[redemption] Goshen

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

Well here's a thought that I am sure we yaked over this before, but I
can't find it in google groups. Considering the fact that Goshen doesn't
say where the heroes must come from...Should we be able to assume that
they can come from anywhere in the field of play? How much can we assume
on cards?
William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

Well, since you have to put them there during your preparation phase (before
you make a rescue attempt), they either have to come from your territory or
hand.

Kevin Shride

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 04:20:46 +0000, Kevin Shride wrote:

> Well, since you have to put them there during your preparation phase (before
> you make a rescue attempt), they either have to come from your territory or
> hand.

Could you explain why they cannot come from an opponent's territory? Just
b/c you are doing it in the preparation phase does not mean you can't take
heroes from outside your territory.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

Because you can never take a character from your opponent unless a card or the
rulebook specifically says so. Since neither does, you can't.

Kevin Shride

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

Hey,

If a special ability does not specify where the target character must be
from, the default is "in play". The only exception to this is set-asides
which is explained in the rulebook. Goshen does not specify where the
target character must come from, nor does the rulebook specifically limit
this. Therefore, according to my understanding of the rules, putting an
opponent's characters in Goshen should be legal.

That said, if I were judging a tournament and the question were put to me, I
would have a very hard time allowing this to happen.

Tschow,

Sir Nobody, WildCard Secretary of Defense

www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On the EZ Board, Bryon Hake has compiled a list of Clarifications of abilities
on cards. If you can't find that, here is the quote from there:

"Goshen - Place in your territory. This fortress may hold up to 3 of your
heroes. Cards in this site are protected from harm or effect. Cards can only be
removed from Goshen during your Preparation phase."

Note that this says "your heroes". You can't put your opponents' heroes here.

Kevin Shride

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:09:50 +0000, Kevin Shride wrote:

> On the EZ Board, Bryon Hake has compiled a list of Clarifications of abilities
> on cards. If you can't find that, here is the quote from there:

I must ask those posting important rulings and documents that for us poor
lost souls who are stuck on the glory days of this newsgroup that these
get cross posted to the newsgroup.

> "Goshen - Place in your territory. This fortress may hold up to 3 of your
> heroes. Cards in this site are protected from harm or effect. Cards can only
> be removed from Goshen during your Preparation phase."
>
> Note that this says "your heroes". You can't put your opponents' heroes here.

I agree that this is the way it has always been played, but can you show
me in the rules why that this is not a legal play? When it comes down to
the tournaments the ezboard nor this ng count, only the rules. This is
very important b/c not every redemption player reads these boards or is on
the net at all! (I know this is astounding to some. Not having internet
access...)
William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

>I must ask those posting important rulings and documents that for us poor
>lost souls who are stuck on the glory days of this newsgroup that these
>get cross posted to the newsgroup.
>

The list I quoted from has been "stuck" to the top of the EZ Board page because
it's constantly updated to reflect confirmed rulings. However, I'm curious:
why are you "stuck" here? Visit there every now and then. Hey, I loved this
newsgroup, but the action has moved.

Kevin Shride

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:01:52 +0000, Kevin Shride wrote:

> However, I'm curious:
> why are you "stuck" here? Visit there every now and then. Hey, I loved this
> newsgroup, but the action has moved.

True the action for the most part has moved. I do not even think that
Rob's visits to this ng are more than perhaps twice a month (note: not
based of any facts other than the absance of posts by him) But I am not a
lover in general of message boards. I am a frenquent visiter to several
newsgroups and a poster in a few. Personally I have also not had the time
for Redemption to allow me to keep up with a html message board. The
format of a txt only newsgroup allows those of us who haven't as much time
to scan final rulings and comments very quickly. Being on dialup does not
afford speed to a html message board. I have also found that with a
threaded style of board I may choose whose comments I read and not have to
follow trolls. I might also add the orginal reasons which Rob liked this
public fourm, but I shall spare us all. These are the basic reasons for
not using the ezboard, if for not all these reasons because it is too easy
for access and causes more trolling. So what if I am lost in the gloy
days of this board, if I were to leave as well would not the usage of the
board fall into only more uselessness? I don't have the time to support
two boards. And if all this has failed this is still listed as an
Official Board on Cactus Game Design's site. Does not that alone support
the idea of cross posting documents of importance?
But I must stop. Congradulations for reading this far,
William

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

> Does not that alone support
> the idea of cross posting documents of importance?

The posting is limited to the ezboard because it can be edited without
having to repost the whole thing. Also, I only usually check this
board every couple weeks. I, like you, don't have the time to check
two places continually.

As for your question about "where in the rules" can you find the
ruling, please note that the purpose of my clarifications/errata
threads is to add them to the REG. In between updates to the REG,
things will collect in the clarrifications/errata threads.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:15:26 -0700, Bryon Hake wrote:

<snip>
> As for your question about "where in the rules" can you find the
> ruling, please note that the purpose of my clarifications/errata
> threads is to add them to the REG. In between updates to the REG,
> things will collect in the clarrifications/errata threads.

So how are tournament hosts supposed to use this information? Are they to
use them as rules even though they are not in the Reg yet? I would assume
not but that they may use them on clarification grounds. But to also
return to one of my main questions: What is the default area that may be
affected be a card when no area is stated on the card?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

Hey,

> return to one of my main questions: What is the default area that may be
> affected be a card when no area is stated on the card?

For banding default is in a territory or holder's hand. Default for all
other abilities (that I can think of) is in play.

Tschow,

Sir Nobody

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

"Sir Nobody" <nobodyishome1@juno.com> wrote in message news:<c6hjtd$d9u$1@newsreader.mailgate.org>...
> Hey,
>
> If a special ability does not specify where the target character must be
> from, the default is "in play". The only exception to this is set-asides
> which is explained in the rulebook. Goshen does not specify where the
> target character must come from, nor does the rulebook specifically limit
> this. Therefore, according to my understanding of the rules, putting an
> opponent's characters in Goshen should be legal.
>
> That said, if I were judging a tournament and the question were put to me, I
> would have a very hard time allowing this to happen.
>
> Tschow,
>
> Sir Nobody, WildCard Secretary of Defense
>
> www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

I don't recall ever in the history of Redemption being allowed to
manage cards that aren't yours, unless specified on the card.
Currently the only way to do it is when a banding card is played in
battle, and you only control that character for the duration of the
battle.

I understand the need for clear langauage, but I wasn't aware that
people needed to be told to play with their own cards. I mean, the
rulebook says during your prep phase you can "place a character into
your territory"... well it doesn't say where the character comes from,
right? So I guess you can take your opponent's characters and place
them in your territory... right?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 00:44:21 -0500, Sir Nobody wrote:

>chop chop<
> For banding default is in a territory or holder's hand. Default for all
> other abilities (that I can think of) is in play.

Except for some reason Goshen (and KotW) and Set-Asides. It would appear
that each type of card has a different default. But I cannot yet see why
Goshen can only take your heroes. I suppose the arguement is based on the
one from Nationals 03. basically you can not put your opponents heroes
into a position where you have multi turn control over them. This
greneralization of that debate does have problems as a hero as a LS allows
multi turn control and Tartaros, but I think that is the basis for this.
So is this what the Goshen ruling is based on? Is it just that we can't
have people taking 3 heroes from another? Idle rule will cause us
problems in the long run if that is all this is. (which I doubt)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:22:00 -0700, Stephen M. Schaefer wrote:

> I don't recall ever in the history of Redemption being allowed to
> manage cards that aren't yours, unless specified on the card.
> Currently the only way to do it is when a banding card is played in
> battle, and you only control that character for the duration of the
> battle.
> <snip>

Ah but cannnot you kill your opponents characters? And cannot one take
heroes prisoners? And when a card says discard one active artifact does
it mean your own? (Which is possible to discard your own active artifact)
And there are many cards which allow one to take "control" of an
opponents character. Why not this one? I understand this is a lost
cause (see Meet John Doe). But this card differs from Setting Aside an
oponents character, because it does not take the character out of play.
And you cannot say that it is illegal to do other things with opponents
character. My final question is that if this or another ruling is
requested when does that ruling take affect and how should we play before
it becomes rule?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

Hey,

> My final question is that if this or another ruling is
> requested when does that ruling take affect and how should we play before
> it becomes rule?

OurGodlivz has a valid point. Prior to the next release of the REG I would
be compelled to allow a player to placed their opponent's characters in
their own goshen. The ruling on the EZBoard I see as a rule change rather
than a clerification of something not previously specified, and in that
respect, the REG takes precidence.

Tschow,

Sir Nobody

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

OurGodlivz <OurGodlivz@idci-usa.com> wrote in message news:<c6q791$n2j$1@newsreader.mailgate.org>...
> Ah but cannnot you kill your opponents characters? And cannot one take
> heroes prisoners? And when a card says discard one active artifact does
> it mean your own? (Which is possible to discard your own active artifact)
> And there are many cards which allow one to take "control" of an
> opponents character. Why not this one? I understand this is a lost
> cause (see Meet John Doe). But this card differs from Setting Aside an
> oponents character, because it does not take the character out of play.
> And you cannot say that it is illegal to do other things with opponents
> character. My final question is that if this or another ruling is
> requested when does that ruling take affect and how should we play before
> it becomes rule?

Discarding a character is not taking control. Capturing a character
is not taking control.

But thank you for the enlightening revelation. Starting with
Saturday's local tournament, I'm going to take opponent's characters
from their territory and place them in my territory. And I'm going to
take opponent's characters from their territory and use them to start
rescue attempts, pursuant to the rules of the game:

From Diagram of a Turn:
3). Preparation Phase
a). Place A CHARACTER into your territory.
4). Battle Phase
a). You may begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by placing A
HERO into the Field of Battle.

Since it doesn't specify it must be my own, then obviously there are
no restrictions on ownership.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

From the currently available REG:

The public newsgroup (rec.games.trading-cards.misc on
http://groups.google.com) and the EZBoard website (redemptionccg on
http://www.ezboard.com) are places where we discuss, think out loud,
argue, tease and joke. We will make every reasonable effort to keep
the Exegesis Guide current. Priority will be given to keeping the
Exegesis Guide current prior to big tournaments. Since there is a
local tournament going on somewhere almost every week, don't expect
every single new clarification to be melded into the Exegesis Guide
each week. Local tournament hosts should always defer to the 2nd
Edition (now 3rd Edition) Rulebook and Exegesis Guide. However, if
they wish to cite a new ruling on a newsgroup ..., prior to update in
the Exegesis Guide, then do so. The important thing is that you advise
all of your tournament players of the change prior to the start of the
tournament.

Kevin, Bryon, and Stephen have all made good faith efforts to cover
the rule on this card. So what's the problem?

Mike is working very hard on updating the REG. We hope to have it
completed my mid May.

Sincerely,
Rob

"Sir Nobody" <nobodyishome1@juno.com> wrote in message news:<c6q9uj$qif$1@newsreader.mailgate.org>...
> Hey,
>
> > My final question is that if this or another ruling is
> > requested when does that ruling take affect and how should we play before
> > it becomes rule?
>
> OurGodlivz has a valid point. Prior to the next release of the REG I would
> be compelled to allow a player to placed their opponent's characters in
> their own goshen. The ruling on the EZBoard I see as a rule change rather
> than a clerification of something not previously specified, and in that
> respect, the REG takes precidence.
>
> Tschow,
>
> Sir Nobody

 

[MadCat]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

"Sir Nobody" <nobodyishome1@juno.com> wrote in message news:<c6q9uj$qif$1@newsreader.mailgate.org>...
> Hey,
>
> > My final question is that if this or another ruling is
> > requested when does that ruling take affect and how should we play before
> > it becomes rule?
>
> OurGodlivz has a valid point. Prior to the next release of the REG I would
> be compelled to allow a player to placed their opponent's characters in
> their own goshen. The ruling on the EZBoard I see as a rule change rather
> than a clerification of something not previously specified, and in that
> respect, the REG takes precidence.
>
> Tschow,
>
> Sir Nobody

Are you for real? Because that is totally insane! The rulebook doesn't
say I can't rip my opponents cards up, does that mean I can?
I would think that common sense comes into play sometimes, maybe it
should be in the REG.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:33:52 -0700,
>cut<
> Discarding a character is not taking control. Capturing a character
> is not taking control.
>

Capturing a character is not taking control? That's odd. I thought one
controled the LS that he had in his Land of Bondage. I must have been
wrong. *drip drip*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:31:58 -0700, CactusRob wrote:
Hey Rob! Nice to know you still hang around the old place!
<snip>
> Kevin, Bryon, and Stephen have all made good faith efforts to cover
> the rule on this card. So what's the problem?

Well I just don't understand what pretense the ruling was made. From what
I have see in other cards (A new one being Athaliah - says each purple
hero discarded. If this ruling on Goshen were to have been made first
then this should mean only the purple heroes discarded in your own
territory) This is a new way to look at the card. In which case I in
theory should be able to go to a tournament tomarrow and play it this way
(taking others characters), if the host does not announce that specific
rule change? So there are the only questions I have left in this thread:

if the host does not announce a specific rule change is it possible to
play Goshen (and KotW) with others characters?

what pretense was the ruling on made on Goshen?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

maddcatt2er@yahoo.com (MadCat) wrote in message news:<ab8f2b00.0404291047.4bb590de@posting.google.com>...
> The rulebook doesn't say I can't rip my opponents cards up, does that mean I > can?

That would be destruction of property which I'm pretty sure is against
the law. But that brings up a good question, do federal laws take
precedent over rulings made in the REG?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

"JDS10419" <sansangellos@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19b7a893.0405021054.77c27aab@posting.google.com...
> maddcatt2er@yahoo.com (MadCat) wrote in message
news:<ab8f2b00.0404291047.4bb590de@posting.google.com>...
> > The rulebook doesn't say I can't rip my opponents cards up, does that
mean I > can?
>
> That would be destruction of property which I'm pretty sure is against
> the law. But that brings up a good question, do federal laws take
> precedent over rulings made in the REG?


Other than the destruction of others property, which I have taken as it was
intended (tongue in cheek), please tell me what federal laws are being
broken? Possibly theft, but then when you sit down and play you know your
cards can be taken, and only then for the duration of the game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:06:46 +0000, Nicolls wrote:

> "JDS10419" <sansangellos@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19b7a893.0405021054.77c27aab@posting.google.com...
>> maddcatt2er@yahoo.com (MadCat) wrote in message
> news:<ab8f2b00.0404291047.4bb590de@posting.google.com>...
>> >...only then for the duration of the game.
Well there was that one game at the Philly Nationals...It comprised of
some not so normal cards. Including the usage of the old "Holy Hand
Granade" card.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.misc (More info?)

OurGodlivz <OurGodlivz@idci-usa.com> wrote in message news:<c6rc1b$cfj$1@newsreader.mailgate.org>...
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:33:52 -0700,
> Capturing a character is not taking control? That's odd. I thought one
> controled the LS that he had in his Land of Bondage. I must have been
> wrong. *drip drip*

If you want to argue whether or not that's the case, you can. Funny
how you totally ignored the rest of my post to focus on that miniscule
point.