the word that is what a judge would have to use--isn't it?  Since I know you are not just arguing for the sake of arguing, could you please explain why you believe (as a judge) that you should treat the word restrict differently than how JSB defined it, or are you claiming the word has absolutely no meaning in the game lacking a REG definition?  If the latter, what do you do with JT's special ability--would you just have us pretend that it doesn't exist?*

*Once again I am asking you to answer from the point of view of a judge who does not spend hours perusing these boards, and depends on the wording on the card, the rules, and the REG solely for guidance.

This sort of arbitrary ruling flux strikes me as a very serious problem for the game. Would any of the PTB care to comment on how a host can do an acceptable job of judging without spending hours on the boards--or is spending X hours a week on the boards now considered a requirement for hosting?