Author |
|
Biegel Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007 Location: Christmas Island Posts: 390
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 at 1:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
First the Chicken Soup then the Chicken Dinner. Now IR can,t show his face. Least wise not around here abouts. Seems like we got some rules to disscuss.MOSTSPACEMAN
|
Back to Top |
|
|
werewolflht65 Exalted
Joined: 08 October 2007 Location: United States Posts: 780
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 at 3:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
To Tarq: Oh yeah, I did that back when Powers first came out. I'd play the asteroid shield, then drop a Citadel on it in reaction. Apparently some other people did it also, which is why they made the wording change so it couldn't be the basis.
To Biegel: The IR is horribly convoluted. It contradicts itself and it violates game rules. Even in Magic I don't let a card violate the core rules of the game. IR is done with this region of the country. It's just not worth the grief of a 2 hour argument.
__________________ "Light Balls? You didn't ask for Light Balls. You asked for Light BEER!" Capt. Sergei Fukov, CPP Kalinka
Star Wreck, In The Pirkinning
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Biegel Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007 Location: Christmas Island Posts: 390
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 at 5:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
HOW ABOUT JUST DOWN SIZING ITS POWER. Could part,One line be removed to make it work better and be acceptable?
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Drakmoore Adept
Joined: 24 September 2006 Location: United States Posts: 74
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 at 8:07pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well then why ban it? Just clearly state how you would play it and leave it at that. There shouldn't be any arguments if your the ref.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
werewolflht65 Exalted
Joined: 08 October 2007 Location: United States Posts: 780
|
Posted: 25 November 2007 at 9:33pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
HOW ABOUT JUST DOWN SIZING ITS POWER. Could part,One line be removed to make it work better and be acceptable?
That's all well and good, but I don't want to carry around a "Binder of Rules" ala-SFB, to keep track of the cards that we as a group decided to change the rules of. Because if you change the wording on one card, the next thing you know, you have 100 cards re-written to accommodate a Regional interpretation
Well then why ban it? Just clearly state how you would play it and
leave it at that. There shouldn't be any arguments if your the ref.
After consulting with Verc on this card, this is where we stand with it: Taking each rule line as it was intended, the card works like thus:
-Played to a Reaction card. {We add the following bit of text: in play in the fleet.} -May only be played once each phase. {We add the following bit of text: This card May...} -The reaction card may use use its functions in reaction mode, moving to any location. {We add the following bit of text: in the fleet.} -Any reaction card may only be used in reaction once each complete turn. {Definition: Once you play a card in Reaction, you cannot Instant React it to "Top Stack" the card. If you volley, and I react with a UT, and then you react with a Time Skip against the UT, that chain is finished. I cannot IR the UT, because it has already REACTED this turn.}
The rest of the card is fine. As of now, this is how the card will be played in the Philly region.
Any questions?
__________________ "Light Balls? You didn't ask for Light Balls. You asked for Light BEER!" Capt. Sergei Fukov, CPP Kalinka
Star Wreck, In The Pirkinning
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Biegel Exalted
Joined: 19 October 2007 Location: Christmas Island Posts: 390
|
Posted: 26 November 2007 at 4:08am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I might just show up in Philly,to try a Philly Steak Sandwiche. See everything can be made to work. The Ref should have a guide line to hand out with things like ,No picking your nose, No free Beaver,(Even Beaver gotta make a buck) and deffinetly No shoes off at the Table
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Drakmoore Adept
Joined: 24 September 2006 Location: United States Posts: 74
|
Posted: 26 November 2007 at 4:36am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Not a fan of reaction wars I take it =P! Either way, even if I disagree it doesn't matter, those are the rules so when I come I'll follow them. Simple as that! =D
Edited by Drakmoore on 26 November 2007 at 4:37am
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Gekonauak IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 1595
|
Posted: 26 November 2007 at 9:13am | IP Logged
|
|
|
-May only be played once each phase.
This means the IR can only be played once each phase. I missed that.
-The reaction card may use its functions in reaction mode, moving to any location. Any reaction card may only be used in reaction once each complete turn.
As to whether the TS can be used again. The second sentance does state that you may only use ANY reaction card once each complete turn. But, you have to use the entire rule. The second sentance is referring back to the first sentance in the rule.
All I can say is, good thing that asteroid shields can't be the basis of a stack.
It seems one of those and an IR could protect the whole fleet!
Yeah, we actually thought of that. Go figure. Provided they didn't overkill your ship with two heavy weapons.
The Marine can only be played to your fleet. It would have to say it can be played to an opponents fleet and/or location to go anywhere else. And yes, it still needs transportation, if you want it to kill something in someone else's fleet.
Yeah, what he said. See, Wolfie, I am agreeing with you. :)
ignore the card rule which states "to any location".
No, did it really need to say "to any location in your fleet"? Marines need transportation. That is standard rules. This card does not break those rules.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Eaglepreacher IRC
Joined: 21 December 2003 Location: United States Posts: 573
|
Posted: 26 November 2007 at 2:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
so much for card rules or the rulebook. This is one card that was screwed up by the reprinting of it. Version one was a normal card, Version 2 was made into a persona card... why????? bout the only thing the persona would do is prevnt the opponent from playing an IR and you from using another during the same reaction sequence.
V1 rule 1 states"Played to a reaction card already in play IN THE FLEET" V2 #1 states "Played to a reaction card" this made the card far more vague and open to interpretation. Took it from the fleet to anywhere.
Our assumption for reaction cards were they were played to or against the card. What this meant was if I played a card affecting the opponents volley by redirection it was played against his ship(assumed misfire, bad targetting computer, etc). If the volley was reduced, it was played to our ship( assumedhardened armor, nonvital systems, grazing shot etc), but all this is up to individual interpretation. so with V1 many cards could not be IR'd since they were aginst his ship in his fleet, V2 allows more.
V1#2 rule"Allows that card to react as if it were just played in reaction mode from the hand to ANY LOCATION" V2#2 states "the reaction cardmay use its functions in reation mode, MOVING TO ANY LOCATION.Any reaction card may only be used once each complete turn" Both say to any location and doesn't say "any location in the fleet", so obviously both Geko and Were ignore the rule "card rules take precedent over the rulebook" The argument of Were's that you can't IR the UT since it already reacted goes against the card rule ; please note the bold underline word USED . But we did'nt use it this way either since the first printing did say a card already in play in the fleet. This was useful to use usually C-class card that were already in play but could be used elsewhere, marine, science officer, damage control teams. before you think this is a strong card, it allows you to use cards that yopu may not normally use throughout your fleet, but many of the really useful cclass card would discard the IR. The reprint of this rule put in the stipulation that the card the IR was played to cannot jump 14 times, so you could not use the astreroid shield to protect the whole fleet.
V1 rule 3 'immediately return this card to hand if the affected reaction card is of equal or lesser strength then this card, immediately discard this card otherwise" V2 states "return this card to the hand if the reaction card is of equal or lesser strength, otherwise discard this card after use" pretty much the same.
I say your ruling is wrong, (my opinion) and none of your arguments seem founded. IF I ever play with any of you as shall of course go with your ruling, with a little argument and much pouting but still overruled.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
werewolflht65 Exalted
Joined: 08 October 2007 Location: United States Posts: 780
|
Posted: 26 November 2007 at 10:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eaglepreacher wrote:
so much for card rules or the rulebook. This is one card that was screwed up by the reprinting of it. Version one was a normal card, Version 2 was made into a persona card... why????? bout the only thing the persona would do is prevnt the opponent from playing an IR and you from using another during the same reaction sequence.
V1 rule 1 states"Played to a reaction card already in play IN THE FLEET" V2 #1 states "Played to a reaction card" this made the card far more vague and open to interpretation. Took it from the fleet to anywhere.
Our assumption for reaction cards were they were played to or against the card. What this meant was if I played a card affecting the opponents volley by redirection it was played against his ship(assumed misfire, bad targetting computer, etc). If the volley was reduced, it was played to our ship( assumedhardened armor, nonvital systems, grazing shot etc), but all this is up to individual interpretation. so with V1 many cards could not be IR'd since they were aginst his ship in his fleet, V2 allows more.
V1#2 rule"Allows that card to react as if it were just played in reaction mode from the hand to ANY LOCATION" V2#2 states "the reaction cardmay use its functions in reation mode, MOVING TO ANY LOCATION.Any reaction card may only be used once each complete turn" Both say to any location and doesn't say "any location in the fleet", so obviously both Geko and Were ignore the rule "card rules take precedent over the rulebook" The argument of Were's that you can't IR the UT since it already reacted goes against the card rule ; please note the bold underline word USED . But we did'nt use it this way either since the first printing did say a card already in play in the fleet. This was useful to use usually C-class card that were already in play but could be used elsewhere, marine, science officer, damage control teams. before you think this is a strong card, it allows you to use cards that yopu may not normally use throughout your fleet, but many of the really useful cclass card would discard the IR. The reprint of this rule put in the stipulation that the card the IR was played to cannot jump 14 times, so you could not use the astreroid shield to protect the whole fleet.
V1 rule 3 'immediately return this card to hand if the affected reaction card is of equal or lesser strength then this card, immediately discard this card otherwise" V2 states "return this card to the hand if the reaction card is of equal or lesser strength, otherwise discard this card after use" pretty much the same.
I say your ruling is wrong, (my opinion) and none of your arguments seem founded. IF I ever play with any of you as shall of course go with your ruling, with a little argument and much pouting but still overruled. |
|
|
Ok, now that I have had some sleep, from my initial post last night (wee hours this morning) I'll re-address this issue.
In all fairness, I agree with Robpro. I don't like saying "I'm right, you're wrong, live with it."
But, in light of this last message, Eagle, you've lost your damned mind.
When a card rule so thoroughly undermines the CORE rules of a game, something needs to be done. You're making an O-3 as powerful as an O-9. By allowing the card to go ANYWHERE, that is exactly what you are trying to do.
Yeah, the company heads screwed up when they reprinted the card in Persona. They made a barely messed up card into a totally screwed up card that Rules Lawyers would argue about until the cows come home.
Now, I for one, have already address and re-addressed how this card would work here in the Philadelphia area, but to come back at me (and anyone else) and try to pull a Harry, that was uncalled for.
So, as much as I hate to do it: "You're wrong, I'm right (And so is Geko), and that's the end of it."
::thumbs his nose at Eagle::
Edited by werewolflht65 on 27 November 2007 at 6:49am
__________________ "Light Balls? You didn't ask for Light Balls. You asked for Light BEER!" Capt. Sergei Fukov, CPP Kalinka
Star Wreck, In The Pirkinning
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Drakmoore Adept
Joined: 24 September 2006 Location: United States Posts: 74
|
Posted: 27 November 2007 at 7:33am | IP Logged
|
|
|
He nothing like Harry, he just said at the end of his post he would go with your ruling if he ever played in your group. He basically disagrees but as long as someone is willing to play by the rules of the place they are its not a problem, so don't go being rude when he was simply expressing an opinion......I mean this IS a FORUM
Edited by Drakmoore on 27 November 2007 at 7:33am
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Gekonauak IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 1595
|
Posted: 27 November 2007 at 8:49am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm wrong?
I'm just telling you how the card was played.
Or, how it was intended to be played, based on how it was designed.
I wouldn't say that was wrong.
And, like i've said before, play the cards however you feel like playing them.
Edited by Gekonauak on 27 November 2007 at 11:37am
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Gekonauak IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006 Posts: 1595
|
Posted: 27 November 2007 at 8:58am | IP Logged
|
|
|
You're making an O-3 as powerful as an O-9
You guys have got to get over the card strengths as an indication of the cards power.
It is a general guidline, yes. But, there are many cards that break the rule. The Time Twins are golden examples. Hell, the reverse is also true. I'm sure you can list a couple of Entity cards that are completely worthless.
IR would be classified as an exception to this "rule".
Edited by Gekonauak on 27 November 2007 at 8:59am
|
Back to Top |
|
|
werewolflht65 Exalted
Joined: 08 October 2007 Location: United States Posts: 780
|
Posted: 27 November 2007 at 12:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Gekonauak wrote:
I'm wrong?
I'm just telling you how the card was played.
Or, how it was intended to be played, based on how it was designed.
I wouldn't say that was wrong.
And, like i've said before, play the cards however you feel like playing them. You're making an O-3 as powerful as an O-9
You guys have got to get over the card strengths as an indication of the cards power.
It is a general guidline, yes. But, there are many cards that break
the rule. The Time Twins are golden examples. Hell, the reverse is also
true. I'm sure you can list a couple of Entity cards that are
completely worthless.
IR would be classified as an exception to this "rule". |
|
|
At the top, you said you were called wrong. I didn't say it, Eagle did. Yes, I was agreeing with you. Yes, the Time Twins are broken. And yes, the O-3 is also broken, but it needs to be neutered, just like the time twins. And yes, I can name a bunch of Entities that are next to worthless. L-10 Political Intrigue A-10 Urban Influence A-10 Artificial Landmass A-10 Heavy Artillery C-10 Father of Time E-10 Hypercube
The list could go on and on, but why?
__________________ "Light Balls? You didn't ask for Light Balls. You asked for Light BEER!" Capt. Sergei Fukov, CPP Kalinka
Star Wreck, In The Pirkinning
|
Back to Top |
|
|
Eaglepreacher IRC
Joined: 21 December 2003 Location: United States Posts: 573
|
Posted: 27 November 2007 at 2:17pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
the O3 is a powerful card by allowing a card to go anywhere??? R/E1 Civilian Transporter can allow me to tranport a card anywhere....R/E1 terain attack Shuttle allow me to do a TNB mission hence transport anywhere, R/E2 clown car, R/E2 transport shuttle, etc In my example we used the IR to prevent and kill a card you played, of course with the marine he kills your card, the IR is discarded and the marine is stuck on your planet, With most of the cards I named I can do the same except my marine is safe and I keep the transport card.
What makes the card powerful? even if you allow it to IR the UT to the top of the pecking order your losing the card and using up two cards instead of one. Moving a card to the opponent fleet is no different then using a transport card in react mode.
|
Back to Top |
|
|
werewolflht65 Exalted
Joined: 08 October 2007 Location: United States Posts: 780
|
Posted: 29 November 2007 at 4:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I've said all I am going to on this subject. The ruling we use here in Pa stands. Now, back to leveling my new Druid... For The HORDE!
__________________ "Light Balls? You didn't ask for Light Balls. You asked for Light BEER!" Capt. Sergei Fukov, CPP Kalinka
Star Wreck, In The Pirkinning
|
Back to Top |
|
|
|
|