Author Topic: Unresolved Rulings (Read 15129 times)

COUNTER_SNIPER · « **Reply #75 on:** July 21, 2011, 05:11:11 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on July 21, 2011, 01:32:56 PM

Muy Bueno!

I second what the Frenchman just said!

Carry On,

-C_S

Kor · « **Reply #76 on:** August 03, 2011, 03:29:11 AM »

Any chance on getting the definition of a played enhancement done before nationals so we can know how it should be played/ruled? It is kinda important.

Gabe · « **Reply #77 on:** August 03, 2011, 04:13:17 PM »

Quote from: Kor on August 03, 2011, 03:29:11 AM

Any chance on getting the definition of a played enhancement done before nationals so we can know how it should be played/ruled? It is kinda important.

It's one of three topics that we're still working to resolve - hopefully before Nationals. I don't expect there to be an announcement until after Nationals though. A REG update will likely take a while longer than that.

Kor · « **Reply #78 on:** August 04, 2011, 02:42:51 PM »

So if its not resolved I should just play it how I think it should be played...or...? And what if my opponent feels differently?

I don't want to nag but I'm honestly confused about how to handle this.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #79 on:** August 05, 2011, 09:31:29 PM »

We've somehow done 3 nationals since this huge issue was brought up now. Idk how the rulings go there but it's kind of ridiculous.

Kor · « **Reply #80 on:** August 09, 2011, 11:50:20 PM »

Play

A card is considered "played" (1) when its special ability activates or (2) when it is put into play – except by a "place" special ability or a "holds" identifier.

From the new reg. Thanks.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #81 on:** August 15, 2011, 10:52:02 PM »

So, to be clear, we don't have a definition of play yet?

Gabe · « **Reply #82 on:** August 15, 2011, 11:05:14 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 15, 2011, 10:52:02 PM

So, to be clear, we don't have a definition of play yet?

It's defined in the new REG. We also have a more comprehensive definition that I think is ready but we're waiting on more elders to give their approval before we announce it in case we've missed something.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #83 on:** August 15, 2011, 11:08:57 PM »

That's what I wanted to clarify; I know something is coming, I just wanted to make sure it hadn't been forgotten since I hadn't seen it yet.

Gabe · « **Reply #84 on:** August 15, 2011, 11:11:12 PM »

We tried hard to get all loose ends tied up before Nationals. We were successful with most of them. But there were a few things that got close but not quite finished. A complete definition of "play" is one of them.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #85 on:** August 16, 2011, 12:27:02 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 15, 2011, 11:11:12 PM

We tried hard to get all loose ends tied up before Nationals. We were successful with most of them. But there were a few things that got close but not quite finished. A complete definition of "play" is one of them.

Can we get a list of things that are still being finalized, as well as ones that did get updated?

Gabe · « **Reply #86 on:** August 16, 2011, 10:34:28 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on August 16, 2011, 12:27:02 AM

Quote from: Gabe on August 15, 2011, 11:11:12 PM
We tried hard to get all loose ends tied up before Nationals. We were successful with most of them. But there were a few things that got close but not quite finished. A complete definition of "play" is one of them.

Can we get a list of things that are still being finalized, as well as ones that did get updated?

I've posted a comprehensive list of all the changes already. I even linked it for everyone in the bottom of every rule change/clarification post I made.

As for what else is being discussed, I'm not going to publicize a full list. That would cause more trouble that it's worth. There are topics we discuss that the general public is never aware of. If we decide a topic like that is a non-issue and no change(s) are made we won't hear the end of it from some players. For that reason I think it's best if they just don't know if the first place.

Two things that I can tell you we are still discussing for the sake of adding more clarity - the definition of "play" and generic characters entering battle a second time. These have both already been added to the new REG but they could use a little work still.

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #87 on:** August 16, 2011, 10:39:56 AM »

I for one would have appreciated knowing that a deck building change was on the horizon for type 2 so that I could have adjusted my order of the new set accordingly for my personal needs...will I sell the extra complete set? Likely, but it is now another set I have to sell that I did not plan on or budget. For type 2 players that spend a hefty investment in cards it would have been nice to know what's going through the PTB from time to time, especially drastic changes like that.

Just my thoughts....

STAMP · « **Reply #88 on:** August 16, 2011, 11:03:57 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 16, 2011, 10:34:28 AM

As for what else is being discussed, I'm not going to publicize a full list. That would cause more trouble that it's worth. There are topics we discuss that the general public is never aware of. If we decide a topic like that is a non-issue and no change(s) are made we won't hear the end of it from some players. For that reason I think it's best if they just don't know if the first place.

Spoken like a true parent or politician, and I know you're not the latter.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #89 on:** August 17, 2011, 06:23:39 PM »

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on August 16, 2011, 10:39:56 AM

I for one would have appreciated knowing that a deck building change was on the horizon for type 2 so that I could have adjusted my order of the new set accordingly for my personal needs...will I sell the extra complete set? Likely, but it is now another set I have to sell that I did not plan on or budget. For type 2 players that spend a hefty investment in cards it would have been nice to know what's going through the PTB from time to time, especially drastic changes like that.

Just my thoughts....

My apologies Brad, we'd been hinting at the change for 2 color cards for quite a while actually, but we didn't do a good job of hinting at the change to 4 per deck instead of 5.

JonathanW · « **Reply #90 on:** August 22, 2011, 06:14:25 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on August 17, 2011, 06:23:39 PM

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on August 16, 2011, 10:39:56 AM
I for one would have appreciated knowing that a deck building change was on the horizon for type 2 so that I could have adjusted my order of the new set accordingly for my personal needs...will I sell the extra complete set? Likely, but it is now another set I have to sell that I did not plan on or budget. For type 2 players that spend a hefty investment in cards it would have been nice to know what's going through the PTB from time to time, especially drastic changes like that.

Just my thoughts....

Is the REG going to get updated with the new T2 deck building rules soon?
My apologies Brad, we'd been hinting at the change for 2 color cards for quite a while actually, but we didn't do a good job of hinting at the change to 4 per deck instead of 5.

lightningninja · « **Reply #91 on:** September 08, 2011, 01:02:15 AM »

Whether or not an ability granting cbn status with a condition can be negated by a card of that condition. So far we have about one elder on each side.

STAMP · « **Reply #92 on:** September 08, 2011, 11:57:19 AM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on August 17, 2011, 06:23:39 PM

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on August 16, 2011, 10:39:56 AM
I for one would have appreciated knowing that a deck building change was on the horizon for type 2 so that I could have adjusted my order of the new set accordingly for my personal needs...will I sell the extra complete set? Likely, but it is now another set I have to sell that I did not plan on or budget. For type 2 players that spend a hefty investment in cards it would have been nice to know what's going through the PTB from time to time, especially drastic changes like that.

Just my thoughts....

My apologies Brad, we'd been hinting at the change for 2 color cards for quite a while actually, but we didn't do a good job of hinting at the change to 4 per deck instead of 5.

Actually Bryon had been hinting at Type 2 deck-building changes quite awhile ago, so I wasn't caught off-guard at all.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #93 on:** September 20, 2011, 11:57:41 AM »

btw, #6 has been resolved. "Play" has now been defined

SomeKittens · « **Reply #94 on:** September 28, 2011, 09:50:25 AM »

When characters holding a placed card/weapon are shuffled, is the placed card/weapon discarded? Currently, this is yes, but there's been some murmuring about a change, and I don't want it to fall by the wayside.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #95 on:** September 28, 2011, 11:47:04 AM »

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/weapons-on-characters-returned-to-hand/

SomeKittens · « **Reply #96 on:** September 28, 2011, 01:12:15 PM »

We have one elder saying something contrary to established rule. I'd say that's "Unresolved"

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #97 on:** September 28, 2011, 06:28:25 PM »

One elder confirming it on that thread, but in the other thread three were no fewer than 3 elders saying they thought the rule already had changed.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #98 on:** September 28, 2011, 06:33:39 PM »

That's exactly my logic. They thought a rule had been changed, but there was no announcement. Isn't this thread for things like this? I don't want it to come up in two months and have no idea how to rule.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #99 on:** September 28, 2011, 10:48:31 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on September 28, 2011, 01:12:15 PM

We have one elder saying something contrary to established rule. I'd say that's "Unresolved"

Now there are 2 elders confirming. Consider it "resolved"

News:

Author Topic: Unresolved Rulings (Read 15129 times)

Lamborghini_diablo