Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Bobbobowitz on July 03, 2012, 12:39:18 AM
-
So since the cannot be negated clause is at the end of the ability and not attached to any part of the ability that means that the whole ability is CBN?
And the "If your demon is discarded, place it beneath deck instead." Means all demons being discarded as long as Wandering spirit is in battle are placed under deck instead correct? And does this override Tartaros?
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Orange • Ability: 3 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Reveal the bottom card of deck. If it is a demon, put it in your territory. May band to a generic demon. If your demon is discarded, place it beneath deck instead. Cannot be negated. • Play As: Reveal the bottom card of deck. If it is a demon, place it in your territory. May band to a generic demon. If your demon is being discarded, place it beneath deck instead. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: Generic NT Male Demon • Verse: Luke 11:24 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: All demons that holder captures, discards, or has in Land of Bondage are placed in Tartaros. Release one demon to holder's territory from Tartaros when one of holder's demons wins in battle. • Play As: All demons that holder captures, discards, or has in Land of Bondage are held in Tartaros instead. Return one demon to holder's territory from Tartaros when one of holder's demons wins in battle. Tartaros may hold any number of demons. • Identifiers: Play to set-aside area. • Verse: II Peter 2:4 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Uncommon)
-
Q1. Yes, the entire effect is CBN (vs. Joseph which only the giving Enhancements CBN stats is CBN)
Q2. No, unless it states while in play, then it only works in battle.
Q3. Yes, because Tartoros would take it there, then Wandering Spirit's effect would kick in and toss it under Deck.
-
Gotta love WS. He is one of my favorite ECs.
-
Some clarifications needed. Q1 and Q3 are correct in Megamanlan's posts, however:
Q2. No, unless it states while in play, then it only works in battle.
This is incorrect. If a card does not specify, then it actually defaults to play, not battle. WS does not specify, and therefore any of 'your' demons that are discarded during the battle phase that the SA is active would be put beneath deck.
For example, if you have a demon banding chain in battle and your opponent uses Ehud's Dagger to snipe the KoT in your territory, it is placed beneath your deck.
Note, however, that this does lead to some interesting situations. First, if you band to your opponent's demon (or one you control but do not own), then it does not go to the bottom of the owner's deck if discarded because WS specifies 'yours', which requires both ownership and control.
Second, cards like Grapes cannot be used if you target your own demon with them. If there is a discard cost (like Grapes which says "discard an evil card in battle to shuffle..."), then the instead on WS makes it not actually happen, and therefore the cost is not paid. The demon would still go to the bottom of deck (since the discard was insteaded), but the shuffle would not happen. A similar situation would be Chamber of Angels if you need a ruling confirmation on that.
And yes, it is a fun card ;)
-
I believe he was asking if the effect can be used if WS is not in battle.
-
And the "If your demon is discarded, place it beneath deck instead." Means all demons being discarded as long as Wandering spirit is in battle are placed under deck instead correct? And does this override Tartaros?
He did specify that he was asking 'while it is in battle', but I can see where that could be misread.
-
I believe the question was simple misinterpretation. Wandering Spirit does not have to be in battle for the demons to go under, however, he must have been in battle at some point during that battle phase (so his ability could activate), and it only works during that battle phase.
-
I don't understand why the demon would not go to Tartaros. You can only instead the discard once. The demon was about to be discarded, but it goes to Tartaros instead. That means it is not being discarded, so WS's ability does not activate.
-
I don't understand why the demon would not go to Tartaros. You can only instead the discard once. The demon was about to be discarded, but it goes to Tartaros instead. That means it is not being discarded, so WS's ability does not activate.
Despite the play-as, I don't believe Tartaros is an instead. If a demon is discarded (or whatever else), then they go to Tartaros afterwards. Wandering Spirit however, does use an instead, so Tartaros doesn't activate due to the fact that the demon was never discarded.
-
This is a case where the Play As is correct in doing its job, which is explaining how Apostles cards work and how they would be worded if printed today. I agree with YMT that Tartaros would activate first. WS is powerful enough as it is, I don't mind seeing Tartaros being used as an effective counter.
-
This is a case where the Play As is correct in doing its job, which is explaining how Apostles cards work and how they would be worded if printed today. I agree with YMT that Tartaros would activate first.
I know that there is (or should be) an order of "which cards activate first" in this type of situation, but where is it? Where do we have it ruled that fortresses take precedent over characters or enhancements?
WS is powerful enough as it is, I don't mind seeing Tartaros being used as an effective counter.
Are we ruling here that it is that way, or because we like an effective counter? ;)
-
I know that there is (or should be) an order of "which cards activate first" in this type of situation, but where is it? Where do we have it ruled that fortresses take precedent over characters or enhancements?
Raider's Camp is a prominent example of this. Wherever it would go, Raider's Camp gets the captured Hero instead.
-
Does it make any difference that Tartaros specifies demons that "holder" discards, meaning that if your opponent discards it then it does not go to Tartaros?
-
Does it make any difference that Tartaros specifies demons that "holder" discards, meaning that if your opponent discards it then it does not go to Tartaros?
I think that was the point of Tartaros being a counter. If you discard your opponent's Wandering Spirirt, then it goes to your Tartaros, rather than the bottom of their deck. In effect, you are taking control of their demons.
-
Does it make any difference that Tartaros specifies demons that "holder" discards, meaning that if your opponent discards it then it does not go to Tartaros?
I think that was the point of Tartaros being a counter. If you discard your opponent's Wandering Spirirt, then it goes to your Tartaros, rather than the bottom of their deck. In effect, you are taking control of their demons.
Well, obviously it wasn't designed as a counter to WS unless someone went back in time ;)
However, I'm still questioning where the rule is that fortresses take precedence over characters (or vice versa), and what takes effect first as far as those cards and who owns them (for instance, if it is your Tartaros or your opponent's, or your own character or your opponents).
This needs to be specified, and I've not seen it before.
-
Well, obviously it wasn't designed as a counter to WS unless someone went back in time ;)
I was referring to ProfAlstad's quote. ;)
However, I'm still questioning where the rule is that fortresses take precedence over characters (or vice versa), and what takes effect first as far as those cards and who owns them (for instance, if it is your Tartaros or your opponent's, or your own character or your opponents).
This needs to be specified, and I've not seen it before.
The rule is that the first ability activated takes precedence. Fortresses are in effect from the moment they enter play, so a previously activated fortress will usually take precedence over an enhancement or character. That is why Dungeon of Malchiah does not work as a LS generator if you have Raider's Camp active.
-
wait, if Tartoros is not an instead, doesn't it limit to play (or Discard Pile) and the instead would stop the Discard so WS would drop under Deck before Tartoros could target it and so cannot target a Demon if it under a deck?
-
No because Tartaros activated first because it came into play first.
-
wait, if Tartoros is not an instead, doesn't it limit to play (or Discard Pile) and the instead would stop the Discard so WS would drop under Deck before Tartoros could target it and so cannot target a Demon if it under a deck?
Tartaros is an instead.
-
The rule is that the first ability activated takes precedence. Fortresses are in effect from the moment they enter play, so a previously activated fortress will usually take precedence over an enhancement or character. That is why Dungeon of Malchiah does not work as a LS generator if you have Raider's Camp active.
So, you're trying to say that we must keep track of whose Tartaros hits play first if we're both using it, and that's the one that takes effect in this case? Also, what if WS was put in territory before any Tartaros was played? That there is no actual order of precedence between different kinds of cards, and which player's triggers first based on the turn? That things are arbitrary and cumbersome more often than not?
...sorry, forgot I was on the Redemption boards for a minute, I guess everything is normal ;)
In all seriousness, I believe I saw an order of triggers, but I (of course) have not had a successful search for it work.
wait, if Tartoros is not an instead, doesn't it limit to play (or Discard Pile) and the instead would stop the Discard so WS would drop under Deck before Tartoros could target it and so cannot target a Demon if it under a deck?
I believe it is an instead (I know Chris doesn't agree) based on the wording. Basically "if you would do one of these things, it goes to Tartaros instead of where it was intended" is what it means, and it is an instead. Also, cards leaving play can still be targeted by an instead (see: Assyrian Survivor). The main thing is which triggers first, WS's instead or Tartaros's instead.
-
That things are arbitrary and cumbersome more often than not?
I fail to see how "first come, first served" is arbitrary and cumbersome. That seems much easier than having an heirarchy of ability types.
-
That things are arbitrary and cumbersome more often than not?
I fail to see how "first come, first served" is arbitrary and cumbersome. That seems much easier than having an heirarchy of ability types.
Then what if I put WS in play before you put Tartaros is put in play, or at some point Tartaros is negated, etc. etc.
Or what if we can't remember who put Tartaros in play first?
That's why you need a hard-and-fast rule on what triggers first.
-
Then what if I put WS in play before you put Tartaros is put in play, or at some point Tartaros is negated,...
WS wins in both cases.
etc. etc.
You'll have to be more specific.
Or what if we can't remember who put Tartaros in play first?
Pay more attention during your games. Otherwise RPS or roll the dice.
That's why you need a hard-and-fast rule on what triggers first.
First come, first served. Negate does what negate has always done.
-
Then what if I put WS in play before you put Tartaros is put in play, or at some point Tartaros is negated,...
WS wins in both cases.
...
Pay more attention during your games. Otherwise RPS or roll the dice.
I don't think I'm the only person who finds it to be a problem that we have to keep track of what cards hit play in what order. And saying that it is not going to happen when you're paying attention is completely silly. I know every single experienced player I have ever played with has made a mistake or forgotten something, and I wouldn't believe you if you told me you never had.
If we have to roll a die to decide which ability wins, we have a problem with game rules.
-
If we have to roll a die to decide which ability wins, we have a problem with game rules.
The dice roll is just for those people who forgot to pay attention.
-
It's not what's in play first, it's what's active first. Putting WS in territory has nothing to do with it at all. Tartaros will always win over WS unless there's some way to get Tartaros in play and active mid-battle.
Bearing that in mind, keeping track isn't hard, and there is a hierarchy of abilities in a way. Fortresses and Sites will always beat Artifacts which will always beat Characters which will always beat Enhancements in normal situations just because of how they all work.
-
Bearing that in mind, keeping track isn't hard, and there is a hierarchy of abilities in a way. Fortresses and Sites will always beat Artifacts which will always beat Characters which will always beat Enhancements in normal situations just because of how they all work.
I didn't want to go there only because of territory-class enhancements and characters like Judas Iscariot.
-
That's why I said "in normal situations." My main point is that there's very little to keep track of (except maybe in T2 Multi and if you're playing that, you're asking for punishment anyway!).
-
That's why I said "in normal situations."
I know. I was just trying to preempt Redoubter's likely response. :o
My main point is that there's very little to keep track of ...
I agree. I would think that anyone playing specialty fortresses like Tartaros would be paying more attention anyway.
Besides, Redoubter is still not paying attention. Tartaros specifies when "holder discards (et al)," so which one activated first is irrelevant. ;)
(except maybe in T2 Multi and if you're playing that, you're asking for punishment anyway!).
Now that's a point we can both agree on. ;D
-
Besides, Redoubter is still not paying attention. Tartaros specifies when "holder discards (et al)," so which one activated first is irrelevant. ;)
Of course I was paying attention. You've obviously never played a demon deck with chump blocks if you think that doesn't matter. It does matter because if I control the chump block, I'm the one doing the discarding (See: Protection of Jerusalem and DoU).
Bearing that in mind, keeping track isn't hard, and there is a hierarchy of abilities in a way. Fortresses and Sites will always beat Artifacts which will always beat Characters which will always beat Enhancements in normal situations just because of how they all work.
Where is this rule coming from (first question, still not seen, can someone please provide a reference?) and why would you say that Fortresses and Sites always beat Artifacts? There are plenty of cases when Artifacts would be active longer.
EDIT: Forget the first part, leaving it there since YMT is correct. I'm getting into a perfect game from Chen over here, and not actually looking at what I posted ;)
-
because if I control the chump block, I'm the one doing the discarding
Exactly. Two Tartaros will never be in conflict because it's impossible for multiple people to be doing the discarding.
Where is this rule coming from (first question, still not seen, can someone please provide a reference?) and why would you say that Fortresses and Sites always beat Artifacts? There are plenty of cases when Artifacts would be active longer.
Where the rule is, I can't tell you, and it may not be written anywhere. And given that Artifacts activate every turn and Fortresses only activate once, the only time an Artifact could be active longer than a Fortress is during the turn it was played with respect to any Artifacts already active.
-
Where the rule is, I can't tell you, and it may not be written anywhere. And given that Artifacts activate every turn and Fortresses only activate once, the only time an Artifact could be active longer than a Fortress is during the turn it was played with respect to any Artifacts already active.
That's a problem, if we don't have the rule. It needs to be written down for cases like this (WS vs Tartaros or any other situations where two cards try to instead the same thing), and it needs to be definitive.
I'm fine with your clarification (as opposed to 'always' in your previous post) about Artifacts and Forts, I just wanted to make sure you didn't mean anything else ;)
Now, is this a rule that you've had told to you by others, or something you've seen on the boards? I'm trying to see where this all is coming from. And I will continue to suggest that it should depend on card type and who owns which card, in the event (I'll try to come up with one after this game) where two cards on the field without a clear 'first' try to instead the same card.
-
There are a lot of things that need to be ;) You're more than welcome to argue in favor of a chain of hierarchy as opposed to "which was active first," but you're unlikely to gain much traction because people generally support simpler.
-
There are a lot of things that need to be ;) You're more than welcome to argue in favor of a chain of hierarchy as opposed to "which was active first," but you're unlikely to gain much traction because people generally support simpler.
How on earth is it simpler to say "which card hit the table first this game?" rather than say "Fortress -> Site -> Artifact -> Character -> Enhancement; Current player's -> Other player's". In the latter, you know exactly which card it is. If a judge came over to make a ruling, he could without having to watch an entire game and memorize the order. What you're describing is not only more complicated and cumbersome, it is impossible to actually judge.
-
You're confusing simple with precise. The current (apparently unrecorded) rule is a simple statement, while your proposition is a list that must be memorized. Granted it's not studying for a Physics final, but when added to all the lists already in existence, it becomes cumbersome for young players. It's way easier to remember "whichever was first."
I'm not arguing against your proposal, just pointing out the obvious argument.
-
it becomes cumbersome for young players. It's way easier to remember "whichever was first."
If I could get young players to even remember what their cards do, I'd give that argument more credence ;) The fact is they won't be able to remember in every case, and if a judge comes over, he needs to be able to give a definitive answer, not rely on players' memories (and of course no one ever recollects differently when talking to a judge...).
-
The fact is they won't be able to remember in every case, and if a judge comes over, he needs to be able to give a definitive answer, not rely on players' memories (and of course no one ever recollects differently when talking to a judge...).
It's a pretty easy question for the judge - was the fortress already there? I would think the players, no matter how young or forgetful, would remember whether a player put Tartaros down in battle before WS. If they did not put it in play during battle, then it will always take precedence over WS (who has to enter battle for his ability to work).
-
So what I'm getting from this is that Tartaros will take priority over WS as long as it was on the table before WS enters battle correct?
-
So what I'm getting from this is that Tartaros will take priority over WS as long as it was on the table before WS enters battle correct?
Yup.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
-
The fact is they won't be able to remember in every case, and if a judge comes over, he needs to be able to give a definitive answer, not rely on players' memories (and of course no one ever recollects differently when talking to a judge...).
It's a pretty easy question for the judge - was the fortress already there? I would think the players, no matter how young or forgetful, would remember whether a player put Tartaros down in battle before WS. If they did not put it in play during battle, then it will always take precedence over WS (who has to enter battle for his ability to work).
I'll admit that in this particular case, but let me ask you this:
I have Throne of David up. You have Kir up. I force you to block with Amaziah with my own evil King. Do I get to play an enhancement first, or do you get to discard my evil King first? And if your answer is 'whichever was in play first', do you admit that in this case that could actually be a problem? Fortresses and sites played early in the game would not have their order remembered at all by the end, and this situation could not be judged.
-
The fact is they won't be able to remember in every case, and if a judge comes over, he needs to be able to give a definitive answer, not rely on players' memories (and of course no one ever recollects differently when talking to a judge...).
It's a pretty easy question for the judge - was the fortress already there? I would think the players, no matter how young or forgetful, would remember whether a player put Tartaros down in battle before WS. If they did not put it in play during battle, then it will always take precedence over WS (who has to enter battle for his ability to work).
I'll admit that in this particular case, but let me ask you this:
I have Throne of David up. You have Kir up. I force you to block with Amaziah with my own evil King. Do I get to play an enhancement first, or do you get to discard my evil King first? And if your answer is 'whichever was in play first', do you admit that in this case that could actually be a problem? Fortresses and sites played early in the game would not have their order remembered at all by the end, and this situation could not be judged.
If you post all the abilities, I'll be happy to answer.
-
If you post all the abilities, I'll be happy to answer.
Interesting.
The Throne of David (RA)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When your purple brigade King is blocked, if no Evil Character in battle has a weapon, you may draw X cards and play an O.T. purple brigade Enhancement.
Kir (TP)
Type: Site • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If an opponent makes you use an Evil Character not your own, you may discard that Evil Character to search deck for an O.T. human Evil Character and add it to battle.
-
I agree that it is important to pay attention, especially if you are using Throne of David or Kir.
Kir is an ability that activates during the block, while Throne is an ability that activates after the block (unless of course Amaziah is brought in later in the battle). I would rule that Kir activates first.
Of course, I may be completely wrong and your isolated example proves your point and causes a total upheaval of the SA activation process. ;)
-
Kir and TToD may be the only example of something in the same tier of typical precedence being in conflict. Frankly, one (rare) example is not enough to convince me that it's too complicated.
-
I agree that it is important to pay attention, especially if you are using Throne of
Kir is an ability that activates during the block, while Throne is an ability that activates after the block (unless of course Amaziah is brought in later in the battle). I would rule that Kir activates first.
They both actually activate at the same time. As a character is not considered in battle until they are placed in the Field of Battle and all of their SA complete, Kir is not triggered until a "Block" occurs. This is the same time that TToD triggers as well. The act of blocking leads to both going off simultaneously.
I agree that it is important to pay attention, especially if you are using Throne of David or Kir.
Pay attention to what exactly? The fact that 6 turns ago on my turn, I placed TToD and then on your turn 6 turns ago you placed Kir, so mine should hit first? I say again, I'm happy to know that if I play you you'd be able to give a judge a card-by-card recap of the game, but I don't trust most players would be able to do that. And again, this is a case that is impossible for a judge to rule definitively if both players remember differently. We need to avoid those situations, that's the whole point of rules.
Kir and TToD may be the only example of something in the same tier of typical precedence being in conflict. Frankly, one (rare) example is not enough to convince me that it's too complicated.
This is not the only example. Kir would be used in more CTB situations where a fortress activates on the block, and if I can find one card that leads to problems, you obviously can't assume there are no more. Nor can you assume a new card won't lead to a similar situation in the future without being intended.
And again, how is it more complicated to have a set list of abilities that trigger in specific orders?
We have that for SA on characters, or would you rather that we go by the reading on the card? That's a lot simpler, but it would upset game mechanics if I were to band then do the rest of my crazy stuff. It would still be more logical (and easier for new players) for us to say "Do everything in the order listed on the card", but we don't. We instead make everyone remember the order that everything activates. This is the same situation. We should not have "Do everything in the order they entered play", but rather an order they activate. That's the point of rules, to remove the subjectivity of the situation and have a hard-and-fast rule.
We do it for characters. We can do it for different card types. It's not that hard.
-
The act of blocking leads to both going off simultaneously.
I disagree with this, but that is for an Elder to decide.
Pay attention to what exactly?
If you activate the Throne and you later notice your opponent activate Kir, that would be a good time to remind them that Throne was activated first. If you know that cards will be in conflict, you should mention that before it becomes the problem you are suggesting.
-
The act of blocking leads to both going off simultaneously.
I disagree with this, but that is for an Elder to decide.
I'm going based on lengthy TToD discussions that led to a general understanding that TToD only triggers after a block completes (character enters and SA finishes), and this is the same time Kir activates. Neither is able to activate sooner because they have no trigger until that moment. Pol also seems to agree with this assessment.
If you activate the Throne and you later notice your opponent activate Kir, that would be a good time to remind them that Throne was activated first. If you know that cards will be in conflict, you should mention that before it becomes the problem you are suggesting.
I know it, you know it, but how many more know it? And even if I know of a potential problem, how often do we play a game and miss one of those? You're taking the stance that experienced players will always be able to pay attention, where I've seen some do things like shuffle off of a Mayhem while they had Nazareth up. Well, obviously they should have paid better attention, but that cannot always happen.
In addition, how many tournaments do you go to where every player is experienced, well-versed in the rules, and understand everything to the point that they know the need to see which card hit the table first? I have been to exactly 0 where every player fit that description. If they called a judge over, he literally cannot rule on this by the current rules if they don't know what hit first. We have to remedy that.
I would still like a response as to how this is different from making people activate their SA in a different order than printed on the card. Everyone has to memorize the order (and a judge can rule definitively if someone doesn't know, as opposed to this case) instead of the 'simpler' and more logical "As they hit the table" rule. This case is no different. Instead of a 'simpler' "As they hit the table" rule, we can have an order that they activate. It is the same situation, same rule type, and allows for exact judging.
-
I'm not opposed to the idea enough to continue this discussion. If that is the way the Elders want to go, then that is fine with me.
As far as paying attention, it is not in the rulebook that you have to ask for initiative, but all of my players now have that habit. It is a common courtesy that avoids ruling problems. I think this could be a similar situation. Announcing your fortresses and sites, and being aware of which other ones will directly conflict with yours, is a good habit.
-
We could have a rule that is far simpler than either the "whichever hits the table first" and the defined order of ability types. We could just say something like the turn player decides the order of conflicting abilities...like basically every other card game I've played where the situation can come up.
So in the case of Wandering Spirit and Tartaros, well it would be whatever the turn player picks.
TToD vs Kir (assuming Kir doesn't have some sort of priority due to how its worded) the turn player picks
TToD vs Weakness, same thing.
T2 Multiplayer: a lot less confusion.
Of course this will get the argument, why should my opponent pick which order my cards activate? And honestly, aside from keeping the order that I find terrible (by which enters play first) and a complex set of priority, it's probably the best we can have.
Anyway, its just a rule that includes simplicity with precision, also, since it only matters in a handful of situations it probably won't be too disruptive.
-
Not sure how I feel about that proposal, but I certainly agree we need a hard and fast rule that can be judged, not a fluid one that judges can do nothing to discern in an argument.
I'm still waiting to see where this rule comes from, can someone please link to a source or an Elder post to confirm?
-
This is why we need a stack or something of the like related to Redemption. The active player should get to choose which ability triggers first when there are multiple triggers trying to activate at the same time.
-
I disagree that the active player should get to choose, that only gives a boost to the offensive side of the game, that side is already sufficiently more powerful than the defensive side as it is. I would prefer a simple hierarchy that is independent of whose turn it is.
-
Hierarchies are not in the least bit a simple implementation; stack/turn player priority is.
-
I said I would prefer a simple hierarchy, I did not say Hierarchy's are simple. I just strongly dislike the notion of turn deciding who gets to decide conflicting abilities. This puts the advantage on the rescuers side.
-
+1 100%
D needs all the help it can get! Giving president to offensive cards over defensive ones is a bad idea.
I've even sarcastically said that some time the new set should be all D to try and balance the game, it still wouldn't be balanced though ;)
NO NEW OFFENSE HELP!
-
Ummmmm....... not to put a damper on the defensive-minded people, but the whole idea of a Christian game is to rescue lost souls, so I think offense should have the advantage.
I would have to agree that giving priority to the turn player is logical and easy to understand for beginners.
-
There's a difference between Good having the advantage over evil and Good having boomsticks while evil has bows and arrows.
-
Ummmmm....... not to put a damper on the defensive-minded people, but the whole idea of a Christian game is to rescue lost souls, so I think offense should have the advantage.
I would have to agree that giving priority to the turn player is logical and easy to understand for beginners.
If the game was more balanced I would be agreeing with you. I think Offense should always have the edge over Defense but it already feels like pistol(defense) vs cannon(offense) most of the time already so giving more firepower to the strong side is IMO too much right now.
There's a difference between Good having the advantage over evil and Good having boomsticks while evil has bows and arrows.
edit: Instaposted put basically I think Pol put it better.
-
There's a difference between Good having the advantage over evil and Good having boomsticks while evil has bows and arrows.
Well the good side has God, so the mismatch has been there since the beginning. ;)
-
True but reality isn't a game ;)
Balance is important to keep the game playable.