Author Topic: The Garden Tomb (Read 10345 times)

The Schaef · « **Reply #25 on:** March 11, 2009, 11:04:35 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 11, 2009, 09:52:22 PM

It is a manipulation of semantics because the only reason the ruling has been made is because the card doesn't say "your" or "holder's."

The only reason the other one's are different is because they do say "your" or "holder's".

Quote

I would argue that it doesn't have to, based on the rules for whose characters are allowed in fortresses:

That has nothing to do with how Special Abilities work. Especially when the contents of the Fortress now appear in identifier text.

Quote

It is setting a precedent. No other fortress has ever benefitted anyone other than the holder.

No other Fortress has ever been worded to benefit anyone other than the holder. Again, the ruling is consistent.

Quote from: The Schaef on March 11, 2009, 09:22:40 PM

This policy has been taken to such an extreme

I can't imagine it's taking anything to an extreme, that when a card says "Salome ignores Evil Characters", it means that Salome ignores Evil Characters. Don't you think you're overstating the case a little? Or a lot?

Bryon · « **Reply #26 on:** March 11, 2009, 11:54:17 PM »

Quote from: BrianGabe on March 11, 2009, 10:31:05 PM

After having it explained I see now why it works for other players. TGT grants an ignore ability to specific characters. It doesn't matter who owns or controls those characters. As long as the condition is met the characters listed on TGT will gain the ignore ability.

Bingo. TGT does not give any ability to you/its holder. It only gives an ability to characters. Just like Crown of Thorns doesn't specify. It just effects the characters. TGT was specifically worded that way during playtesting to specifically allow it to work for ALL copies of those characters. It is part of the balance of the card.

The "you" or "your" on ANY card applies ONLY to the holder of the card. So TGT is read from its holder's perspective always. If YOUR opponent, the current opponent of the holder of TGT, has a redeemed soul, then it grants the ignore ability to the 6 heroes.

egilkinc · « **Reply #27 on:** March 12, 2009, 06:12:00 AM »

REG - Glossary - Opponent
An opponent is any other player in the game. However, the word opponent can be specific or general: “Opponent”, “your opponent’”, or “opponent's” means the other player whose character is fighting your character in battle. However, “an opponent”, “any opponent”, “one opponent”, “opponents' ”, or “each opponent” is any player in the game other than you.

What defines when an "opponent" is any other player in the game vs. when the word is specific to the other player whose character is fighting your character in battle? TGT gives the character a special ability, yes, but it is conditional upon the state of my opponent - which seems to me to lean towards the specific understanding.

The Schaef · « **Reply #28 on:** March 12, 2009, 06:37:00 AM »

I don't understand the question, since the answer is in the paragraph you quoted. "Opponent" is the guy you're fighting. "AN opponent" is one of your choice. It depends on the language.

That means that the only two times it applies is when you are attacking someone with these characters, or someone is attacking you with same.

Gabe · « **Reply #29 on:** March 12, 2009, 08:09:19 AM »

OK, I think I get it. So if Gil attacks Bryon with Joanna then he doesn't the bonus from my TGT since neither of them are my opponent for purposes of the current battle?

CountFount · « **Reply #30 on:** March 12, 2009, 09:30:10 AM »

Quote

TGT was specifically worded that way during playtesting to specifically allow it to work for ALL copies of those characters.

Well playtesters, once again we find that you guys play test a card that can only be defined by playing against one of the playtesters. This is a very frustrating aspect of this game. And to ignore this condition of how cards are clear only to those who have a hand in creating them will be the downfall of this game. I realize that there is some marketing appeal to last minute revelations of new cards, but it would be nice if someone in the play testing group had enough incite to prepare the community with these types of precendents. There can be no doubt that this is a new precedent for a fortress. I suggest that when the new cards are revealed that some effort is given to alert the community of new precedents rather than allowing the playtesters the advantage in game play without an explanation even in the REG to support them. How hard can it be with cards that set a new precedent? Go ahead world of play testers ignore the reality of the situation and lawyer my comments to death.

egilkinc · « **Reply #31 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:07:32 AM »

"it would be nice if someone in the play testing group had enough incite to prepare the community with these types of precendents."
I think they have. It has been misunderstanding on our part in regards to 1) whose cards it applies to (your misunderstanding, Fount --> I understood this correctly) and/or when "an opponent" is my "opponent" (my misunderstanding). BTW, it'll get killed quicker than lawyered to death :-)

Along those lines, I had the understanding that in a multi-player game, if the player to my left attacks the player to my right, I can use my Unknown Nation to bring an EC into battle. Of course, I can't find any discussion on it, but it seems to be incorrect now, right?

Bryon · « **Reply #32 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:32:57 AM »

Quote from: CountFount on March 12, 2009, 09:30:10 AM

Quote
TGT was specifically worded that way during playtesting to specifically allow it to work for ALL copies of those characters.

Well playtesters, once again we find that you guys play test a card that can only be defined by playing against one of the playtesters. This is a very frustrating aspect of this game. And to ignore this condition of how cards are clear only to those who have a hand in creating them will be the downfall of this game. I realize that there is some marketing appeal to last minute revelations of new cards, but it would be nice if someone in the play testing group had enough incite to prepare the community with these types of precendents. There can be no doubt that this is a new precedent for a fortress. I suggest that when the new cards are revealed that some effort is given to alert the community of new precedents rather than allowing the playtesters the advantage in game play without an explanation even in the REG to support them. How hard can it be with cards that set a new precedent? Go ahead world of play testers ignore the reality of the situation and lawyer my comments to death.

Wow. Um, Crown of Thorns has been around for a long time. So has Taskmasters (deck C). A lot of cards effect everyone's characters. TGT sets no new precident. If a card doesn't specify WHOSE characters are effected, they all are, right? Must we make a trumpet fanfare announcement that this applies even on fortresses? We didn't make that announcement when it first appeared on a character, or on an artifact. So you misunderstood a card. No one is angry with you. I don't see the need to get defensive, or lash out, or foretell "the downfall of the game."

CountFount · « **Reply #33 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:41:57 AM »

Byron,

Sorry for the lashing out. The precendent is that this is the First Fortress to be used this way. I only want the brain trust to recognize the precedents for what they are and then lay it out there for all.

Back to my old man porridge.

Gabe · « **Reply #34 on:** March 12, 2009, 10:46:20 AM »

Quote from: egilkinc on March 12, 2009, 10:07:32 AM

Along those lines, I had the understanding that in a multi-player game, if the player to my left attacks the player to my right, I can use my Unknown Nation to bring an EC into battle. Of course, I can't find any discussion on it, but it seems to be incorrect now, right?

If you're not being attacked then you can't use Unknown Nation to add a character to battle. I thought the same thing shortly after Priests came out. It would have been a lot cooler card in multiplayer if it worked that way.

The reason for this is that is specifies "opponent's". If it was worded opponents' then it would work the way you thought.

MichaelHue · « **Reply #35 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:02:02 AM »

As, at this point in time, Garden Tomb's ability is not constant in a multi-player game (I have no redeemed souls, players A and B each have one redeemed soul, Player A rescues against Player B with Mary Magdalene, and she doesn't ignore because he attacked the wrong person? Wha?), I think the play as for Garden Tomb should say "If AN opponent has a redeemed soul" for consistency

The Schaef · « **Reply #36 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:17:16 AM »

Quote from: CountFount on March 12, 2009, 09:30:10 AM

Well playtesters, once again we find that you guys play test a card that can only be defined by playing against one of the playtesters.

Or by reading the card and doing what it says. You are only assuming it is supposed to apply only to you based on the way other cards behave, even though it's different than what the card says.

Quote

There can be no doubt that this is a new precedent for a fortress.

A new precedent because it has an ability that works differently than the way other cards have worked? Okay. I thought that was the point of new cards, was not to rehash the same old stuff.

Discarding all cards in battle was ruled a few years ago to be a win for the blocker because it was essentially an evil ability designed to stop a rescue. Then came Samson's Sacrifice, which was a good card that discarded all cards in battle. Is this a wild new precedent? Or do you just do what's on the card and play it like any other card worded the same way, awarding the battle to the blocker? If we suddenly decided that Samson's Sacrifice was a WIN for the good guys, THAT would be a radical change because it goes against the consistency between wording and gameplay. But Samson's Sacrifice's discard-all works the same as Deluge's discard-all.

This is not a radical change in the way Fortresses work; there is no rule that says they only benefit one player. It just happens that they have been worded in such a way that they have only behaved that way so far, and this happens to have one way that an opponent can turn it against you.

Gabe · « **Reply #37 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:18:03 AM »

I agree with the Count that it would be a good idea to preemptively make announcements about new abilities or new uses for card types, prior to their release. I've seen other games do this when cards are being released that introduce a new aspect to the game. Not only does it head off confusion and rules questions but it's a great way to build hype for the new set prior to it's release.

Bryon gave us several great preview articles last summer including one for The Garden Tomb. In the future, one approach to take might be to showcase cards with a new "twist" on a card type or ability and spend some time explaining what's new. In the case of TGT, a Fortress that can also be used by an opponent. A better example of a card that introduced a new way to use an ability is Golden Shield.

Schaef brings up a good example with Sampson's Sacrifice. The preview article is no longer available but I believe it did explain the new aspects on that card. I think it mentioned both the negative number and that a good card that discards all cards in battle would not win a Lost Soul. So Count's suggestion is something that's already being done to a certain extent.

It's great how the playtesters are coming up with new uses for card types and abilities that expand the way we play the game. Wouldn't it be boring if they just kept rehashing the same old abilities on different cards? It shows that there's a lot of design space for this game to continue to grow and expand for a long time to come. I feel like sometimes we get the impression that being a playtester is all fun and games. That's certainly part of it but they also put in a lot of hours of hard work to give us a quality card set. It's not realistic to think that they would be able preempt everything, despite their best efforts. (well, maybe Chris Bany could but that's because he's Chris Bany!)

egilkinc · « **Reply #38 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:38:43 AM »

It's interesting that the preview article mentioned did give an explanation of how to play it. Unfortunately, it was prefaced with "If TGT is in play" which is not quite correct in a multi-player game. If Count Fount had based his understanding of TGT on that article, it would be easy to see how it was misunderstood. We don't hold those articles as official and, therefore probably shouldn't be looked at to introduce and fully explain these new twists. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I see a good forum for accomplishing this outside of fine-tuning the rules beforehand and sticking to them (like it seems to me we have through this thread/ruling).
L8er,
Gil

STAMP · « **Reply #39 on:** March 12, 2009, 11:45:15 AM »

with Schaef and Bryon. There's nothing really new and shocking with TGT. Samson's Sacrifice was also easy for me to digest. If anything, I had more questions and issues with Gold Shield, but in the end like the newness of it for the game in general.

Look, some of us by nature accept change more readily than others. So I will sympathize with those that have sounded the "apocolypse alarm" over TGT.

But I look forward to more new strategies and ideas for Redemption, especially that new type of card Rob was mentioning.

CountFount · « **Reply #40 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:00:52 PM »

Denial Denial Denial...It can't be dark outside because I can't see it.

Gabe · « **Reply #41 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:03:30 PM »

Besides, you can't expect an old dog to learn new tricks, right?

STAMP · « **Reply #42 on:** March 12, 2009, 12:39:41 PM »

Quote from: CountFount on March 12, 2009, 12:00:52 PM

Denial Denial Denial...It can't be dark outside because I can't see it.

I think we have enough Egyptians for now.

Quote from: BrianGabe on March 12, 2009, 12:03:30 PM

Besides, you can't expect an old dog to learn new tricks, right?

What are you talking about? It's the old dogs who caught on with the new tricks in the first place! (or should I say, oldER dogs?

)

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #43 on:** March 12, 2009, 03:19:27 PM »

Quote from: MichaelHue on March 11, 2009, 10:15:30 PM

What I want to know is if this means I can put my enhancements in my opponent's Storehouse (Yes I know I wouldn't be able to get them back)

This would also be awesome in teams.

Actually, TEAM mates were both allowed to put enhs into and take enhs out of the same Storehouse last year, so this isn't anything new for that event.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #44 on:** March 12, 2009, 06:01:28 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on March 12, 2009, 10:32:57 AM

Wow. Um, Crown of Thorns has been around for a long time. So has Taskmasters (deck C). A lot of cards effect everyone's characters. TGT sets no new precident.

Crown of Thorns is an artifact. The rulebook specfically says, "Some artifacts affect all players," on page 11. Character/enhancement abilities are already known to affect all players since the beginning of the game (i.e. Authority of Christ). The rulebook does not say, "Some fortresses affect all players." If this is just common knowledge as y'all are suggesting, then why have the page 11 quote for artifacts? Would that not be superfluous?

SirNobody · « **Reply #45 on:** March 12, 2009, 06:52:53 PM »

Hey,

When storehouse was printed fortresses were "fortress sites" that held characters, but no one argued that storehouse couldn't hold enhancements because fortresses only hold characters. Special abilities on cards always supersede pre-existing assumptions or statements about card types.

The Garden Tomb is a pretty confusing ability but that is hard to avoid when we're trying to create complex abilities and not cover the entire artwork with six point font. The playtesters did a good job of making an ability that is interesting and can be adequately understood if you look at the words on the card carefully enough.

Isn't The Darkness precedent of a Fortress that affects all players?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #46 on:** March 12, 2009, 06:59:12 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on March 12, 2009, 06:52:53 PM

Isn't The Darkness precedent of a Fortress that affects all players?

No. All players do not benefit from the SA. The holder must turn the character over first, by choice.

Quote from: SirNobody on March 12, 2009, 06:52:53 PM

Special abilities on cards always supersede pre-existing assumptions or statements about card types.

Then why does the rulebook say, "Some artifacts affect all players," on page 11? Why would something so terribly obvious be stated?

The Schaef · « **Reply #47 on:** March 12, 2009, 07:12:01 PM »

Two reasons:

1). It's a carryover from when Artifacts were brand-new
2). The rules on which Artifacts benefit only the player and which ones affect all players is a bit screwy, compared to other cards that rely solely on the wording. Otherwise, Thirty Pieces would force you to discard your own Hero after you rescue.
3). What does a stated but "obvious" rule about one type of card have to do with a discussion about a completely different type of card?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #48 on:** March 12, 2009, 07:15:15 PM »

Interesting you should ask #3 since that is the rationale that has been presented.

Here is my question: Why state that "Some artifacts affect all players," but not state "Some fortresses affect all players," since they are both static cards that remain until removed?

SirNobody · « **Reply #49 on:** March 12, 2009, 07:47:24 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 12, 2009, 07:15:15 PM

Here is my question: Why state that "Some artifacts affect all players," but not state "Some fortresses affect all players," since they are both static cards that remain until removed?

Because the last time the rulebook was printed "Some fortresses affect all players" wasn't true. I wouldn't be surprised if the next rulebook did say something to that effect.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

News:

Author Topic: The Garden Tomb (Read 10345 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef