Did someone delete the topic with all the rulings Ronway got out of Christopher at Kantcon? I can't find it anymore. Maybe I'm a complete idiot, or maybe the topic ended up eating itself with nerdrage over the infamous Ruling #15? ;)
It looks to be gone; I had linked to it via social media and the link doesn't work anymore.
I'm guessing it got purged either by Ronway or an admin; I'm not shocked, since it seems like the reaction it was raising was worth taking it down until Chris can clarify his intent in regards to the infamous #15.
The Infamous # 15 needs to be a card in Vengence, now.
I've also had a suspicion that they would rather not post a bunch of official rulings. Personally my main interest in this forum is getting more uniformity on how to enterpret the rules, but I've repeatedly gotten the impression that the designers would rather players just read the cards and played them the way that feels right at the moment.
For me, I would rather have an official ruling even if it goes a way I didn't expect. But some people in the thread were beginning to criticize the game in general for having errata, so maybe the more stand off approach is better.
... or maybe they tried to sticky it and some forum bug ate it, who knows.
Ruling #15 wasn't even that big of a change. Idk guys. Surprising? Sure. Is Ra still a damage powerhouse? Absolutely. I actually think that opens up more options for how to play Ra honestly. Every game was geared to get Ras one big combo out ya know?
The issue is, though, that the ruling doesn't affect just Ra. It affects a number of heroes who have cards that equate to 'take this bit of damage to do additional things".
And, while they're not game-breaking by any stretch, they're a nice reward for players who think ahead and work together at the table. Being able to drop Embolden on The Scholar in Flesh to Iron form opens up new ways to go about playing him. Why not allow Pushing the Limits to become an offensive weapon with Synaptic Interruption for a round or two? These are innovative, creative ways to play; a blanket ruling that says, "No, you can't play them this way. Damage must be taken," defeats the spirit of fun.
Plus, it really seems to fly in the face of a lot of the rulings that have come earlier…
I actually really liked Ruling #15, I thought it opened up some interesting choices and risk management scenarios. That said, I would not be surprised if somewhere between Christopher's brain and the post (which was not made by Christopher and not clarified by Christopher) there was a misinterpretation of the intent behind one or more rulings.
My criticism is not that the game has errata; all games do, it's pretty much inevitable. My problem is with the idea that we're using the same word for both an action and its result. "Dealing damage" in almost any other gaming context, refers to a total output by the actor, as distinct from "taking damage", referring to the amount actually incurred after defensive effects are applied.
This is the context in which the vast majority of us interpret the rules and cards, as evidenced by the most cursory scan of these forums. The overloading of the verb "deal" merges these concepts and causes more confusion than it solves.
In no way am I trying to be "mean" or say that the game sucks, or anything of the sort. I've stated that I love the game, and I do. I love my dog too, but that doesn't stop me from protesting his behavior on occasion.
I don't really have any problems with Rule 15. Yeah, it's kind of a bummer that you can't synaptic interruption Pushing the Limits or Flesh the solar flare, but essentially all the change really means is that if a card comes with a penalty you more or less have to take it. You can't just have the good with none of the bad. So even though I can understand people being disappointed, I can't really say the ruling is wrong or makes the game less fun.
You can still redirect the damage from pushing the limits. You just don't get to keep it after that. You can still gain +2 from solar flare, just not indefinitely. You can still have the good and none of the bad. But now you can't abuse those abilities through damage reduction.
Atlantean Throne Room became much more dangerous with this knowledge, and I don’t know that any gaming group will be able to clearly distinguish the nuance of this ruling on their own. Most of the forum has been playing this “wrong” for years now, and that is a bit of a bummer. Especially considering the ramifications of misunderstanding this rule for three expansions worth of playtesting.
I knew that 15 was coming before 15 came. The day before Kantcon Ronway asked me to tkae a look over his questions and see if he missed anything important. When he got back the next day he messaged me with rule 15, but didn't post it because it was such a big deal, Ronway want back the next day and asked Christopher again, to check he had it right.
I am condfident it was not accidentally misrepresented.
Pardon my insolence but what was Ruling #15? And what was the origional rule?
And yes, that does need to be a card. Someone should make it happen.
I think the fact 3 expansions seemed to have been based on this ruling is what is concerning. Now I guess we hope Christopher is able to tell the playtesters which ruling to go on.
Cause I am pretty sure unless people check the forums they will most likely interpret those cards incorrectly. And if we change it in the new version we generate more diverse wording between the expansions.
Just play the way you have always played if it bothers you so much. FFS guys
This.
The problem is not the ruling per se. The problem is that there is no way for a new player to know or intuit the ruling from the rules or cards.
Probably why they do not give official forum answers very often and allow the players to play how they interpret the rules, which I think is the way they would prefer you approach their games in the first place. Game rules are like legalese. Purposfully vauge enough to allow for interpretation. Do you all really not see that? Mountains out of mole hills people.
Eh close enough.
Still haven't gotten an answer to my question though.
I think people are (or at least I am) not stating it for fear that the great giant thread eater claims another