Cactus Game Design Message Boards

May use Dukem Nukem forever regardless of brigade

Negate this card if "byLenis" appears anywhere in the room (including on this card)

Can not be negated if Jericho the movie is in play

AoCp has no reference.  Therefore, AoCp is not a Matthew enhancement.

A New Beginning has no "remove this card from the game to" on it. Therefore, ANB doesn't remove itself from the game.

I thought that was what the REG was for, among other things: to clarify things that, for whatever reason, aren't directly printed on cards. I understand why it would be very bad to be able to recur AoCP, but it makes things very inconsistent overall (and gives unwritten protect effects to any characters without printed references) when cards that don't have printed references are outside of time and space. I never understood why those promos didn't get their references (they do have references, they just don't have "printed" references) printed on them to begin with.

Once again, another argument that would be fixed with simple consistency...if the original card had a reference, the promo card should also have a reference, end of story. Was this done specifically because the playtesters were too scared of seeing a recurring AoCp?...with all of the other craziness in this set, I would argue that's the LEAST of their concerns...

So, if I'm playing Emperors / Any NT character without a reference on it I can't use Herod's temple's effect on them?

Worst. Ruling. Ever.

The key to all of this is the word reference.  That means that the card has a Book/Chapter/Verse in the scripture box on the card.

So, if I'm playing Emperors / Any NT character without a reference on it I can't use Herod's temple's effect on them?

Herod's Temple does not use the word reference so any NT character will qualify, whether or not there is a NT reference on the card.

matthew doesnt say to search for an enhancement with a matthew reference on the card.

On the card is redundant and not needed.  Where else are you going to look for a card's reference?  In the REG?  Sheesh!

I would argue that consistancy is needed, but that isn't the goal of redemption, so I'll stick with childish insults in capslock.

A Matthew enhancement is an enhancement with a Matthew reference.  AoCp has no reference.  Therefore, AoCp is not a Matthew enhancement.

Duke Nukem Forever: Soon
People who pretend that the word Matthew appears on my face: -9001

YOUR FACE DOESN'T HAVE A REFERENCE.

On the card is redundant and not needed.  Where else are you going to look for a card's reference?  In the REG?  Sheesh!

Thats the first place I look for things anymore, and It would be better to just play things like they say on the card since the reg is so misleading, my ANBs no longer remove themselves from the game.

Where else are you going to look for a card's reference?  In the REG?  Sheesh!

If rulings can/should be made using only the information printed on cards then all erratas are useless and do not apply. If the REG is acceptable for rulings but not for "references" then the inapplicable information should be removed as it is useless and does not apply (what's the point in AoCP having a "reference" if it cannot be targeted, affected, or even considered using that information?). Either way, the status quo is not where it should be.

...because it has a reference?

Why would references be added to those cards in the REG on purpose if they aren't ever supposed to be used or noticed or mentioned? I mean, obviously it was deliberate (the REG update thread even notes, "A few cards do not have verses printed on the text. The following texts have been given to them and will appear in the REG card descriptions..."), so I'm a bit lost.

Why would references be added to those cards in the REG on purpose if they aren't ever supposed to be used or noticed or mentioned? I mean, obviously it was deliberate (the REG update thread even notes, "A few cards do not have verses printed on the text. The following texts have been given to them and will appear in the REG card descriptions..."), so I'm a bit lost.

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 kook 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.

Thomas + Aoc recursion FTW! 

Man, now you let one of my cats out of its bag..... drat.

And there you go...