Cactus Game Design Message Boards

The vocal minority on these boards whines far too much.

Really? Are you serious? I'm having trouble believing you actually said that.... We presented our case, we provided logical, concise, and clear reasons and evidences for it, you guys provided only "Some cards in Redemption have no reference.  The end." as the reason for the current 'ruling', and you claim WE are whining? Please, I beg of you to explain to me how that constitutes "whining".

Do you? Do you really? Because you've provided exactly 0 reasons/evidences to support your "It doesn't have a printed reference so therefore it doesn't have a reference at all" 'ruling'. Sure, giving it the Matthew reference would make it combo-able with Matthew, but wouldn't it have been better to design the new cards differently rather than to continue in an inconsistent and baseless 'ruling' that undermines the very basis of the game as a whole?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that none of us have anything better to do than sit here and argue with you just for the sake of arguing. My, isn't your pedestal high. Some may not (I can't speak for everyone), but I have a life thanks very much. I go to college, I work as close to full-time as I can get scheduled for, I hang out with family and friends, I play games in my spare time. Is Redemption going to still be included in that from now on? I don't know. Maybe if you had actually supported your decision with more than just "accept it or move on" it might have lent more credence to your arguments. Redemption being "just a card game" doesn't mean (seemingly) bad rulings and (apparently) flimsy arguments should be allowed to be enough reason for game-changing decisions. If there's a good reason for AoCP and all those other cards not to have references then say it. It would be infinitely closer to an actual resolution than "it doesn't have a reference. deal with it."

I mean no disrespect, and I apologize if anything I've said has come across that way (varying work schedules keeps me almost constantly in a tired state). I merely wish to know why no effort has been given to providing any kind of reason besides that which I posted about above. Are we not worth your time/effort? Do you have something against us?

"We presented our case, we provided logical, concise, and clear reasons and evidences for it"

I would like to see a list of these clear, logical and concise reasons and evidences (both plural) for this argument.

Having read through the thread for the first time, this is my observation of the discussion in brief:
1). Does AoCP recur with Matthew?
2). No, because the ability refers to cards with a certain reference.  The card has no reference on it.
3). The card has a "play-as" reference listed in the REG (this is not correct, btw.  Play-As rewords the special ability.  The scripture reference is listed several points below both the special ability and the play-as.  There is no such thing as a "play-as reference")
4). If the reference in the REG is not supposed to alter the card, it should not be in the REG
5). It's not clear how or why that reference was placed in the REG but it will not appear in any future editions.

A thread that can be distilled into five major points ended up going on for five pages, and resulted in a lot of spam, and accusations that - inexplicably - a card with a condition based on the scripture reference on the card should work even if there is no scripture reference on the card, and that to say otherwise is the single worst ruling in the history of the game, as well as accusations that the elders do not strive for consistency, that erratas are meaningless, that the REG can just be ignored on a whim, and so forth.  And now you're making thinly-veiled threats to leaving the game because of "flimsy arguments" and "inconsistent, baseless rulings that undermine the entire game".  You don't agree this seems like a lot just based a single ruling based on a single, logical premise?

It was stated that if a card is contingent on a certain reference, the reference on the card is the condition that triggers it.  I got burned a long time ago by a misprinted reference on Seeker of the Lost that precludes me from using it in a Luke deck.  It happens.  It was also stated that if printing scripture references in the REG for purposes of edification is only causing confusion, then those references would be removed from future editions.  As far as I can tell, that addresses everything related to this particular ruling question.  I'm not clear on what else remains unresolved on the issue or what about the issue causes a problem for the entire game.

You could look at Gabriel (Ki) vs. Gabriel (Wa). Why were these cards printed with different verses (sorry, references)?

Because they were printed with different references.

Will the Authority of Christ (promo) every recieve a reference?

The card has already been printed.  That horse is already out of the barn.  The only way it can "receive" a reference is if the card itself is given ERRATA to include something that is not on the card.  However, people here have not been arguing to give the card errata, they have been saying that the ruling should include Authority promo ANYWAY.

The issue was raised when the problem with Seeker was discovered, and it was eventually decided not to give the card errata just to "make it more playable".  That's not a guarantee of future results but it's a good indicator of how I expect things to go.

for probably the first time since the inception of the system, you have earned yourself a + 1 RED. and a cookie.

But every card should have some form of refences I don't care if it's from spongebob it needs a reference! Those who say it doesn't need a reference are the ones who make no sense and are wrong.

out of curiosity, what reference would that be?
squidward could be Ecclesiastes 1:2.
Meaningless, Meaningless, everything is meaningless.
LOL

Can you demonstrate to me an example of someone saying a card does not need a reference?

Since Jon supports your claim, I'll accept an answer from him as well.

Does saying a card won't have a reference count?

I'm guesing that years ago, Mike thought it would be nice to have that so that players could know what story the card is based on.  Maybe so they could look it up and read about it.  He could have just as easily listed Mark 8 or Luke 8 (and then we wouldn't be having this discussion... yet).

But it is NOT errata.  It is not an official part of the card.  It will not appear in the new REG, so that it does not cause confusion.  Treat it currently as a way to look up the story, and nothing more.  It is not an official addition to the card, just like the Luke reference in the Seeker of the Lost entry is not official.

so why does AoC (pr) not have a reference?

Bryon said some cards don't have a reference and I take that as don't need a reference.

Why do you take it that way?  To say a card does not have a reference is only a statement of fact.

I think the total number of cards with no reference are less than twenty, and I'm not sure that ANY of those come after somewhere around 2003ish.  Does this sound to you like it doesn't matter whether a card has a reference or not?  If it did not matter, wouldn't there be more cards like this?  Wouldn't there still be cards printed today without them?

Here is a list of cards that are officially referenceless, and therefore testamentless:

Promos:
Authority of Christ
Water to wine
Brass serpent
Caleb
Chastisement of the Lord
Frog Demons
Joab
John
Joshua (non WC)
King David
King Solomon
Love
Mary's Prophetic Act
Rage
Samson
Goliath (Unless I Sammuel is a book nobody knows about...)

Non promos:
Saul/Paul

And my response to Oh it was a typo on goliath! Well... if we're to look at the exact printing for the other cards, why not Goliath? I Sammuel does not exist.

How do you determine a Testament if they have no reference?

Smokey wins the thread. Reference: Chuck Norris. GG.

Do you mean 4?  That card has a reference on it.

josephus is a book of the bible?

It has a reference it just isn't biblical.