Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Well, there does seem to have been an intention for an errata, but that is not the correct wording, is nearly 8 years old, and is not in the errata list.  The decision to errata has been referenced since, so I would assume it is correct.

Is this an actual errata, for those who would know, and if so can we add it to the Official Errata posting?

Every Man's Sword:  (Errata)  Protect each player without a lost soul in territory from being attacked.

Officially announced, here... http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/reg-and-wiki/reg-updates/msg112835/#msg112835

The posts by Frisian are official. At the time they were the only way to announce errata between REG updates (which weren't happening). Any entries in the post made by Frisian that are not in the Official Errata post are due to a failure on the part of the person or persons compiling the Official Errata list. This should probably be amended.

This seems like a useless errata.

It may be completely useless as printed.  How does the ruling on "begins a battle" in this thread play into this?  A battle isn't begun until character SAs have completed, which seems to defeat the purpose of stopping battle challenges.

Also, the errata seems a little off - can you protect players?  It seems more like a restrict - which wasn't around when the errata was made.

I just really don't see why this card was errata'd. It's one thing to errata cards like ANB or Stillness, or simple wording errors like A Child is Born, but I don't see why Every Man's Sword needs to be errata'd.

Every Man's Sword was originally changed because--lacking a precise definition of what beginning a battle means--everybody (literally everybody) was playing it wrong. That this confusion remains is evidenced by the question about EMS's applicability when facing a case of lost souls in sites. (Obviously--if played as originally written--a site access hero or hero who could bring into battle a site providing access would be able to initiate such a battle when EMS was active.)

There was much debate back in the day as to how to go about resolving this issue. (In interests of transparency--I probably argued the strongest/loudest for trying to find a way to leave the card mostly untouched.) After all of this the PtB issued the errata referenced earlier. The reason(s) behind the decision to errata the card in a way that nerfed it to uselessness (which was far beyond what anyone was arguing for publicly) rather than issuing a Play As was never explained.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 06, 2015, 10:01:08 AM

Obviously--if played as originally written--a site access hero or hero who could bring into battle a site providing access would be able to initiate such a battle when EMS was active.

I do remember that debate.  However, I'm currently more interested in terms of Possessed.

Given the errata on Every Man's Sword, if you have a lost soul in your territory with Possessed on it, EMS does nothing to stop an opponent's a Hero from starting a battle against you.

Well, the PtB are the ones that made the errata so it seems unlikely they'd reverse it.