| Author |
|
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 28 June 2007 at 8:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The fact that a card doesn't have an engagement cost does not mean that
it cannot be disengaged. - agreed
I know of at least one way to disengage a luck demon.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 29 June 2007 at 6:44am | IP Logged
|
|
|
How?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 29 June 2007 at 2:56pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
lobster points
Can anyone think of another way?
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 04 July 2007 at 5:50pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The whole thing with lobster points would constitute an exception to how
engagement normally works. Even so, I would argue that it's still not
"disengagement" but merely as suspension of the card's ability, the
negation of the effect of a monster, not a disengagement of the monster.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Tarquon
Exalted
Joined: 02 January 2007
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 04 July 2007 at 7:40pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
You'ld have a hard time with that reasoning in our group. The rules are
explicit: Lobster points allocated to a monster equal to the monster's
strength disengages the monster for one complete turn. You may not
care for some of the seemingly reckless ways of the Comedy Club, but as yet
I haven't heard a call for its reinterpretation or exclusion.
There are other ways to disengage monsters, but this seemed a sufficient
example.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 05 July 2007 at 1:20am | IP Logged
|
|
|
This doesn't change anything; it's still an exception. Further, even though
it says "disengages", if something doesn't have an engagement cost, it
can't be disengaged. Rather, it's effect or ability can be suspended for a
turn.
This is simply a case where the wording wasn't worked out properly and a
contradiction results.
As for CC stuff, we have banned pretty much all of it except the terrain, a
few of the luck cards, and a few other things. The one player who built
and tried playing a CC deck in our group gave it up after the first few
times; every time he brought it out, everyone blasted him until he was
gone and then we had a regular game.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 05 July 2007 at 6:37am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Lobster points allocated to a monster equal to the monster's strength disengages the monster for one complete turn.
There are other ways to disengage monsters, but this seemed a sufficient example.
It also proves to me that my ruling on a disengaged Luck Demon still working was wrong.
if something doesn't have an engagement cost, it
can't be disengaged.
That's not true. Not having an engagement cost means that you can engage it for free, not that it cannot be disengaged.
As for CC stuff, we have banned pretty much all of it except the terrain, a few of the luck cards, and a few other things.
Why?
The one player who built and tried playing a CC deck in our group gave it up after the first few times; every time he brought it out, everyone blasted him until he was gone and then we had a regular game.
This is exactly what happens to Psi decks as well.
Edited by Gekonauak on 05 July 2007 at 6:38am
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MogwaiSC
IRC
Joined: 20 January 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
| Posted: 05 July 2007 at 4:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Clearly there is a huge area of contradictions here in the rules about what
can and can't be engaged/disengaged.
I stand by my position; the rules need to be revised.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Gekonauak
IRC
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 1595
|
| Posted: 06 July 2007 at 9:14am | IP Logged
|
|
|
well, that goes without saying. A new version of the game would be nice as well.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Active Topics 
Memberlist 
Search 
Help
Register 
Login
Galactic Empires : Rules Base
Topic: Heavy Weapons in Reaction
