Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Arch Angel on June 26, 2011, 12:44:50 AM
-
Is Wool Fleece a Protect or a Prevent ability?
I was just told that, according to this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/official-errata/rule-clarifications-additions-and-edits/), it is a protect ability due to its "May not" wording.
However, according to the Play As it has in the REG it is a prevent (in my opinion this is also the intrinsic reading of the card).
Wool Fleece doesn't seem to only limit the targets of special abilities, as a Protect ability should do, but it seems to stop certain characters from doing a certain thing, like a prevent.
So, how exactly does Wool Fleece work? Does it stop ECs from using band abilities (prevent), or does it keep ECs from being banded into battle (protect)? This makes a big difference for many cards, such as Gomer's CBN banding ability, and Seige's Band All ability (if it just protects ECs from being targeted, then you could play Seige just to band in all of your opponent's heroes.)
Wool Fleece (Pa)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No Evil Characters may band • Play As: Evil Characters are prevented from banding.
-
Just pick two people, one to be "Protect" and the other to be "Prevent." Then play a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors, with the winner being how it will be ruled at your tournaments.
-
I would say it's a protect, but YMT's method is much more accurate.
-
It's still ruled as a prevent. We are discussing the pros/cons of ruling it a protect but no decision has been made on whether or not it will be changed.
-
So the thread on how we classify old wording was just whistling into the wind?
-
So the thread on how we classify old wording was just whistling into the wind?
No, there are people that believe the wording could accurately be interpreted both ways (prevent or protect). I'll leave it to them to explain their logic if it becomes necessary because I don't think I would do it justice.
-
This is not a negate card. It says "No Evil Characters may band." Plain and simply NO EVIL CHARACTERS MAY BAND. I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are. :)
-
I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are. :)
I'm sorry. I must have communicated very poorly if you think the elders are making "arbitrary rules". Most of the people making these decisions have a greater understanding of the rules than you or I. Although my previous post didn't attempt to explain their logic please don't take that to mean that it is not sound.
-
This is not a negate card. It says "No Evil Characters may band." Plain and simply NO EVIL CHARACTERS MAY BAND. I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are. :)
Both the REG and rulebook are outdated. You'll figure out pretty soon that there's a new REG in the works, but there isn't a release date (and you know what that means....)
The problem here is that there isn't a category for "No." We have cards that deal with protect and prevent. So, if I have banding that can't be prevented, can it get past wool fleece? What if I can band regardless of protection? (I'm sure there'll be some of this in the new set). We need to figure out exactly what Wool Fleece is doing (yes, no ECs may band, but why can't they band?)
-
This is not a negate card. It says "No Evil Characters may band." Plain and simply NO EVIL CHARACTERS MAY BAND. I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are. :)
Both the REG and rulebook are outdated. You'll figure out pretty soon that there's a new REG in the works, but there isn't a release date (and you know what that means....)
The problem here is that there isn't a category for "No." We have cards that deal with protect and prevent. So, if I have banding that can't be prevented, can it get past wool fleece? What if I can band regardless of protection? (I'm sure there'll be some of this in the new set). We need to figure out exactly what Wool Fleece is doing (yes, no ECs may band, but why can't they band?)
Because Wool Fleece does not give you permission (which is defined by the may not)
-
In Redemption terms, what is permission?
-
Are we really going to argue the semantics of May vs. Can here?
May Not be Negated
Can Not be Negated
What is the difference between these two when it comes to redemption?
If we are just going on english conventions may not means you don't have permissions, cannot means its not possible. Permission can be overruled, impossible is impossible.
-
Are we really going to argue the semantics of May vs. Can here?
May Not be Negated
Can Not be Negated
What is the difference between these two when it comes to redemption?
If we are just going on english conventions may not means you don't have permissions, cannot means its not possible. Permission can be overruled, impossible is impossible.
Overruled by the card owner ;)
-
In Redemption terms, what is permission?
Permission is neither protection nor negation (notice how the card does not say negate or protect), rather if you have a card that allows you to grant or deny permission, it allows you to control the allotment of the powers the card allows you to control. Essentially, you are (for a lack of a better term) "god".
-
In Redemption terms, what is permission?
Permission is neither protection nor negation (notice how the card does not say negate or protect), rather if you have a card that allows you to grant or deny permission, it allows you to control the allotment of the powers the card allows you to control. Essentially, you are (for a lack of a better term) "god".
Where'd you find that definition? Was it from an authoritative source? Did an authoritative source confirm it?
These are the questions you should ask yourself before answering a question on this sub-board.
-
I found it on the card. I does not say negate or prevent or protection. It says may. That's why I am saying that the rulings that the "authoritative" people come up with are arbitrary and subjective to their opinions. Not to what the cards say.
Who has the right to reword cards? Who says the REG and Rule Book are out of date? Rather subjective and arbitrary if you ask me.
-
selfevident, let me clarify what is going on here:
Older cards were printed with somewhat vague wording.
Certain players took it upon themselves to use these cards in ways they were not intended.
The PTB had to give very specific rules and definitions for very specific words on cards to stop the misuse of cards.
Certain players took it upon themselves to find other cards that used the same redefined words, and misuse them the same way (or worse).
The PTB now have to keep changing the rules and definitions to thwart those certain people from making this game too annoying to play for the rest of us.
STAMP then retired (but he secretly reads the boards every day anyway).
-
Just pick two people, one to be "Protect" and the other to be "Prevent." Then play a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors, with the winner being how it will be ruled at your tournaments.
This post proves my point.
-
Just pick two people, one to be "Protect" and the other to be "Prevent." Then play a game of Rock/Paper/Scissors, with the winner being how it will be ruled at your tournaments.
This post proves my point.
I was being facetious, mostly due to a moderator's post on a different thread. My apologies.
-
If the ruling is made by a none elder then you can ignore it. If an elder says thats how its played, and is not overruled by 2 or more elders, then that is how it is played. The Rulebook and Reg are outdated. Thats the purpose of the Elder system. What the Elders and Rob say is how it is played. They put a lot of discussion and thought in to each ruling so to say that it is arbitrary is offensive, and I'm not even an Elder.
-
If the ruling is made by a none elder then you can ignore it. If an elder says thats how its played, and is not overruled by 2 or more elders, then that is how it is played. The Rulebook and Reg are outdated. Thats the purpose of the Elder system. What the Elders and Rob say is how it is played. They put a lot of discussion and thought in to each ruling so to say that it is arbitrary is offensive, and I'm not even an Elder.
Not meant to be offensive, but it seems that cards are being reworded is all.
-
I found it on the card. I does not say negate or prevent or protection. It says may. That's why I am saying that the rulings that the "authoritative" people come up with are arbitrary and subjective to their opinions. Not to what the cards say.
Who has the right to reword cards? Who says the REG and Rule Book are out of date? Rather subjective and arbitrary if you ask me.
You're saying that Gabe and the rest of the elders are changing the cards any way they feel like it? Rob Anderson (The guy who invented Redemption) gave the elders permission to make authoritative rulings based on their years of experience. That's Objective. "No ... may" is not defined in the REG. Therefore, we need to figure out (in Redemption terms, i.e. Abilities that have been defined) what it's actually doing.
The Rulebook is five years old. That's a little out of date. Many major ruling changes have been made since then. The REG hasn't been updated to reflect most of these changes, and there's a lot of issues with Play As/Errata. This post is one such issue. The Elders are there to resolve such problems when they occur.
-
Not meant to be offensive, but it seems that cards are being reworded is all.
I, for one, do not find you as offensive. You represent the mainstream non-Message Board host who has no idea what has been happening over the past few years. You play the game and make rulings the way that seems logical, based on the wording of the cards. It is much more fun to play that way.
However, if you attend a State, Regional, or National tournament, you will be shocked to find out that everything you thought you knew is not the way it is done. The web of red tape that we have created here on the Boards is ridiculously excessive, which is why the "New REG" can not ever be released, since once it is, it will already be outdated.
-
Updating it at least brings the non-board goes up to speed on the rulings that have been made so far. The REG needs to be constantly changing, we are constantly finding new, unforseeable ways, in which it was broken. There are new cards that come out and make the REG broken. It's not a perfect process, few things in life are.
Maybe we could have some sort of discussion forum, where people could go to find new rulings. Or to as about particular rulings. And that it could be available to everyone. Wouldn't that be great?
-
The trouble with the current REG is that no one is maintaining it. With the new one, the elders will do their best to keep it up to date with the new rulings.
-
Updating it at least brings the non-board goes up to speed on the rulings that have been made so far.
Except that those rulings then get overturned, such that none of us knows what the current ruling is.
The REG needs to be constantly changing, we are constantly finding new, unforseeable ways, in which it was broken. There are new cards that come out and make the REG broken.
This is inherently the problem. Too many intelligent people are wasting their brain-power trying to find ways to manipulate rulings and definitions to make cards broken, or make the game boring for the rest of us. This is supposed to be a game about fun and fellowship. It has instead become a game about semantics and self-glorification.
Maybe we could have some sort of discussion forum, where people could go to find new rulings. Or to as about particular rulings. And that it could be available to everyone. Wouldn't that be great?
LOL. Been there, done that.
-
Not meant to be offensive, but it seems that cards are being reworded is all.
I, for one, do not find you as offensive. You represent the mainstream non-Message Board host who has no idea what has been happening over the past few years. You play the game and make rulings the way that seems logical, based on the wording of the cards. It is much more fun to play that way.
However, if you attend a State, Regional, or National tournament, you will be shocked to find out that everything you thought you knew is not the way it is done. The web of red tape that we have created here on the Boards is ridiculously excessive, which is why the "New REG" can not ever be released, since once it is, it will already be outdated.
I agree with you, it is more fun to play by what the cards say. Also, shouldn't the mainstream consumer of the game be considered in these rulings? It is sad that there is so much red tape. Unfortunately, bureaucracy has ruined many a good thing throughout history. Why don't you just ban the disputed cards from the tournament rather than redefining their usage, it would be less confusing and less work.
-
I agree with you, it is more fun to play by what the cards say. Also, shouldn't the mainstream consumer of the game be considered in these rulings? It is sad that there is so much red tape. Unfortunately, bureaucracy has ruined many a good thing throughout history. Why don't you just ban the disputed cards from the tournament rather than redefining their usage, it would be less confusing and less work.
The logic (and while I don't agree with it, I do understand it), is that it ruins some of the magic of opening a new pack. You see this shiny new card that you've heard all about (or even haven't heard about) and then you find out you can't use it in tournament play. The three cards that see the most requests for banning are likely A New Beginning, Mayhem, and New Jerusalem, and all three of those cards are very valuable, so I can understand the serious disappointment behind that. Not to mention the hit the Redemption economy would take if New Jerusalem or Mayhem were banned.
The REG needs to be constantly changing, we are constantly finding new, unforseeable ways, in which it was broken. There are new cards that come out and make the REG broken.
This is inherently the problem. Too many intelligent people are wasting their brain-power trying to find ways to manipulate rulings and definitions to make cards broken, or make the game boring for the rest of us. This is supposed to be a game about fun and fellowship. It has instead become a game about semantics and self-glorification.
But it is in fact a game. You can't begrudge people who seek to play it as aggressively as possible. When you get into competitive play, it comes with the territory. Any competitive game will become about winning. That's the way most games are played. Is it right? Not necessarily, but I don't think it's really wrong either.
-
I agree with you, it is more fun to play by what the cards say. Also, shouldn't the mainstream consumer of the game be considered in these rulings? It is sad that there is so much red tape. Unfortunately, bureaucracy has ruined many a good thing throughout history. Why don't you just ban the disputed cards from the tournament rather than redefining their usage, it would be less confusing and less work.
The logic (and while I don't agree with it, I do understand it), is that it ruins some of the magic of opening a new pack. You see this shiny new card that you've heard all about (or even haven't heard about) and then you find out you can't use it in tournament play. The three cards that see the most requests for banning are likely A New Beginning, Mayhem, and New Jerusalem, and all three of those cards are very valuable, so I can understand the serious disappointment behind that. Not to mention the hit the Redemption economy would take if New Jerusalem or Mayhem were banned.
The REG needs to be constantly changing, we are constantly finding new, unforseeable ways, in which it was broken. There are new cards that come out and make the REG broken.
This is inherently the problem. Too many intelligent people are wasting their brain-power trying to find ways to manipulate rulings and definitions to make cards broken, or make the game boring for the rest of us. This is supposed to be a game about fun and fellowship. It has instead become a game about semantics and self-glorification.
But it is in fact a game. You can't begrudge people who seek to play it as aggressively as possible. When you get into competitive play, it comes with the territory. Any competitive game will become about winning. That's the way most games are played. Is it right? Not necessarily, but I don't think it's really wrong either.
If you can't play the cards the way they were written, then those ones should be banned or allowed to be played the way they were written. Just my mainstream opinion.
-
If you can't play the cards the way they were written, then those ones should be banned or allowed to be played the way they were written. Just my mainstream opinion.
I'm inclined to agree with you, honestly. I love the whole concept of A New Beginning, I really do, but the problem is that it's just too easy to break. I feel like the execution was pretty poor, but I don't really know how it would be possible to make it without it being highly exploitable. I also feel like a first time Mayhem defines a game so heavily that it's outright unfair. I fully support the banning of both these cards.
-
If someone made and maintained an unofficial banlist would people be willing to play under it? I've been considering doing this for a while, but I didn't think it would have support.
-
But it is in fact a game. You can't begrudge people who seek to play it as aggressively as possible.
I can, and I will. ;)
When you get into competitive play, it comes with the territory. Any competitive game will become about winning. That's the way most games are played. Is it right? Not necessarily, but I don't think it's really wrong either.
It is for a game that professes to be a Christian alternative to mainstream games. If we are no different, then I will just go play MTG or Pokemon. It's all the same, right? It's just another card game, right?
-
If someone made and maintained an unofficial banlist would people be willing to play under it? I've been considering doing this for a while, but I didn't think it would have support.
I would support it if you can't use the cards they were written...
-
If someone made and maintained an unofficial banlist would people be willing to play under it? I've been considering doing this for a while, but I didn't think it would have support.
I actually considered hosting a banned card tournament.
-
But it is in fact a game. You can't begrudge people who seek to play it as aggressively as possible.
I can, and I will. ;)
When you get into competitive play, it comes with the territory. Any competitive game will become about winning. That's the way most games are played. Is it right? Not necessarily, but I don't think it's really wrong either.
It is for a game that professes to be a Christian alternative to mainstream games. If we are no different, then I will just go play MTG or Pokemon. It's all the same, right? It's just another card game, right?
It is an alternative, but it is also a game. Competition is a part of games.
My point is that, if you can't play cards the way they were written, then they should not have been written that way in the 1st place.
-
If someone made and maintained an unofficial banlist would people be willing to play under it? I've been considering doing this for a while, but I didn't think it would have support.
I actually considered hosting a banned card tournament.
I'll make a new thread for nominations and such so we stop hijacking this thread.
-
It is for a game that professes to be a Christian alternative to mainstream games. If we are no different, then I will just go play MTG or Pokemon. It's all the same, right? It's just another card game, right?
People win differently in Redemption though. I see it all the time, there is no gloating, no trash talk, no put downs. There is obviously going to be a let down if you lose but the atmosphere brings you back up again. I don't know what your tournament experience has been like but mine has always beeen positive. :)
If someone made and maintained an unofficial banlist would people be willing to play under it? I've been considering doing this for a while, but I didn't think it would have support.
I actually considered hosting a banned card tournament.
I would think that it would be better to wait until Redemption is done and not producing anymore sets. Then, as players, we could mix it up a bit.
-
If someone made and maintained an unofficial banlist would people be willing to play under it? I've been considering doing this for a while, but I didn't think it would have support.
When it comes to tournament play, it won't win any support really. Cards that are worth banning are usually staples, at least for certain strategies.
It is for a game that professes to be a Christian alternative to mainstream games. If we are no different, then I will just go play MTG or Pokemon. It's all the same, right? It's just another card game, right?
I would argue that for many people it is. I prefer Redemption to Pokemon or other games because the community is small, and it doesn't require enormous amounts of money to build a competitive deck. Redemption was of course made to be more approachable for a christian family who have problems with Magic or Pokemon or Yugioh, but being competitive comes with the competitive side of the game. I would argue that the vast majority of casual players or people who play Redemption over other games because it's christian don't play it for the competitive aspect anyways, and they are more inclined to just play cards the way they're written. The borderline ugly competitive side is a non-issue to them.
Honestly, it sounds harsh, but if you don't like the way the competition is handled, don't play competitively. I actually have a huge problem with the way Redemption is run. I feel like the rules have no real solid foundation, which is why things like the definition of "play" are still being debated after more than a year. That's due entirely to Rob not knowing where the game was headed during it's inception (insert "dream level: protection, negate, etc." pun here), and is to be expected, but I don't think anything has really been done to rectify it either. My point is that part of the reason cards can be so easily exploited a lot of the time is because up until the last several years, nobody was playtesting with the realization that there are people who are specifically trying to break cards and use them in ways not intended to gain an edge. The rules of Redemption are fundamentally flawed, and it's only recently that it's become apparent how badly that is true.
I told you that story to tell you this story. The game is easily exploitable. As such, people are going to exploit it. It's like saying that during a world Battleship tournament, if there isn't a rule that you can't stick your ship so that that one part of it is sticking off the grid, you shouldn't do it because that takes away from the fun of the game. (A weak analogy, I know.)
Warning - while you were typing 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Darn it guys...
-
If someone made and maintained an unofficial banlist would people be willing to play under it? I've been considering doing this for a while, but I didn't think it would have support.
i would fully support this. the problem would be coming up with which cards should be banned/restricted/limited.
-
Please transfer all banlist discussion to http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/game-play-variations/type-1-2-player-unofficial-banlist/ (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/game-play-variations/type-1-2-player-unofficial-banlist/)
If someone made and maintained an unofficial banlist would people be willing to play under it? I've been considering doing this for a while, but I didn't think it would have support.
i would fully support this. the problem would be coming up with which cards should be banned/restricted/limited.
It'll be by nomination, check out the thread.
-
"Honestly, it sounds harsh, but if you don't like the way the competition is handled, don't play competitively. I actually have a huge problem with the way Redemption is run. I feel like the rules have no real solid foundation, which is why things like the definition of "play" are still being debated after more than a year. That's due entirely to Rob not knowing where the game was headed during it's inception (insert "dream level: protection, negate, etc." pun here), and is to be expected, but I don't think anything has really been done to rectify it either. My point is that part of the reason cards can be so easily exploited a lot of the time is because up until the last several years, nobody was playtesting with the realization that there are people who are specifically trying to break cards and use them in ways not intended to gain an edge. The rules of Redemption are fundamentally flawed, and it's only recently that it's become apparent how badly that is true.
I told you that story to tell you this story. The game is easily exploitable. As such, people are going to exploit it. It's like saying that during a world Battleship tournament, if there isn't a rule that you can't stick your ship so that that one part of it is sticking off the grid, you shouldn't do it because that takes away from the fun of the game. (A weak analogy, I know.)"
I like this point as it is a good prequal to my point. Wool Fleece for example says "May (Not)" which is significantly different than "Cannot" may is not an absolute term, can/cannot is. May allows a form of permission. May needs to be defined. "Play" as well. These terms need to be defined in the rule book and further explained in the REG.
Give me some latitude to go here. If you read Wool Fleece: No Evil Character May Band. This could be interpreted as you (the cardholder) can give evil characters permission to band as the operative term is "MAY". Just as it is with the card "Pharisees". That is a significant difference than Cannot.
-
I think Wool Fleece should be a prevent. It may not be worded the best, but it is preventing the special ability of banding used by evil characters. Does it stop them from doing something or from something being done to them? If the latter then it would be a protect, but since it prevents their action (special ability) then it should be a prevent. "Evil characters may not be banded to" would be a protect.
other topic:
YMT's comments seem to indicate someone who thinks competition is evil or opposed to fun and fellowship or someone who does not have an understanding of godly competition. It is not unusual that I disagree with him here but I'm not picking on him. I have seen this attitude many times. I will agree that competition can be ugly, evil, selfish, etc like many things that have been twisted in this fallen world. My guess is that many christians see that and rightly want to be away from that but unfortunately don't separate competition from the ungodly use of it. I will try to explain the godly version of it.
We are instructed in Scripture to make use of what God has given us, to try our best, to excel, to grow, to shine. Obviously God knows whether we are doing this or being lazy or wasteful but since we are finite, we do not always know. This is part of why we need tests. We need something to measure against to see what we are doing and where we are going. Competition can be a great form of testing. You can play a sport like basketball just for fun but when you perform exceptionally well, to the best of your abilities, then there is some glory in it. Now whether that is godly depends on whether you are giving that to yourself or to God. There is something inherently praiseworthy in someone giving it their all. This is more obvious when watching someone like Michael Jordan play then in watching someone repeatedly trip and hit themselves in the face but if you knew that the 2nd guy was severely handicapped and told he would never walk then it can be just as inspiring to watch him barely make it to the basket. It would not be inspiring if I tripped like that. Competition is a way to practice, learn, grow, and do your best. In competition you measure against other people, but also against yourself. In competition your are trying to win, because you cannot be trying to lose and doing your best at the same time but whether you actually win or lose in the end doesn't really matter. It is far better to do your best and lose then to easily win when you are being mediocre. A certain reality of competiton is that a very talented player doing their best will squash a untalented player doing their best. They don't need to be mean about it but Michael Jordan would squash me at basketball, every time. Certain people will complain that it is unfair, mean spirited, that we need to level the playing field. Nonsense. If the more gifted person plays at a lower level because they are teaching the other person or just having fun then that is fine. But if both players want to showcase to the best of their ability what God has given them in a competition, then it is demeaning to the less skilled to coddle them and ungodly to limit the talents of the gifted. It seems that some in the community try to do this in the name of fairness, equality, etc. It does no good to let the less gifted win as much; this actually elevates winning above doing your best and giving your all. If (insert favorite singer) sang next to me on (favorite talent show), I would sound ugly in comparison but their great singing didn't make mine less but merely showcased how little it is. In humility I will freely admit my small singing skills. The good news is that God will accept the little I have to give Him like the generous widow.
So YMT, myself and others didn't set out to manipulate rules or glorify ourselves but merely asked "given the current rules and the current cards, what is the best strategy I can come up with?" I'm sorry for you if you allow yourself to be bored by that or by being soundly defeated. I think you might be missing out on some things. Fortunately games and competition is not the only place to learn these things so maybe you are getting it elsewhere in life.
-
It's pretty standard in card game terminology (and real world terminology, really) that "can" and "may" are synonymous. If your mother says "you cannot have a cookie" or "you may not have a cookie" they mean the same thing. She is preventing you from having a cookie (or protecting the cookie jar from you, depending on how the Elders rule Wool Fleece).
-
YMT's comments seem to indicate someone who thinks competition is evil or opposed to fun and fellowship or someone who does not have an understanding of godly competition.
You are mistaken about me competely. I understand healthy competition, but so far I have not seen it in the Redemption community.
It is not unusual that I disagree with him here but I'm not picking on him.
Interestingly I do not remember a time that you did agree with me.
So YMT, myself and others didn't set out to manipulate rules or glorify ourselves...
Some people on these boards have done exactly that. Pretending that is not the case does not make it go away.
I'm sorry for you if you allow yourself to be bored by that or by being soundly defeated.
The arrogance that you would suppose this is laughable. I have never been soundly defeated by anybody. I have been bored into losing to a Zebulun turtle deck, but I only spoke openly about that when I saw the exact same deck in three consecutive games from three different people on ROOT.
I think you might be missing out on some things. Fortunately games and competition is not the only place to learn these things so maybe you are getting it elsewhere in life.
Ironically I am probably one of the most competitive people you will ever meet. However, I manage that without offending others. Redemption people seem to not have that ability more often than not.
People win differently in Redemption though. I see it all the time, there is no gloating, no trash talk, no put downs. There is obviously going to be a let down if you lose but the atmosphere brings you back up again. I don't know what your tournament experience has been like but mine has always beeen positive. :)
I envy your experiences then, and wish I was in Minnesota. Unfortunately I have seen the ugly side of Redemption tournaments in every state I have hosted.
-
It's pretty standard in card game terminology (and real world terminology, really) that "can" and "may" are synonymous. If your mother says "you cannot have a cookie" or "you may not have a cookie" they mean the same thing. She is preventing you from having a cookie (or protecting the cookie jar from you, depending on how the Elders rule Wool Fleece).
.
In the English language may is "allowed to" can is "able to". May is controlled by something else. Can stands on its own. Look it up in the dictionary. For example: I can post a swear word in my posts here. But the moderator does not allow me to by kicking me out. 1st example CAN. 2nd example MAY
-
That's fairly arbitrary if you ask me. Who said that the dictionary was the authoritative place to find word definitions? If you ask me, Miriam and Webster are just making up definitions that are arbitrary and subject to their opinions.
-
It's pretty standard in card game terminology (and real world terminology, really) that "can" and "may" are synonymous. If your mother says "you cannot have a cookie" or "you may not have a cookie" they mean the same thing. She is preventing you from having a cookie (or protecting the cookie jar from you, depending on how the Elders rule Wool Fleece).
.
In the English language may is "allowed to" can is "able to". May is controlled by something else. Can stands on its own. Look it up in the dictionary. For example: I can post a swear word in my posts here. But the moderator does not allow me to by kicking me out. 1st example CAN. 2nd example MAY
Other than the fact you didn't post May in the second sentence, and it's not even a may clause in any way.
-
Note to self: If I ever attend a tournament with Theselfevident, on top of bringing all of my cards, money, sleeping materials, trade bait, etc. I now must also bring a dictionary, and probably a thesaurus. If you want to argue the english language perhaps you could find a forum of english teachers. Unfortunately we only have a math teacher in this thread. (https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.absolutepunk.net%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2FStandard%2Fhitself.gif&hash=1fcf2d8afb6a38d3479b9376d93f72eb3dd3d2d1)
-
He's actually certified to be an English teacher as well.
-
I certify that I will never teach English again.
It is worth noting that I am not the only math teacher on these boards (of course, you said "thread," so I'd have to check to see if the others posted here).
-
In the English language may is "allowed to" can is "able to". May is controlled by something else. Can stands on its own. Look it up in the dictionary. For example: I can post a swear word in my posts here. But the moderator does not allow me to by kicking me out. 1st example CAN. 2nd example MAY
In a perfect world people would use can where can is appropriate and may where may is appropriate, yes. Unfortunately, ours is not a perfect world.
In summary, "may not" does not offer the choice that "you may" does. If something says you "may not" do something, it doesn't mean there's any kind of permissions or choices involved, it simply means that something is not allowed (what kind of not allowed depends on the specific card and its wording, i.e.: prevent or protect in this case).
-
That's fairly arbitrary if you ask me. Who said that the dictionary was the authoritative place to find word definitions? If you ask me, Miriam and Webster are just making up definitions that are arbitrary and subject to their opinions.
I like this =)
-
My main point in all of this is that if a card does not have a term such as Protect or Negate or Prevent. Then, the words on the card need to be defined by the game rules, not completely rewritten with words that are not on the card. =)
I think half the fun of the game is interpretation... just my mainstream non-tournament, non-elder opinion. =)
-
Then, the words on the card need to be defined by the game rules
I think half the fun of the game is interpretation...
contradiction. fail. you lose sir. so badly.
-
Then, the words on the card need to be defined by the game rules
I think half the fun of the game is interpretation...
contradiction. fail. you lose sir. so badly.
It is a contradiction. I'm just saying that if you can't interpret them, then leave no room for interpretation such as the rulings that are posted out here and changed on a regular basis. That is arbitration at its highest form.
-
My main point in all of this is that if a card does not have a term such as Protect or Negate or Prevent. Then, the words on the card need to be defined by the game rules, not completely rewritten with words that are not on the card.
What part of that have the Elders not done? "No opponent may/can X" has been defined by game rule as "restrict", "X may/can not Y" is defined by game rule as "prevent", "X may/can not be Y'd" is defined by game rule as "protect". In turn, restrict, prevent, and protect have their own definitions in game rules, too. I'm confused as to what more you think should be done.
-
My main point in all of this is that if a card does not have a term such as Protect or Negate or Prevent. Then, the words on the card need to be defined by the game rules, not completely rewritten with words that are not on the card. =)
I think half the fun of the game is interpretation... just my mainstream non-tournament, non-elder opinion. =)
I interpret my SoG to be "Rescue all souls in play and deck". Also: All of my cards search for SoG. There's a reason we have rules. House rules are fun, but what you're suggesting is not a very bright move with the big picture in mind. Cards bend to the rules, not rules bending to cards.
Also: the rules are changed on a regular basis? Since when? You're contradicting yourself (which is borderline hypocritical), and insulting those who work tirelessly to make the game work for all of us. Yes, they fail sometimes, but that's what forgiveness is for. Quit insisting that the rules bend to your will. We've got enough people like that around here already. If you've got issues with Redemption, then go make your own card game.
-
I for one like knowing that if I play a card, there is a set way that it is supposed to work, and knowing that it will be consistent no matter what tournament i'm going to. I would hate to get to nats and find out that suddenly the NT only lost soul can be rescued by SOG and my opponent wins by SOG that lost soul. You are again accusing the Elders of making rulings without putting thought in to it.
-
My main point in all of this is that if a card does not have a term such as Protect or Negate or Prevent. Then, the words on the card need to be defined by the game rules, not completely rewritten with words that are not on the card.
What part of that have the Elders not done? "No opponent may/can X" has been defined by game rule as "restrict", "X may/can not Y" is defined by game rule as "prevent", "X may/can not be Y'd" is defined by game rule as "protect". In turn, restrict, prevent, and protect have their own definitions in game rules, too. I'm confused as to what more you think should be done.
Where is this posted. I am happy that is defined. THANK YOU! I wanted a definition of may. Therefore, wool fleece is a restrict card. What is a restriction "protection" or "negation" or "restriction" =)
-
I for one like knowing that if I play a card, there is a set way that it is supposed to work, and knowing that it will be consistent no matter what tournament i'm going to. I would hate to get to nats and find out that suddenly the NT only lost soul can be rescued by SOG and my opponent wins by SOG that lost soul. You are again accusing the Elders of making rulings without putting thought in to it.
I never said they didn't think about it. Its just nice for the public not on these posts to know that. Had I never came to this forum, I would have never known.
-
This is not a negate card. It says "No Evil Characters may band." Plain and simply NO EVIL CHARACTERS MAY BAND. I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are. :)
So you really want this card to be a Restrict, not a Prevent or a Protect. You want it to read "Restrict all players from adding Evil Characters to battle if an Evil Character is in battle."
The problem is not with your interpretation, it's that you are using made-up phrases and terminology to defend your opinion and not definitions (like "Prevent", "Protect", or "Restrict") grounded in the understood rules of Redemption. And this will sound harsh, but if you aren't able to discuss Rulings on a Rulings Board using Rules... It may be better to keep quiet and wait for the Elders to voice their opinions.
-
This is not a negate card. It says "No Evil Characters may band." Plain and simply NO EVIL CHARACTERS MAY BAND. I don't like the arbitrary rulings out here....Rather illogical rulings that redefine cards is a bit ridiculous. I'm not trying to be rude or bothersome, just rewriting cards without sticking to the rulebook or REG is contrary to what rules are. :)
So you really want this card to be a Restrict, not a Prevent or a Protect. You want it to read "Restrict all players from adding Evil Characters to battle if an Evil Character is in battle."
The problem is not with your interpretation, it's that you are using made-up phrases and terminology to defend your opinion and not definitions (like "Prevent", "Protect", or "Restrict") grounded in the understood rules of Redemption. And this will sound harsh, but if you aren't able to discuss Rulings on a Rulings Board using Rules... It may be better to keep quiet and wait for the Elders to voice their opinions.
I don't honestly care what the ruling is. I just want it to be posted where EVERY card player can see it and it to be consistent, so that everyone plays by the same rules. Rather than randomly redefining the card itself. Define the terms so that outdated cards are included. Such as wool fleece.
It is also very interesting to see how upset you all are over a game. Intriguing...
-
Once again.
Yeah if only these rulings were posted in some sort of discussion forum, that are available to everyone, and are constantly being updated with the newest information. Wouldn't that be nice....
What do you want Cactus to do, implant a chip in every redemption players head that automatically updates with the newest rulings?
-
Once again.
Yeah if only these rulings were posted in some sort of discussion forum, that are available to everyone, and are constantly being updated with the newest information. Wouldn't that be nice....
What do you want Cactus to do, implant a chip in every redemption players head that automatically updates with the newest rulings?
The Rulebook and REG should be the authority. Even if you consider it outdated, it should be the authority and updated as needed.
-
Not meant to be offensive, but it seems that cards are being reworded is all.
I, for one, do not find you as offensive. You represent the mainstream non-Message Board host who has no idea what has been happening over the past few years. You play the game and make rulings the way that seems logical, based on the wording of the cards. It is much more fun to play that way.
However, if you attend a State, Regional, or National tournament, you will be shocked to find out that everything you thought you knew is not the way it is done. The web of red tape that we have created here on the Boards is ridiculously excessive, which is why the "New REG" can not ever be released, since once it is, it will already be outdated.
This expresses my opinion exactly.
-
You want cactus to print a new version of the reg every time a new ruling is made? That pretty expensive. Not to mention okay now you have to somehow be made aware that there is a new version of the REG. Oh hey, you know what would be great for that? A DISCUSSION FORUM. HOW. ARE. YOU. NOT. GETTING. THIS. This is the most efficient and cost effective way to keep people up to date. You come up with something better that also doesn't cost thousands let all of us no cause honestly I'm stumped here buddy.
-
You want cactus to print a new version of the reg every time a new ruling is made? That pretty expensive. Not to mention okay now you have to somehow be made aware that there is a new version of the REG. Oh hey, you know what would be great for that? A DISCUSSION FORUM. HOW. ARE. YOU. NOT. GETTING. THIS. This is the most efficient and cost effective way to keep people up to date. You come up with something better that also doesn't cost thousands let all of us no cause honestly I'm stumped here buddy.
You don't need to print it. post it online. Cheap. Problem solved. I shouldn't have to ask somebody else to explain the rules to me. I should be able to read the rulebook and the REG and say: that's the rules.
-
Rather than randomly redefining the card itself. Define the terms so that outdated cards are included. Such as wool fleece.
Did you not read my post? I told you specifically how this outdated card IS defined in current terms. I can't tell if you're intentionally ignoring what people are saying or what, but this discussion would go a lot smoother if you would actually read and think about what we're saying.
The Rulebook and REG should be the authority. Even if you consider it outdated, it should be the authority and updated as needed.
Who are you to decide what should or should not be authority in a game in which you are not involved in the creation or administration? The REG and rulebook ARE authoritative except in situations where rulings publicly posted here on the forums update them. Also, Rob and the Elders have deemed rulings confirmed by them here on the boards to be just as binding as anything in the REG.
You don't need to print it. post it online. Cheap. Problem solved. I shouldn't have to ask somebody else to explain the rules to me. I should be able to read the rulebook and the REG and say: that's the rules.
This is online, what's the difference? Either way, somebody is telling you what the rulings are. If it was the REG, then the Elders would be telling you. Here, you can get REPs (really experienced players) telling you the right answer without having to wait for an Elder to come online.
-
Rather than randomly redefining the card itself. Define the terms so that outdated cards are included. Such as wool fleece.
Did you not read my post? I told you specifically how this outdated card IS defined in current terms. I can't tell if you're intentionally ignoring what people are saying or what, but this discussion would go a lot smoother if you would actually read and think about what we're saying.
The Rulebook and REG should be the authority. Even if you consider it outdated, it should be the authority and updated as needed.
Who are you to decide what should or should not be authority in a game in which you are not involved in the creation or administration? The REG and rulebook ARE authoritative except in situations where rulings publicly posted here on the forums update them. Also, Rob and the Elders have deemed rulings confirmed by them here on the boards to be just as binding as anything in the REG.
You don't need to print it. post it online. Cheap. Problem solved. I shouldn't have to ask somebody else to explain the rules to me. I should be able to read the rulebook and the REG and say: that's the rules.
This is online, what's the difference? Either way, somebody is telling you what the rulings are. If it was the REG, then the Elders would be telling you. Here, you can get REPs (really experienced players) telling you the right answer without having to wait for an Elder to come online.
Seriously? You are all so upset from someone questioning things? Really? My point is... never mind none of you get it.... I will say this tho, what's the point of having the REG and rulebook if you don't follow it?
-
We did follow it, then it became outdated. Now this system works much better.
-
The rulebook and REG are correct, except where overruled by rulings on the board. I said that already. A new, updated REG is in the works by Elders and their helpers. Until that is finished and released, you'll just have to deal with checking here for up-to-date rulings like everyone else.
-
The rulebook and REG are correct, except where overruled by rulings on the board. I said that already. A new, updated REG is in the works by Elders and their helpers. Until that is finished and released, you'll just have to deal with checking here for up-to-date rulings like everyone else.
Well let's hope this one continues to get updated on a regular basis rather becoming completely obsolete... I have not meant to shake the walls of your precious forum. I'm sorry you are all so easily bothered by someone just making a simple observation.
-
You accused the elders of making arbitrary rulings when they put a lot of time and thought in to every ruling they make, accused us of somehow trying to take the fun out of the game by establishing some sort of a standard by which it should be played, refused to accept any logical response to any of your apparent concerns, tried to say that the system doesn't work but offered no better solution, and implied that people aren't trying to make the game fun for everyone. You did a bit more then make an observation.
-
You accused the elders of making arbitrary rulings when they put a lot of time and thought in to every ruling they make, accused us of somehow trying to take the fun out of the game by establishing some sort of a standard by which it should be played, refused to accept any logical response to any of your apparent concerns, tried to say that the system doesn't work but offered no better solution, and implied that people aren't trying to make the game fun for everyone. You did a bit more then make an observation.
Arbitrary is something that is based on opinion, it may be informed and well thought out but its still subjective. I have not disregarded logical explanations to my concerns. I have not accused anyone of taking the fun out of the game. I just merely said, DEFINE the terms on the cards and make it standard so it can't change. that's my simple observation.
-
Is Wool Fleece a Protect or a Prevent ability?
I was just told that, according to this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/official-errata/rule-clarifications-additions-and-edits/), it is a protect ability due to its "May not" wording.
However, according to the Play As it has in the REG it is a prevent (in my opinion this is also the intrinsic reading of the card).
Wool Fleece doesn't seem to only limit the targets of special abilities, as a Protect ability should do, but it seems to stop certain characters from doing a certain thing, like a prevent.
So, how exactly does Wool Fleece work? Does it stop ECs from using band abilities (prevent), or does it keep ECs from being banded into battle (protect)? This makes a big difference for many cards, such as Gomer's CBN banding ability, and Seige's Band All ability (if it just protects ECs from being targeted, then you could play Seige just to band in all of your opponent's heroes.)
Wool Fleece (Pa)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: No Evil Characters may band • Play As: Evil Characters are prevented from banding.
This should never have to happen.
-
No system is so perfect that someone, somewhere, won't get confused. If that's what you want then you better start thinking.
-
This should never have to happen.
Arbitrary is something that is based on opinion, it may be informed and well thought out but its still subjective.
These statements seem to be contradictory. By design, people do not all think the same way. Therefore, even when things are explicitly stated (like the definitions of protect, restrict, and prevent), questions will still arise. This thread was started because you did not know that "no evil characters may band" is defined as a prevent in Redemption. People tried to tell you this was the case, but instead you assaulted the very basis of how the game is defined (the Elders). If I were an Elder, I'd have good reason to be upset.
-
I just merely said, DEFINE the terms on the cards and make it standard so it can't change. that's my simple observation.
I am by no means an authority on English, but I'm positive that an "observation," a "statement," and a "command" are 3 totally different things. According to the above quote, I am inclined to believe it is either a strong statement, or a command, but definitely NOT a simple observation.
Observation: It appears as though the terms on the cards are not clearly defined; nor does there appear to be a set standard.
Statement of opinion: The terms on the cards should be defined according to a set standard.
Command: Define the terms on the cards and make it standard so it can't change.
For this particular instance, it seems as though we have an old card that has wording on it that has yet to be defined according to the new standard of card wording. This whole discussion might have gone better if you had of asked, "Is there a standard way of defining the wording on old cards?" For approx. 95% of the old cards, there are current definitions on how those cards are played via the way they are worded. This happens to be a thread on one of the remaining 5% that have yet to be defined/ruled upon.
I mean no ill-will by this post towards anyone. theselfevident (tse as I will now refer to you), you seem like a person who is fond of logic, so I hope you are following my above logic. The way you approached this discussion gave the impression you were accusing, demanding, and condemning towards a system you did not know all of the facts about. I agree, it would be best for there to be a centralized area on the boards for new players to learn about the Powers That Be Ruling System.
In fact, I would like to make a recommendation that a Topic/Board/Category outlining the ruling procedure be put in an area of the board where it will be one of the first things a new member/player sees on this Forum. If it exists, I never saw it myself, so I'd be curious as to where it might be located o.O .
If you, tse, had of worded you "observation(s)" in a different way, it would not have come off as an argument. Like I said, I'm not an authority on English, nor am I a scholar, but I have been told I have a knack for Reading Comprehension, so please take this advice with a grain of salt. Welcome to the Boards by the way...
Carry On,
-C_S
-
I just merely said, DEFINE the terms on the cards and make it standard so it can't change. that's my simple observation.
I am by no means an authority on English, but I'm positive that an "observation," a "statement," and a "command" are 3 totally different things. According to the above quote, I am inclined to believe it is either a strong statement, or a command, but definitely NOT a simple observation.
Observation: It appears as though the terms on the cards are not clearly defined; nor does there appear to be a set standard.
Statement of opinion: The terms on the cards should be defined according to a set standard.
Command: Define the terms on the cards and make it standard so it can't change.
For this particular instance, it seems as though we have an old card that has wording on it that has yet to be defined according to the new standard of card wording. This whole discussion might have gone better if you had of asked, "Is there a standard way of defining the wording on old cards?" For approx. 95% of the old cards, there are current definitions on how those cards are played via the way they are worded. This happens to be a thread on one of the remaining 5% that have yet to be defined/ruled upon.
I mean no ill-will by this post towards anyone. theselfevident (tse as I will now refer to you), you seem like a person who is fond of logic, so I hope you are following my above logic. The way you approached this discussion gave the impression you were accusing, demanding, and condemning towards a system you did not know all of the facts about. I agree, it would be best for there to be a centralized area on the boards for new players to learn about the Powers That Be Ruling System.
In fact, I would like to make a recommendation that a Topic/Board/Category outlining the ruling procedure be put in an area of the board where it will be one of the first things a new member/player sees on this Forum. If it exists, I never saw it myself, so I'd be curious as to where it might be located o.O .
If you, tse, had of worded you "observation(s)" in a different way, it would not have come off as an argument. Like I said, I'm not an authority on English, nor am I a scholar, but I have been told I have a knack for Reading Comprehension, so please take this advice with a grain of salt. Welcome to the Boards by the way...
Carry On,
-C_S
I like this guy!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
-
tse, it looks like your problem is not with the system itself. What we have now works for most, and those that want something better begrudgingly acknowledge that what we've got works, if not perfectly. What you've got is an insistence on a perfect system, while making it quite clear you're not perfect yourself, making multiple contradictory statements. (not observations). You claim to enjoy logic, but you "logically" believe in a system that is beyond possible. Everyone who has posted in this thread regarding the ruling has disagreed with you, and most are Elders, REPs, or on their way to REP status. Unless you're Rob's cousin (which has happened before), you're clearly outvoted. Complain about the new system you want, I won't believe you really want a new one until you work toward it.
From my conclusions, if you are to be taken seriously, you suffer from a severe narcissistic flaw, and your problem with the system is that you didn't get to create it. You think that loudly stating your opinions will cause people to put you in charge of changing things.
If you aren't to be taken seriously, then you're the poorest quality troll I've ever seen, and have a narcissistic streak even worse than the one mentioned above.
-
tse, it looks like your problem is not with the system itself. What we have now works for most, and those that want something better begrudgingly acknowledge that what we've got works, if not perfectly. What you've got is an insistence on a perfect system, while making it quite clear you're not perfect yourself, making multiple contradictory statements. (not observations). You claim to enjoy logic, but you "logically" believe in a system that is beyond possible. Everyone who has posted in this thread regarding the ruling has disagreed with you, and most are Elders, REPs, or on their way to REP status. Unless you're Rob's cousin (which has happened before), you're clearly outvoted. Complain about the new system you want, I won't believe you really want a new one until you work toward it.
From my conclusions, if you are to be taken seriously, you suffer from a severe narcissistic flaw, and your problem with the system is that you didn't get to create it. You think that loudly stating your opinions will cause people to put you in charge of changing things.
If you aren't to be taken seriously, then you're the poorest quality troll I've ever seen, and have a narcissistic streak even worse than the one mentioned above.
Whoa! that is the nicest thing someone on a game forum has ever said to me.... Let me be clear. I don't care if I am in or part of the system. I just don't want to be told during the middle of the game I am playing that the rules that are posted by the company on the website are wrong and rulings are rewriting cards.I don't want to rewrite them. I don't want them rewritten. I would like the terms defined in a clear and easy place to find them. And FINALLY someone has. So you can take your kind comments and think before you speak.
-
They are posted somewhere. The rulebook and the REG are correct unless a change has been made on this webiste. Most of those changes have been recorded in several stickied threads.
-
They are posted somewhere. The rulebook and the REG are correct unless a change has been made on this webiste. Most of those changes have been recorded in several stickied threads.
I was recently made aware of where these are. Thank you for following up with a less opposing post.
-
I'm not sure I understand the goal of trying to chase away new hosts and players from the boards because of their annoyance of the current system. It is not even remotely illogical to think that the rulebook and REG should have enough accurate information for rulings to made correctly by non-Elders and people who do not frequent the boards.
The problem here is not theselfevident. The problem here is that the REG and rulebook are substantially outdated, and it has taken much too long for them to be updated or replaced.
Give the guy a break.
Theselfevident: at this point, any continuing discussion will lead to more hostility. These Message Boards are not a friendly place for people who dissent the mainstream. I would suggest you do what some us do. Follow the rulings on these boards as best you can. If there is a lack of clarity, then rule as you normally would, but realize that your ruling may be overturned in a different tournament.
-
I'm not sure I understand the goal of trying to chase away new hosts and players from the boards because of their annoyance of the current system. It is not even remotely illogical to think that the rulebook and REG should have enough accurate information for rulings to made correctly by non-Elders and people who do not frequent the boards.
The problem here is not theselfevident. The problem here is that the REG and rulebook are substantially outdated, and it has taken much too long for them to be updated or replaced.
Give the guy a break.
The problem here is that we tried to explain to him that, yes, the system is a bit flawed at this point but there is an updated document in the works, but instead of accepting that he proceeded to insult the Elders, demand instant changes aligning with his opinionated preferences, and refused to listen to anybody. I'll give him a break as soon as he stops being rude to people when he doesn't get his way. If anything, he's alienating himself by his tone, attitude, and words.
-
He was frustrated by a system that he has not seen evolve the way we have. You have to be willing to accept a learning curve for newcomers to the board.
I wasn't talking about you specifically anyway. It seemed that he was being ganged up on.
-
Learning curves are fine, and understandable, I'm merely stating he could have gone about the whole thing in a better way than "your system stinks, you should do it my way". lol
I mean, I get frustrated with this game so often sometimes I just have to put it away for awhile to cool off, haha. So I totally understand. I just think that cooler heads prevail and don't grate on nerves nearly as much.
-
Learning curves are fine, and understandable, I'm merely stating he could have gone about the whole thing in a better way than "your system stinks, you should do it my way". lol
I agree with you here. It definitely goes both ways. However, certain other people were getting a bit too personal.
-
... at this point, any continuing discussion will lead to more hostility...
QFT.
This thread was answered in the 3rd post of this thread. Wool Fleece is a prevent.
Discussion over, if y'all wanna keep debating, please take it to another thread.