Author Topic: Matthew Vs AoCP (Read 7834 times)

Isildur · « **Reply #50 on:** August 20, 2010, 11:45:19 AM »

But then couldnt I use a copy of backwards shadow or brass serpent to reset your Thomas?

The M · « **Reply #51 on:** August 20, 2010, 01:06:32 PM »

no! just use face of death after you have poisoned all other heroes.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #52 on:** August 20, 2010, 04:36:06 PM »

well im glad we've got that settled (even if its for reasons i dont understand).

side battle with AoC (non promo) FTW

The Warrior · « **Reply #53 on:** August 20, 2010, 05:33:35 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 20, 2010, 12:49:02 AM

Matthew (Di)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Purple • Ability: 7 / 7 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may draw up to X cards (limit 3) or search discard pile for a good Enhancement with a Matthew reference and place it beneath deck. • Play As: You may draw up to X cards (limit 3) or search discard pile for a good Matthew enhancement and place it beneath deck. • Identifiers: NT Male Human, Disciple • Verse: Luke 6:13-16 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()

Professoralstad · « **Reply #54 on:** August 20, 2010, 05:36:41 PM »

We all know the Play As says Matthew Enhancement. But a Play As doesn't actually change how cards work. It was made a Play As for linking reasons for the new cards in the new REG, but it doesn't change the fact that the card says Matthew reference.

Arch Angel · « **Reply #55 on:** August 20, 2010, 05:37:19 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on August 20, 2010, 01:23:46 AM

But, the play-as wasn't given to clarify or change the SA. It means nothing, it was just used for linking purposes in the REG.

Quote from: Arch Angel on August 20, 2010, 01:24:28 AM

That, along with almost every play as currently in the REG, is just there to auto-link to terms. It is not a change to Matthew's SA.

I think they need a new term for a Play As that's really just for linking. It's too confusing to call it a play as.

Master_Chi · « **Reply #56 on:** August 20, 2010, 05:52:03 PM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on August 20, 2010, 10:27:47 AM

I don't know why this is such a big deal because with one of the new disciples, the AoC becomes the AoCP because it cannot be negated on him. Just recur that one instead because it does have a reference "on the card"...

Paul works too....

The M · « **Reply #57 on:** August 20, 2010, 06:01:21 PM »

genius moment.
get aoc back and play it on thomas!
yayame!

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #58 on:** August 21, 2010, 01:01:42 AM »

And its not really hard to recur AoCp, just mix white in, Then you have a deck that can use Disciples and TGT women (with TGT) and you can recur AOCp with Lost Coin Found or Moses and Elders, and you fix the problem with the Matthew reference.

3-Liner And Bags Of Chips · « **Reply #59 on:** August 21, 2010, 01:20:46 AM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 21, 2010, 01:01:42 AM

And its not really hard to recur AoCp, just mix white in, Then you have a deck that can use Disciples and TGT women (with TGT) and you can recur AOCp with Lost Coin Found or Moses and Elders, and you fix the problem with the Matthew reference.

SHHHHHHHHHH you don let me secret out the bag xp

JSB23 · « **Reply #60 on:** August 21, 2010, 10:04:38 AM »

I for one found this discussion very interesting,
Now I know I can ignore what the REG says whenever it would be inconvenient for me

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #61 on:** August 21, 2010, 10:15:44 AM »

Quote from: JSB23 on August 21, 2010, 10:04:38 AM

I for one found this discussion very interesting,
Now I know I can ignore what the REG says whenever it would be inconvenient for me

Opponent plays a battlewinner: "discard your dude."
JSB: "nope, the REG may list that card as having a special ability, but its actually a 2/2 no ability enhancement with no reference."

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #62 on:** August 22, 2010, 01:12:25 AM »

sad really- and we dont even care if its too powerful or not. just if we can count on the consistancy of the rules...i think its about security really. there are players that feel abandoned by thier game. with statements as JSB's above

Quote

whenever it would be inconvenient for me

peolpe just want to know they can be given a certain perimeter to function and even a little scolding if they push the boundries too far. aka 16 card hand limit, one side battle per turn per player, remove card instead (and dont even get me going on the new instead abilities) character cant be immune to self (does this include protects as well?)- but to be given a certain perimeter and then shorten it suddenly without even a good explanation? well it sort of feels like what a dog would suffer, when its leash is jerked to hard by its master- a little hard to swallow, if you will.

Bryon · « **Reply #63 on:** August 22, 2010, 09:23:13 PM »

I'm sorry you feel jerked around by your misinterpretaion of a mysterious REG entry.

AoCp has no reference, and has never had errata to give it one.

The answer to this question has been answered conssistently by every elder on this thread. It has been ruled the same way all the way from inception, through playtesting until this very moment. Nothing has changed. If you feel jerked around, it is because you thought that something was added to AoCp when it wasn't. It is a simple misunderstanding. Those "in case you want to look it up" references will be removed from the REG in the next update.

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #64 on:** August 22, 2010, 09:50:25 PM »

Just for fun and because I'm not veteran enough to have seen this type of ruling, but, does AOCP usurp fortresses? I mean, I don't see why everyone's so "AOCP is way op'd" because if my Headquarters at Riblah is protecting my territory based Babs, then there isn't too much to worry about.

If a card is absolutely unstoppable by any means, THEN I say the card MIGHT be Op'd. Just my curious non-caring 2 cents. <<Please don't get offended or over-excited about my opinion because I just see it simply as a game. If my peeps get the boot, then that tells me to keep at least 1 character in hand (Preferably one who can get some of my posse back from the mausoleum).

-C_S

Master KChief · « **Reply #65 on:** August 22, 2010, 10:00:41 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on August 22, 2010, 09:23:13 PM

I'm sorry you feel jerked around by your misinterpretaion of a mysterious REG entry.

misinterpetation? how can you possibly misinterpret something that is blatantly there? as for 'mysterious', i raise the hogwash flag. the original had the matthew verse. it stands to logically reason that the verse was put in the reg for aocp because it is the verse.

JSB23 · « **Reply #66 on:** August 22, 2010, 10:04:09 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on August 22, 2010, 10:00:41 PM

Quote from: Bryon on August 22, 2010, 09:23:13 PM
I'm sorry you feel jerked around by your misinterpretaion of a mysterious REG entry.

misinterpetation? how can you possibly misinterpret something that is blatantly there? as for 'mysterious', i raise the hogwash flag. the original had the matthew verse. it stands to logically reason that the verse was put in the reg for aocp because it is the verse.

It's a misinterpretation because you think the REG still means something

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #67 on:** August 22, 2010, 10:06:26 PM »

Quote from: JSB23 on August 22, 2010, 10:04:09 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on August 22, 2010, 10:00:41 PM
Quote from: Bryon on August 22, 2010, 09:23:13 PM
I'm sorry you feel jerked around by your misinterpretaion of a mysterious REG entry.

misinterpetation? how can you possibly misinterpret something that is blatantly there? as for 'mysterious', i raise the hogwash flag. the original had the matthew verse. it stands to logically reason that the verse was put in the reg for aocp because it is the verse.
It's a misinterpretation because you think the REG still means something

You mean the 'GER' as in "GERRRRRRRR, it's so frustrating!!!!" (Only because it seems like the REG/GER frustrates you... frankly, I just go by what's said on the boards.)

Gabe · « **Reply #68 on:** August 22, 2010, 10:15:23 PM »

The vocal minority on these boards whines far too much.

You've got your ruling. A few of you don't like it. We get it.

It's just a card game folks. Time to move on with your life.

News:

Author Topic: Matthew Vs AoCP (Read 7834 times)

Lamborghini_diablo