Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
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.
Then, the words on the card need to be defined by the game rulesI think half the fun of the game is interpretation...
Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 10:54:04 PM Then, the words on the card need to be defined by the game rulesI think half the fun of the game is interpretation...contradiction. fail. you lose sir. so badly.
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.
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. =)
postcount.add(1);
Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 10:54:04 PMMy 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 12:02:55 PMThis 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.
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?
Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 02:19:48 PMNot 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.
Not meant to be offensive, but it seems that cards are being reworded is all.
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.
Rather than randomly redefining the card itself. Define the terms so that outdated cards are included. Such as wool fleece.
The Rulebook and REG should be the authority. Even if you consider it outdated, it should be the authority and updated as needed.
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.
Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:17:44 PMRather 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.Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:24:26 PMThe 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.Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:28:12 PMYou 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.
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.
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.
Is Wool Fleece a Protect or a Prevent ability? I was just told that, according to this thread, 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.
