Author Topic: Wool Fleece (Read 9079 times)

browarod · « **Reply #50 on:** June 27, 2011, 10:30:11 PM »

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

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).

theselfevident · « **Reply #51 on:** June 27, 2011, 10:50:02 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens 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.

I like this =)

theselfevident · « **Reply #52 on:** June 27, 2011, 10:54:04 PM »

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. =)

lp670sv · « **Reply #53 on:** June 27, 2011, 10:55:52 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 10:54:04 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #54 on:** June 27, 2011, 10:59:35 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 27, 2011, 10:55:52 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 10:54:04 PM
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.

browarod · « **Reply #55 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:02:17 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 10:54:04 PM

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.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #56 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:03:53 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 10:54:04 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #57 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:04:53 PM »

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #58 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:11:05 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 27, 2011, 11:02:17 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 10:54:04 PM
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" =)

theselfevident · « **Reply #59 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:13:46 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 27, 2011, 11:04:53 PM

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.

Josh · « **Reply #60 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:15:12 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 12:02:55 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #61 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:17:44 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on June 27, 2011, 11:15:12 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on June 26, 2011, 12:02:55 PM
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...

lp670sv · « **Reply #62 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:23:16 PM »

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?

theselfevident · « **Reply #63 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:24:26 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 27, 2011, 11:23:16 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #64 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:25:12 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.

This expresses my opinion exactly.

lp670sv · « **Reply #65 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:27:26 PM »

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #66 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:28:12 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 27, 2011, 11:27:26 PM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #67 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:32:13 PM »

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:17:44 PM

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.

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:24:26 PM

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.

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:28:12 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #68 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:36:45 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 27, 2011, 11:32:13 PM

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:17:44 PM
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.

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:24:26 PM
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.

Quote from: theselfevident on June 27, 2011, 11:28:12 PM
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?

lp670sv · « **Reply #69 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:39:48 PM »

We did follow it, then it became outdated. Now this system works much better.

browarod · « **Reply #70 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:41:35 PM »

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #71 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:47:49 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 27, 2011, 11:41:35 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #72 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:51:50 PM »

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #73 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:56:30 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on June 27, 2011, 11:51:50 PM

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.

theselfevident · « **Reply #74 on:** June 27, 2011, 11:58:33 PM »

Quote from: 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, 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.

News:

Author Topic: Wool Fleece (Read 9079 times)

browarod

lp670sv

browarod

lp670sv

lp670sv

lp670sv

browarod

lp670sv

browarod

lp670sv