Author Topic: Matthew Vs AoCP 2 (Read 11901 times)

The M · « **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:51:17 AM »

ohhh... they should make a card where you can search for one card with no or a non-biblical reference.

crustpope · « **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:53:51 AM »

OK, starting a second thread after the first has been firmly ruled upon is uncalled for. You arent changing anything you are only stirring the pot.

Second, is it possible that the reference was left off of the card for this very reason? ( or better yet, that Matthew was worded in such a way as to make it impossible for him to reccur AoCP?)

It has been established that the verse in the reg was added only as a refference and does not change the playability of the card in anyway. Cards are what they are at face value unless they have an erratta or a Play as...this one has neither that is applicable to your issue. THe card simply does not work that way, and for one I applaud the playttesters for closing that loop. Use AoC and take your chances that it can be negated, but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.

So please just let this one drop...or better yet, delete the thread because this is only going to end badly.

Smokey · « **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:56:17 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 10:53:51 AM

but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.

Every other combo that can recur CBN battle winners every turn including AoCp says hi.

The M · « **Reply #28 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:57:35 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 10:53:51 AM

OK, starting a second thread after the first has been firmly ruled upon is uncalled for. You arent changing anything you are only stirring the pot.

Second, is it possible that the reference was left off of the card for this very reason? ( or better yet, that Matthew was worded in such a way as to make it impossible for him to reccur AoCP?)

It has been established that the verse in the reg was added only as a refference and does not change the playability of the card in anyway. Cards are what they are at face value unless they have an erratta or a Play as...this one has neither that is applicable to your issue. THe card simply does not work that way, and for one I applaud the playttesters for closing that loop. Use AoC and take your chances that it can be negated, but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.

So please just let this one drop...or better yet, delete the thread because this is only going to end badly.

no, you're thinking of....

really guys. quit the thread. yeah. you heard me. yeah.

crustpope · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2010, 10:59:46 AM »

Quote from: Smokey on August 23, 2010, 10:56:17 AM

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 10:53:51 AM
but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.

Every other combo that can recur CBN battle winners every turn including AoCp says hi.

Alright, Im calling you out. Give me an INFINTELY reccurable CBN battle winner combo. bonus points if you can do it with AOCP.

browarod · « **Reply #30 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:02:25 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 23, 2010, 08:12:28 AM

I'm not clear on what else remains unresolved on the issue or what about the issue causes a problem for the entire game.

All I'm asking is why it was ruled however many years ago that the cards without a printed reference just wouldn't have a reference. Why is disassociating them from the Bible and many other cards in the game better than treating them as having references despite not being printed? That's what is as yet unresolved. If an errata is the only thing you'll accept then consider this a request to consider such. The issue causing a problem for the entire game is new players wondering why there are these cards that don't have references when the game is supposed to be based on the Bible.

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 10:53:51 AM

OK, starting a second thread after the first has been firmly ruled upon is uncalled for. You arent changing anything you are only stirring the pot.

Second, is it possible that the reference was left off of the card for this very reason? ( or better yet, that Matthew was worded in such a way as to make it impossible for him to reccur AoCP?)

It has been established that the verse in the reg was added only as a refference and does not change the playability of the card in anyway. Cards are what they are at face value unless they have an erratta or a Play as...this one has neither that is applicable to your issue. THe card simply does not work that way, and for one I applaud the playttesters for closing that loop. Use AoC and take your chances that it can be negated, but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.

So please just let this one drop...or better yet, delete the thread because this is only going to end badly.

What was uncalled for was the closing of the other thread with a (seemingly) cop out answer and the deletion of other members' posts rather than answering them directly. If asking for a legitimate reason for a decision is "stirring the pot" then I suppose that's what this is.

Second, they could have given the referenceless cards references and then simply worded new cards (like Matthew) differently to prevent such things.

So perhaps an errata should be considered? There were multiple things they could have done to "close the loop" as you say, I'm just trying to get a straight answer as to why they picked this one. "Infinitely recurable" is relative. You do realize how easy it is to get rid of a hero in today's game, right? Christian Martyr, a well-timed Grapes of Wrath, deck discard, hand discard, hero discard/capture/removal/etc. Need I go on?

Honestly, the only reason this would "end badly" is if people that aren't contributing keep posting. Please don't tell me what to do. I want to see this through to its conclusion and your comments are not achieving such. Thanks for posting though

.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #31 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:09:51 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 10:59:46 AM

Alright, Im calling you out. Give me an INFINTELY reccurable CBN battle winner combo. bonus points if you can do it with AOCP.

1) Gather elishana.
2) discard moses and elders.
3. Ra elishana, place moses and elders on maharai, band to him, grab aocp from the discard with M&E, band to claudia, band to ET, play AoCP.

My little creation.

Master KChief · « **Reply #32 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:10:17 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 10:59:46 AM

Quote from: Smokey on August 23, 2010, 10:56:17 AM
Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 10:53:51 AM
but an infinitley reccurrable CBN battle winner is way OP and EVERYONE here knows it.

Every other combo that can recur CBN battle winners every turn including AoCp says hi.

Alright, Im calling you out. Give me an INFINTELY reccurable CBN battle winner combo. bonus points if you can do it with AOCP.

you really need to talk to lambo.

crustpope · « **Reply #33 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:12:15 AM »

First of all I read the entire post and I dont know how much clearere the PTB could have been. AoCP does NOT have a Matthew reference and there fore cannot be reccured.

Second...OR they could have worded matthew in such a way that it specifically EXCLUDES referenceless cards that are already printed...YOu cant un-release a card and if it has a reference (or doesnt) then you have to work around it.

and infinitely reccurable is more likely with all the protection that heros have ( Lay donw your life in the new disciples card) Grapes is only a stall. Capture can be fixed with IAR, discard can be healed with Brass serpent... not too many evil converts in the game but even that can be fixed by another convert.

There are lots of ways to keep matthew alive and while he is alive, an infinitley reccurable AOCP FOR NO COST, is a bad thing. IMO it is bad enough that he can reccur AoC, band to thomas and play it CBN.

At MKC and Lambo... yeah, that isnt hard to break up at all....

But I will give you bonus points for the recursion of AoCP.

I will admit, that is a neat little trick , but is is much easier to disrupt than Mathew simply entering battle.

Master KChief · « **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:14:18 AM »

king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.

Bryon · « **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:14:41 AM »

Why should there be a Uriah that isn't warrior class? Should we add warrior class retroactively to cards that should have it but don't? Do we add things that are missing to cards? No, because the game still works without it.

When Eli the Priest was printed in RoA, he was supposed to be teal and gold, but only the gold got printed. Do we retroactively add the brigade? Do we add something that is missing from a card? No, because the game still works without it.

Seeker of the Lost was supposed to have a Luke reference ("seek and save the lost"). Instead, it got the same reference as Soldier of God (an accident based on the old "use the previous card as a template" strategy). Do we change the Seeker reference to something that is not on the card? No, because the game still works without it.

There are less than 20 cards that do not have references printed on them. They are still based on the bible, even if a reference isn't listed. They still have a brigade and can function in the game. The game still works without adding those things to the card.

We prefer to have LESS errata in the game, not more. The errata that is typically added to cards is to fix misspellings, double negatives, and broken, unfun cards.

Smokey · « **Reply #36 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:16:24 AM »

You act like he adds AoCp to hand / battle, and he doesn't.
He puts it in possibly the worst place for a usable enhancement to be.

The Schaef · « **Reply #37 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:21:15 AM »

Quote from: browarod on August 23, 2010, 11:02:25 AM

All I'm asking is why it was ruled however many years ago that the cards without a printed reference just wouldn't have a reference.

There are a lot of cards with problems very much like that. Misprints, poor wording, rule changes that affect old wording... sometimes things fall through the cracks and you just have to live with what's already done. You can request an errata and you may or may not get it, but the point is people were not asking for an errata and being shot down. They were asking to treat a card as having something that it does not have, just because, and that it is horrible and inconsistent not to do this. The fact of the matter is that the answers provided were an adequate and supported reason to rule the card as it is now. Requiring an errata to change the outcome demonstrates that the current outcome is correct as per the current rules.

Neither do I think the entire game is going to break down into chaos just because 99% of the cards have a scripture reference and a handful of promotional cards do not. People are not going to look at 2,500 cards with a reference, then look at the Samson promo and assume the game does not have biblical underpinnings. That argument does not make sense to me.

Quote

Second, they could have given the referenceless cards references and then simply worded new cards (like Matthew) differently to prevent such things.

It makes less sense to errata 20 other cards for the sake of wording one slightly differently. The card does exactly what is intended right now. If AoCP had such a reference, and the desire was to cut out AoCP, there would have been a different direction taken. The condition of the Matthew reference is to make the card fit within a theme; that it also happens to exclude AoCP is a convenient way to solve that problem at the same time, not a deliberate dodge.

Also, since there are still five pages of discussion in the locked thread, it also does not make sense to accuse people of deleting posts that don't agree with the ruling. There are a lot of those posts still in place. So logically, there had to be another reason for that.

browarod · « **Reply #38 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:29:34 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on August 23, 2010, 11:21:15 AM

Also, since there are still five pages of discussion in the locked thread, it also does not make sense to accuse people of deleting posts that don't agree with the ruling. There are a lot of those posts still in place. So logically, there had to be another reason for that.

I never claimed to know why the posts were deleted, I just took note of other people complaining in the Off-Topic section thread that there posts had been deleted rather than answered. If whoever deleted them had a valid reason, then they could/should have said that in the thread so that the people knew why their posts had been deleted.

crustpope · « **Reply #39 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:33:24 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 23, 2010, 11:14:18 AM

king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.

Nope, not infinite, you have to sacrifice a card from hand to recurr AoCP. THis well will eventually run dry.

The Schaef · « **Reply #40 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:34:55 AM »

Saying "deleted rather than answered" directly implies the reason you believe they were deleted.

I repeat my assertions that the questions posed were answered, and that they are neither inconsistent nor baseless.

Smokey · « **Reply #41 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:45:29 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 11:33:24 AM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 23, 2010, 11:14:18 AM
king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.

Nope, not infinite, you have to sacrifice a card from hand to recurr AoCP. THis well will eventually run dry.

Gather lemmuel to ET and use philosophy, also Gleaning the Fields lets your recur any good enhancement your opponent is using.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #42 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:45:56 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 11:33:24 AM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 23, 2010, 11:14:18 AM
king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.
Nope, not infinite, you have to sacrifice a card from hand to recurr AoCP. THis well will eventually run dry.

Gather ET. Search for Philosophy.

EDIT: Instaposted. Gathering ET or Lemuel both work, but it depends if you'd rather clog your hand or play first.

crustpope · « **Reply #43 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:54:45 AM »

ET would have to be tgathered because you would have to search for philosophy to d/c it when you band to lemeuel.

I am noticing a gathering trend here. All of these combos require a lot of set up, and they also are very succeptible to multiple counters...which is why they are likely more tolerable than a matthew no cost AocP search/place under deck.

All of these combos so far are succeptible to DD, HHI, and anything that negates/protects against search such as HSR.

But it really doesnt matter because my Strong Demon (di) says "Whatev's" to AoCP.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #44 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:58:33 AM »

Unless of course AoCP is played before strong demon is in battle... not like thats hard to do.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #45 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:59:30 AM »

ET Gathered to Lemmy - Search then Exchange
Lemmy Gathered to ET - Exchange (using what you searched for last turn) then Search (for next turn's exchange)

Setting aside with Gathering isn't 'a lot' of set up. Very few counters are commonly played, how often do you see DD, HHI, etc in a competitive environment? Your biggest problem is winning the battle.

That being said, it really isn't that powerful. Discard is one of the easiest things to counter, and assuming you do the Matthew->Thomas band it will be difficult to get initiative to play boat (not sure. I don't know their abilities off hand).

Daniel TS RED · « **Reply #46 on:** August 23, 2010, 12:00:39 PM »

Don't you guys think they knew this would be a potential combo? And that they knew in advance that they were not going to let it work? Honestly, who wants aocp to be able to be used more than once? Talk about every1 use'n purple, the game will get boring, superfast. I understand it's great to voice your opinion about things, but you also need to respect the ones with the authority.

Daniel

Master_Chi · « **Reply #47 on:** August 23, 2010, 03:10:36 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on August 23, 2010, 11:45:29 AM

Quote from: crustpope on August 23, 2010, 11:33:24 AM
Quote from: Master KChief on August 23, 2010, 11:14:18 AM
king lemuel/zeal. another infinitely recurrable cbn battle winner.

Nope, not infinite, you have to sacrifice a card from hand to recurr AoCP. THis well will eventually run dry.

Gather lemmuel to ET and use philosophy, also Gleaning the Fields lets your recur any good enhancement your opponent is using.

The only thing leaving your hand is Lemuel, who returns to your draw pile.....?

Gleaning = FTW.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #48 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:44:12 PM »

Quote from: browarod on August 23, 2010, 11:29:34 AM

Quote from: The Schaef on August 23, 2010, 11:21:15 AM
Also, since there are still five pages of discussion in the locked thread, it also does not make sense to accuse people of deleting posts that don't agree with the ruling. There are a lot of those posts still in place. So logically, there had to be another reason for that.
I never claimed to know why the posts were deleted, I just took note of other people complaining in the Off-Topic section thread that there posts had been deleted rather than answered. If whoever deleted them had a valid reason, then they could/should have said that in the thread so that the people knew why their posts had been deleted.

Yes it would have been better to have had some feedback on my post rather than just deleting it like that. It wasnt offencive and i tried to apologize about the whole feeling like being jerked around like a dog on a chain thing too- because it seemed like i offended bryon with that one so i was trying to make myself more clear on what i was trying to say. MKC also made some valid points on how the players arguing thier point were doing it in a logical way that really made sense and were looking for straight answers to straight questions rather that being told they were just misinterpreting the answers given. im over it, but i think it was def mishandled.
oh and

browarod

The Schaef · « **Reply #49 on:** August 23, 2010, 11:58:18 PM »

MKCs total contribution to the thread, minus whatever might have been deleted since then, was that the ruling - that a card without a reference has no reference - was horrible, and that if the verse included in the REG was not an errata that it should be removed. The posters on the thread were informed no fewer than three times that the verse would be removed, and that the entire thing was a simple misunderstanding, and STILL he accused the elders of dealing with him dishonestly ("hogwash", I believe, was the term employed).

My involvement in this redux of the thread has been to determine what exactly people think should have been answered but was not. So far I haven't seen anything that was not answered in the original thread, so I am still wondering about these legitimate questions that were deleted rather than answered.

News: