|
Links
Feb 17, 2007 15:17:21 GMT -5
Post by ReelHotGames on Feb 17, 2007 15:17:21 GMT -5
Thank you for the clarification, i did read that as well, but we were informed that only the handbook was going to be used period. Exactly! It isnt fun when you THINK you know the rules and show up to find that there is a whole set of addendum they didnt tell you about. The "official" word from LM was we are using The Handbook, does this statement need to be clarified? I think it does. I like to know under WHICH rules we will be playing. Maybe I am wrong, and I am certainly known to be, but it really seems to me that all you guys want is Timor Brent to weigh in on this, and that nothing else will satisfy. Because, it seems to me, no matter how plainly Thorr has spelled it out, and how plainly it is written and even thoughit clearly states to be an official document, and by definition an addendum is: Something added or to be added, especially a supplement to a book. Therefore not a "seperate" document but an actual part of the official Handbook, until Tim or Brent or the like come out of the hectic workplace to say "yes, handbook and addendum" or "handbook only addendum is carp" nothing else is going to matter. So, um, Tim.... Brent.... Um... Someone...
|
|
|
Links
Feb 17, 2007 16:48:25 GMT -5
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 17, 2007 16:48:25 GMT -5
It's a perfectly valid question, but is there a need to be so aggressive when asking it?
|
|
|
Links
Feb 17, 2007 17:20:18 GMT -5
Post by headswillroll on Feb 17, 2007 17:20:18 GMT -5
If it appears to be asking this in an aggressive manor, then you are right. In this area the changing of the rules by the company during tourneys is what killed it for most people here. And we want to be clear on what we are allowed to do or not do so that the game isn't hurt in the midwest like that again. Headswillroll
|
|
|
Links
Feb 17, 2007 18:36:50 GMT -5
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 17, 2007 18:36:50 GMT -5
Understandable. I guess I just have no sympathy for someone trying to exploit what he thinks is a loophole and cut off a head with a leg sweep.
edit: added the italicized part. As has been explained, this isn't actually a loophole since it doesn't specifically override the rules.
|
|
|
Links
Feb 17, 2007 18:38:26 GMT -5
Post by prowler7 on Feb 17, 2007 18:38:26 GMT -5
Maybe I am wrong, and I am certainly known to be, but it really seems to me that all you guys want is Timor Brent to weigh in on this, and that nothing else will satisfy. Because, it seems to me, no matter how plainly Thorr has spelled it out, and how plainly it is written and even thoughit clearly states to be an official document, and by definition an addendum is: Something added or to be added, especially a supplement to a book. Therefore not a "seperate" document but an actual part of the official Handbook, until Tim or Brent or the like come out of the hectic workplace to say "yes, handbook and addendum" or "handbook only addendum is carp" nothing else is going to matter. Yes, exactly! Because no matter HOW plainly it may seem to everyone (I am not even arguing for or against this particular rule, I am arguing for CLARITY), that never stopped the company in the past of ruling in the completely opposite direction. Before I stopped playing (and organizing playtesting and organizing tournaments), we would get new rule errata AT THE TOURNEY, right before it began, and loe and behold there were a couple people who happened to be FRIENDS of the company who had built thier decks around this new errata. What Headswillroll and I are trying to do (thanks for jumping on the bandwagon) I think is make certain that the rules are CLEAR and that EVERYBODY who has access can be very clear on the rules. The only way clarity is going to be achieved is by a ruling from The Company.
|
|
|
Links
Feb 17, 2007 18:41:37 GMT -5
Post by prowler7 on Feb 17, 2007 18:41:37 GMT -5
Understandable. I guess I just have no sympathy for someone trying to exploit a loophole and cut off a head with a leg sweep. We arent arguing FOR this rule (it is messed up and shouldnt be allowed), but if WE have seen this loophole, how many others have? And how would you feel if there ISNT an official ruling on it and you are at some tourney and lose your head (and a Quickening) to a lower center attack that the judge rules as OK because there isnt any official ruling on it?
|
|
|
Links
Feb 17, 2007 21:03:42 GMT -5
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 17, 2007 21:03:42 GMT -5
It's already been explained that it's not a loophole. Why do you need someone official to repeat the words that have already been said?
|
|
|
Links
Feb 17, 2007 23:07:23 GMT -5
Post by prowler7 on Feb 17, 2007 23:07:23 GMT -5
It's already been explained that it's not a loophole. Why do you need someone official to repeat the words that have already been said? Because until someone official DOES say them, they ARENT "official". If you look at Tims response to the question of using the Handbook "Is that what we are using for Type One tourneys?", his repsonse was "More then likely....yes." Nowhere in the question or the discussion up to that point was an addendum mentioned...in fact, James, you are the one who posted the links (without ANY link or mention of the addendum) that the question was about. I dont know how well you guys know Tim Small. But I played against him, I worked with him in playtesting, I have spoken with him recently at length about 2ed. He isnt the Master Of Cheese for nothing, he KNOWS how to bend rules and look for loopholes, and any time he doesnt give a definitive answer, he is leaving a loophole open. I am not saying anything bad about the man, just stating that with Tim you have to understand how he works. He would make an EXCELLENT GM in HackMaster. We ask these questions and push these points because things WILL be left as vague as possible if we let it. Rules will be bent and twisted, and soon nobody will REALLY know what the rules are. I reiterate, just because it SEEMS cut and dried, just because it APPEARS like it has been answered, doesnt mean it HAS. This issue was pointed out to Tim a few days BEFORE he left for the weekend tourneys, and he was silent. So you have to ask yourself : when you ask for a rule clarification and get silence, what are they not wanting to answer?
|
|
|
Links
Feb 18, 2007 15:16:15 GMT -5
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 18, 2007 15:16:15 GMT -5
Ummm.... Ok then.
|
|
|
Links
Feb 19, 2007 0:19:31 GMT -5
Post by pseudosoldier on Feb 19, 2007 0:19:31 GMT -5
It's already been explained that it's not a loophole. Why do you need someone official to repeat the words that have already been said? Because until someone official DOES say them, they ARENT "official". If you look at Tims response to the question of using the Handbook "Is that what we are using for Type One tourneys?", his repsonse was "More then likely....yes." I find two things ironic about this whole thing. 1) "More than likely.....yes" is considered "official word." 2) People who are arguing over this (with people who can't give them what they want, specifically: "official word") are gaining more credits towards free cards than I am. Seriously, if all those would keep their requests for an official ruling to one thread (or at least to a certain number of threads that would be restrained to that topic)? I think things would go more smoothly. And I don't think it would delay "official word" coming down the pike at all.
|
|
|
Links
Feb 19, 2007 1:46:23 GMT -5
Post by ReelHotGames on Feb 19, 2007 1:46:23 GMT -5
I think we need a new thread todiscuss your proposal Maybe we should just go with whatever the last "official" word was on the handbook rulings... Can anyone travel back to like 1997 and get that cleared up for us. Seriously Tim, please, shout out to shut us all up on this... Don't even need more typing than "More than likley, yes"... In fact, cut and paste from below to save time. I have given some popular responses. "Official word from Gods on high is Handbook AND Addendum." or "What's an Addendum?" or "Get Bent"
|
|
|
Links
Feb 19, 2007 3:51:32 GMT -5
Post by rplantau on Feb 19, 2007 3:51:32 GMT -5
I wonder if the design team is trying to wean us off having their input... and perhaps expecting answers to (difficult) questions. I (amongst others) quite appreciate their input, I hope they're just busy and will pop in soon to say hello! And answer those tricky questions of course
|
|
lang
Master
[M:5]
Posts: 143
|
Links
Feb 19, 2007 7:03:29 GMT -5
Post by lang on Feb 19, 2007 7:03:29 GMT -5
It seems to me you guys ask the same questions in 10 different threads. Have any of you guys played any Tourney Highlander before 2E ?? And if the answer is Yes then you would know that all rules go through Steve Crow and he has answered every question out there on his site plus Stilldesigning site and at Eric Brinksters site . Also the Addendum comes from David Derksen of Canada another old time TCG guy .
So I say there isnt a question out there that is stupid , but if you ask a question and dont like the answer then dont kill the messenger .
And if there is a question that is so dire that you have to know then email Steve Crow directly and he usually answers within 24 hours . I think we all forget that Tim and Brent are busy designing and fixing Ramirez ( 10 times more important then fixing these GIRLY squabbles ).
I understand loving the game of Highlander but get a life dudes !!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Links
Feb 19, 2007 9:37:25 GMT -5
Post by rplantau on Feb 19, 2007 9:37:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure if I was included in your slagging lang, but I'm more interested in things like what is happening with Ramirez, production quality, tourney support, supplies for my lgs etc.
My comment is mainly an observation on the design people not being around much lately.
|
|
|
Links
Feb 19, 2007 16:37:04 GMT -5
Post by jamesmcmurray on Feb 19, 2007 16:37:04 GMT -5
No need to get insulting folks. I think all sides of this have been discussed ad infinitum and the best thing now is to just chill out and wait for a responc. I'd also suggest posting the question to the Yahoo group and getting a response from Steve Crow as lang suggested. AFAIK he's still the official 1e rules guru. If it makes people feel any better, I'm not earning points for free cards no matter how many different threads I argue in.
|
|