Author Topic: What do I do with these cards? (Read 13681 times)

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #50 on:** July 05, 2009, 09:43:10 PM »

And again, the REG has been known to be outdated. This is not new news, and in fact, the goal of this thread is to clarify a section of the REG thought to be outdated. Have a nice day.

lightningninja · « **Reply #51 on:** July 05, 2009, 09:52:07 PM »

You also might have read the wrong one of Gabe's posts. I believe he's posted several times in this thread.

lightningninja · « **Reply #52 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:01:05 PM »

Must have missed that.

Although even still Music maker, you were still wrong. Read the second REG quote, which is the one Schaef was referring to. The two contradicting REG statements prove that the REG is not always correct.

lightningninja · « **Reply #53 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:12:10 PM »

No, read both of Gabe's REG quotes. They contradict.

SJSharks · « **Reply #54 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:15:00 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on July 05, 2009, 09:24:33 PM

Gabe quoted the relevant section of the REG in his opening post, which was the entire reason for his question.

I'm really not interested in playing this game. Everything I stated above has been posted on this thread at some point. All of the statements I have made are what the current rules are. That is how the cards are played and the reasons they are played that way.

Am I to believe that this whole ruling is based on a "precedent" derived from a single scenario, which comes from the same page in the REG as the quote that says that characters in Kingdoms/Goshen? What is to say that the other ruling is the one that is wrong?

Quote

All rulings in the REG are considered Official for tournament play. If there is a discrepancy with the latest edition of the rulebook, the REG overrules the rulebook. - Rob Anderson

I know that your just going to tell me that parts of the REG are wrong and that all does not mean all, but I believe that all should mean all including "wrong" rulings. I believe that we should follow every ruling in the REG whether or not it is correct. I know that the REG is "outdated", but what's to stop it from being updated more frequently (If Mike is to busy to do it I’m sure someone can be found to help/take over). The reason I believe this is because if we don't have a completely official source of rules all tournament hosts would have to be required to follow and remember the outcome of every ruling question on these boards which is clearly not possible. If we have a National rating system (which we do) we should also have a consistent set of rules at all tournaments, which is impossible with an outdated rules source.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #55 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:26:19 PM »

Quote

and ANB shuffles ALL cards that means ALL. and the lord fights for you discards A evil card that means A (one) evil card.

So if you DoN (Discard ONE active artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.) Book of the Covenant, what happens to any covenants on it? They can't be discarded (that would be more than one card), but you can't have 2 active wherever they may be.

To add protection into the scenario, what if Worshipping God (Set a Hero aside. While set aside, holder's covenants are protected from being discarded or deactivated by evil cards.) had been played?

lightningninja · « **Reply #56 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:45:55 PM »

Then you really don't understand how redemption works. You're not going to change the game. So either you don't understand the rule, or accept it. But I think by now you understand how the rules work. Just accept them.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #57 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:50:11 PM »

I want quotes on this, now. Or it didn't happen.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #58 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:53:22 PM »

REG > Discard and Remove > Default Conditions:

Quote

• If a site, artifact, or character is discarded or returned to hand, discard all cards placed on it. If a card leaves the Land of Bondage, discard all evil cards placed on it other than Lost Souls or captured characters.

Since this discard is by a game rule (not an evil card), Covenants on a DoN'd BoC would be discarded. It's in the REG, so it must be correct.

And why are fortresses not mentioned in that quote?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #59 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:53:57 PM »

No. It's not sourced. How do I know he didn't make it up?* Where did that come from?

*This is not an accusation.

SJSharks · « **Reply #60 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:55:04 PM »

Click Here Look to the bottom of the page.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #61 on:** July 05, 2009, 10:58:54 PM »

Thank you for sourcing.

I'd have to say that it's been known for the past 2 or more years that the REG has been outdated. Rob and Bryon have made posts in rulings questions saying as much, with comments equating to "we need to change this in the REG". However, no changes have been done.

EXAMPLE: The most recent Angel's Sword vs. 2k Horses isn't in the REG. Does that mean we still use the old, wrong version?

What's more important, listening to a flawed ruling because it's online, or playing the game the correct way as interpreted by every major playtester and player who has posted in the thread?

Quote from: Da Muzik Maker on July 05, 2009, 10:55:26 PM

Quote from: Janissary on July 05, 2009, 10:53:57 PM
No. It's not sourced. How do I know he didn't make it up?* Where did that come from?

*This is not an accusation.

CAUSE SJS WOULD NEVER LIE! ASK CAMERON THE SPY AMELO!AND ASK ME HE ISNT A LYAR!

Must I spoonfeed you?

Gabe · « **Reply #62 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:00:11 PM »

I'm so tempted to just lock this thread to stop this senseless complaining about the official ruling but...

I'm also tempted to let it continue to see if Rob himself will post to quiet up the naysayers...

$:-\$

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #63 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:02:22 PM »

I think the complaining is over the fact that Rob hasn't taken time away from making Redemption better to update the REG or state the correct ruling in this situation.

SJSharks · « **Reply #64 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:03:36 PM »

I believe that we should play by the REG (see above post). If a tournament host has not read that thread they would not know that ruling. I believe the most important thing is consistency.

lightningninja · « **Reply #65 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:04:04 PM »

You can lock it, Gabe. I think pretty much everyone gets the ruling, since Bryon said so himself. If one or two don't accept it, not his fault.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #66 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:04:28 PM »

He can do it as much as you can. Your allowed to take some initiative, you know. It'd be good for you probably. His email should be with his account on here.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #67 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:12:40 PM »

Why? If I have read the thread, your asking me to intentionally rule something wrong "because it's online". That's called cheating. If you want to explain that to the 10 year old kid that the ruling went against, go for it, but I won't.

SJSharks · « **Reply #68 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:17:23 PM »

According to Rob if its in the REG its official, where has he said that ruling questions on this board overrule the REG?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #69 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:20:49 PM »

For argument's sake, Rob has posted stating the REG is wrong. The question comes up inthe tournament. Would you seriously try to rule with the REG just becuase it's the REG?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #70 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:23:47 PM »

I'm aware of what he asked, and I responded with a hypothetical intent on determining his intent. My bad for not having obscure topics on speed dial.

The Schaef · « **Reply #71 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:24:09 PM »

Quote from: Da Muzik Maker on July 05, 2009, 09:29:05 PM

did you even read that link? its says: "if goshen or Kingdoms of This World are discarded then the heroes or evil characters return to territory."

Yes, I read it. Again, it was in Gabe's first post. Again, that was the whole reason for the question. Again, the proper ruling and the proper reasons for the ruling are exactly as I have given them to you.

Quote from: SJSharks on July 05, 2009, 10:15:00 PM

Am I to believe that this whole ruling is based on a "precedent" derived from a single scenario, which comes from the same page in the REG as the quote that says that characters in Kingdoms/Goshen? What is to say that the other ruling is the one that is wrong?

No, it is derived from several scenarios that are all ruled the same way. And who is to say that this other, contradictory ruling is wrong? We are. Because it contradicts the general rule that cards follow the cards they're on.

Quote

I know that your just going to tell me that parts of the REG are wrong and that all does not mean all, but I believe that all should mean all including "wrong" rulings.

This is a nonsensical position. It is logically impossible to follow "all" parts of the REG if two parts directly contradict. If you discard the ECs, you are violating the part of the REG you and Muzik are focusing on. If you protect the ECs, you are violating the part of the REG which states what we have been telling you. It is 100% impossible to follow them both at the same time.

The ruling you have been given in this thread is the correct ruling. I cannot imagine any situation where it is acceptable for a judge to deliberately give an incorrect ruling at a tournament.

Mike Berkenpas is your man to see about the REG. Rob makes final rulings but the management of the document goes through Mike. And either way, I don't think any of us are in a position to make judgments about how these people spend their time.

SJSharks · « **Reply #72 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:27:29 PM »

So a tournament is played by players who haven't read this thread and another tournament is played by players that have. The two tournaments would be played differently yet would still count the same in RNRS even though the tournament was played under incorrect rules.

Quote

No, it is derived from several scenarios that are all ruled the same way. And who is to say that this other, contradictory ruling is wrong? We are. Because it contradicts the general rule that cards follow the cards they're on.

Please tell me another scenario where this is the case (involving fortresses).

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #73 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:29:33 PM »

Any Fortress discarded while holding an artifact within.

SJSharks · « **Reply #74 on:** July 05, 2009, 11:31:41 PM »

Prof from the REG please.

Quote from: BrianGabe on July 05, 2009, 11:00:11 PM

I'm so tempted to just lock this thread to stop this senseless complaining about the official ruling but...

I'm also tempted to let it continue to see if Rob himself will post to quiet up the naysayers...

$:-\$

Yes please lock it. I don't even know why I'm posting any more.

News:

Author Topic: What do I do with these cards? (Read 13681 times)

The Schaef