|
|
Post by headswillroll on May 31, 2008 11:55:34 GMT -5
greg
Design Team
****
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 573
Re: Crystals
« Reply #20 Yesterday at 6:28am »
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Jun 2, 2008 21:39:26 GMT -5
Also Pre-Games are not Considered in Play, but in the Pre-Game Slot. Kinda like your Hat is no really clothes, but you still wear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 3, 2008 7:49:37 GMT -5
Also Pre-Games are not Considered in Play, but in the Pre-Game Slot. Kinda like your Hat is no really clothes, but you still wear it. Well this is a mistake in my opinion. First off, are you going to errata all versions of Divine Intervention and cards that have a similar effect? I know for a fact that both versions of DI state " a pregame card in play that can be removed". Also, what are you going to do with certain personas that are only mildly stoppable (able to be ignored) if they are "in play" ? If they are not in play there are only a couple of ways total to avoid them, what do you intend to do about that? IMO this is a rule that might be fine for Type Two but should be omitted from Type One. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Jun 8, 2008 21:42:25 GMT -5
Pre-Games are in play, but untouchable by most cards, if you look at the rule books sections I think it is there.
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 9, 2008 7:58:51 GMT -5
Alright this is getting totally confusing. What is it going to be? Are you wanting pregames in play or not? It sounds like you want them to not be in play and not to be allies, and only be affected by cards that specifically state on the card that they affect pregames. Is this what you are after? I have argued against this rule and stated the obvious reasons but still am only getting vague answers. This is a very important rule, and should not just be blown off. Hopefully you can get the wording down clearly.  |
|
dcapotate
Elder Immortal
Call Me Horseman Zero
Posts: 346
|
Post by dcapotate on Jun 10, 2008 14:42:07 GMT -5
I agree with Tim Small (mein gott!) the pre-games are not in play. The reason for this was if not in play, not affected by cards that remove from play. No one wanted this in the good old bad days.
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 11, 2008 10:09:51 GMT -5
I agree with Tim Small (mein gott!) the pre-games are not in play. The reason for this was if not in play, not affected by cards that remove from play. No one wanted this in the good old bad days. Given your style of deck builing, the last thing you need is for pregames to not be in play. |
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 11, 2008 10:11:28 GMT -5
Alright this is getting totally confusing. What is it going to be? Are you wanting pregames in play or not? It sounds like you want them to not be in play and not to be allies, and only be affected by cards that specifically state on the card that they affect pregames. Is this what you are after? I have argued against this rule and stated the obvious reasons but still am only getting vague answers. This is a very important rule, and should not just be blown off. Hopefully you can get the wording down clearly. Chirp, chirp. Tim, any response or what is the final decision? |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Jun 11, 2008 17:12:26 GMT -5
None yet...look for greg to post a response.
|
|
dcapotate
Elder Immortal
Call Me Horseman Zero
Posts: 346
|
Post by dcapotate on Jun 13, 2008 17:53:45 GMT -5
According to Headswillroll, I engage in deck builing. I'm sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 13, 2008 19:11:43 GMT -5
Huh? Sorry, I am not familiar with your terminology. If you could put it into layman, blue collar worker language, I would appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 14, 2008 17:55:39 GMT -5
None yet...look for greg to post a response. Well, I don't think I will be getting a ruling from Greg. So Tim and/or Brent have you made a final decision on this? Are they "in play" or "not in play"? I would like to know as I have a tourney coming up and would like to have this information. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim Small on Jun 15, 2008 17:14:02 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
|
Post by headswillroll on Jun 16, 2008 7:28:48 GMT -5
Okay. I'll wait then for a more detailed answer since I don't know which question was answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorr on Jun 16, 2008 7:33:24 GMT -5
I believe he means to say that it hasn't been decided yet.
|
|
