Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
I'm pretty sure 90% of this forum would suggest the first rule you posted in this response was actually the rule. I realize that it is not the rule, but that's how pretty much everyone states it.
How don't sites have an inherent protect ability? Game rule as stated grants them an inherent protect ability. There's no reason why that shouldn't extend to dominants (other than arbitrarily believing old language left over from Womens, which seems stupid seeing how much inconsistent language and poorly expressed rules we have from olden times still).
You know what Alec, I enjoy "grasping for straws" and arguing for obscure rulings and arguing against the status quo. I think it helps force people who pay attention to these sorts of threads to reexamine different rules and rulings and look at why some rules are the way they are. You, yourself, learned something in this thread by discovering that dominants and fortresses don't have brigades, which you apparently believed, considering how vehemently you argued that they did. Last time, in the Split Altar thread, we actually ended up uncovering a pretty huge inconsistency with the rules, and I'd call that a major victory, even if the Elders have refused to do anything about it. So if I want to argue for rulings like this, I'll do it, because it's certainly not doing any harm to the forum, and every once in a while some visible good comes of it. I'm sorry if it annoys you, but you're free to just ignore my posts if they really bother you so much you feel the need to argue with me half the time I post.
The problem with arguing points that you know are not going to make a difference (like this one--obviously SoG/NJ will be able to rescue from sites as they always have) is that your persistence necessitates involvement from those of us who are supposed to be ruling authorities, which takes our time away from other pursuits that may be more helpful to the community.
I was stalling until I could find better evidence, although I didn't think that dominants had brigades I also didn't inherently think they didn't. I wasn't using something I knew was false I was using something that was flimsy but might have worked, I didn't believe it was going to but it was worth a shot. This is different from bringing up a resolved beaten to death issue that already has several rulings and a cult following.
I do have have a substantial argument against it, sites only restrict heroes, you have no substantial argument for it yet you continue to argue it. Hi Pot, I'm Kettle nice to meet you.
I apologize for wasting your time then.
Quote from: Chronic Apathy on March 19, 2012, 11:39:54 AMI apologize for wasting your time then.Don't worry, I waste plenty of my time all by myself on these forums. But I may not always be in the mood to procrastinate from my other responsibilities, and when that occurs, it's nice to be able to spend the time I do have addressing more pressing issues. Like how we can make sure to design a card from the new set that everyone complains about and still builds decks from anyway. Yeah, I remember when I suggested: "Hey, if we're reprinting Judges, I think Samuel could use a reprint!"
postcount.add(1);
Ok, point I haven't seen made yet....From a biblical standpoint, does it even make sense that there would even be a site or person that the Son of God (Jesus) would have access to? NT only and */4 only notwithstanding, it seems to make good sense anyway that SoG would have access to LS in sites, because who can withstand Him?
Prior to the new rules you could have made that argument, but now that you can't rescue your own LSs with SOG that argument is nerfed.
your Son of God could rescue all the LSs in my LoB
Not really. From a theology standpoint, it doesn't make ANY sense for there to be 2 Sons of God in a game, and yet virtually every game does (yours and mine).
Author
Topic: SoG not as powerful?? can it be true? (Read 7520 times)
