Author Topic: Wool Fleece (Read 9058 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #25 on:** June 26, 2011, 02:36:00 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 26, 2011, 02:29:25 PM

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.

Quote from: lp670sv on June 26, 2011, 02:29:25 PM

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.

Quote from: lp670sv on June 26, 2011, 02:29:25 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #26 on:** June 26, 2011, 09:21:41 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 02:24:56 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 02:19:48 PM
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is ridiculously excessive, which is why the "New REG" can not ever be released, since once it is, it will already be outdated.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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #27 on:** June 26, 2011, 09:53:23 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 09:21:41 PM

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.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 02:36:00 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on June 26, 2011, 02:29:25 PM
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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #28 on:** June 26, 2011, 09:57:55 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on June 26, 2011, 09:53:23 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 09:21:41 PM
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.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 02:36:00 PM

Quote from: lp670sv on June 26, 2011, 02:29:25 PM
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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #29 on:** June 26, 2011, 10:21:02 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 09:57:55 PM

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.

Smokey · « **Reply #30 on:** June 26, 2011, 10:42:33 PM »

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #31 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:00:32 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on June 26, 2011, 09:53:23 PM

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.

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on June 26, 2011, 09:53:23 PM

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?

theselfevident · « **Reply #32 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:27:29 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on June 26, 2011, 10:42:33 PM

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...

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #33 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:28:46 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on June 26, 2011, 10:42:33 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #34 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:32:19 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 11:00:32 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on June 26, 2011, 09:53:23 PM
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.

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on June 26, 2011, 09:53:23 PM
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.

Smokey · « **Reply #35 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:33:42 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on June 26, 2011, 11:28:46 PM

Quote from: Smokey on June 26, 2011, 10:42:33 PM
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.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #36 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:34:03 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 11:00:32 PM

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.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on June 26, 2011, 11:28:46 PM

Quote from: Smokey on June 26, 2011, 10:42:33 PM
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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #37 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:44:09 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on June 26, 2011, 10:42:33 PM

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.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 26, 2011, 11:00:32 PM

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.)

Quote

Warning - while you were typing 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Darn it guys...

Master KChief · « **Reply #38 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:45:23 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on June 26, 2011, 10:42:33 PM

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.

Smokey · « **Reply #39 on:** June 26, 2011, 11:48:30 PM »

Please transfer all banlist discussion to http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/game-play-variations/type-1-2-player-unofficial-banlist/

Quote from: Master KChief on June 26, 2011, 11:45:23 PM

Quote from: Smokey on June 26, 2011, 10:42:33 PM
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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #40 on:** June 27, 2011, 01:52:13 AM »

"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.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #41 on:** June 27, 2011, 04:30:45 AM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #42 on:** June 27, 2011, 03:50:28 PM »

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).

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #43 on:** June 27, 2011, 04:34:32 PM »

Quote from: galadgawyn on June 27, 2011, 04:30:45 AM

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.

Quote from: galadgawyn on June 27, 2011, 04:30:45 AM

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.

Quote from: galadgawyn on June 27, 2011, 04:30:45 AM

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.

Quote from: galadgawyn on June 27, 2011, 04:30:45 AM

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.

Quote from: galadgawyn on June 27, 2011, 04:30:45 AM

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.

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 26, 2011, 11:34:03 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #44 on:** June 27, 2011, 07:35:20 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 27, 2011, 03:50:28 PM

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

SomeKittens · « **Reply #45 on:** June 27, 2011, 07:42:28 PM »

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.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #46 on:** June 27, 2011, 08:11:25 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 07:35:20 PM

Quote from: browarod on June 27, 2011, 03:50:28 PM
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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #47 on:** June 27, 2011, 08:42:25 PM »

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.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #48 on:** June 27, 2011, 08:43:52 PM »

He's actually certified to be an English teacher as well.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #49 on:** June 27, 2011, 08:47:52 PM »

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).

News:

Author Topic: Wool Fleece (Read 9058 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

TheHobbit13

Chronic Apathy

browarod

lp670sv