Devs cannot be targeted by Chain Lightning because they don't have cost at all. They are illegal target for that tactic.

Neutral cards have 0 layalty because Lucas says so. It's totally counter-intuitive but hey.

Sounds like rules are being made up on the fly. That really stinks.

Virgo said:

OK thank you, it's quite clear now. So I wasn't the only one to think it is counter-intuitive…oh well…

wensdeil said:

This is the whole point of the last 8 posts or so regarding Chain Lightning. This ruling has resulted in confusion and a discussion about a similar yet different situations, despite the fact in real life zero apples and no apples are the same thing. I have lots of card game situations that come up where real life intuition is actually the wrong answer: "Should the Greatswords trigger themselves?" is a great example because I bet people first learning the game would not expect them to, but they do! Developments have no cost on them (just like how Neutral cards have no loyalty), so everyone is confused because they cannot be targetted by chain lightning, but they are units with cost lower than 2. Do we now have to remember "Ok, so no cost and zero cost are different, but sometimes X cost is actually zero cost, yet zero loyalty and no loyalty are the same?" Until now there was no such thing as zero loyalty and no one cared because the world made sense. Now there is zero loyalty and everyone who ever has to slap together a ruling on the fly (judges, me) has to consider one more annoyingly inconsistent tidbit of information.

If this can be incorporated elegantly into an existing rule I'll be fine, but right now this seems highly counterintuitive, as budmilka, Virgo, and Doc9 all say.

Come on, folks. There's a difference between zero and "not applicable", even if in real life and in the game they both often (not always) result in the same. It's a difference if you don't have a bank account (the concept of "money in bank" doesn't apply to you) or if you have no money in your bank account, even if the result is usually the same - not always though, when someone wants to transfer you money or you could overdraw your account, it matters a great if you have no bank account or 0 money in your account.

These things are in the rules. The printed cost is the numerical value in the upper left corner of the card. Developments don't have that, so they have no printed cost. Not a cost of 0. For that, a 0 would have to be printed in the upper left corner. The loyalty is the number of loyalty icons under the printed cost. Neutral cards have 0 loyalty symbols printed under the cost, so they have 0 loyalty. Developments don't have a printed cost, so this doesn't apply to them. There couldn't possibly be any loyalty symbols under the cost, because they have no cost. They don't have 0 loyalty, they have no loyalty, the concept of loyalty doesn't apply here. When Kairos turns a development into a unit, it still doesn't have a printed cost. Kairos doesn't turn developments into units with 0 loyalty, he turns them into units to which the concept of loyalty doesn't apply, units with no loyalty.

These things are in line with each other. I'm really tired of people spreading a negative atmosphere in the community by their tone of voice in these threads and their criticism of the developers for rulings that in fact do follow logically from each other, instead of simply accepting that they were wrong and moving on. It's one thing if you have trouble understanding something, everyone has that sometimes, but please don't be jerks and needlessly deride rulings just because you expected them to be different.

an explanation exemplary, chapeau!

Mallumo said:

The printed cost is the numerical value in the upper left corner of the card -> Developments don't have that, so they have no printed cost -> Not a cost of 0.

The loyalty is the number of loyalty icons under the printed cost. -> Neutrals don't have that, so they have no loyalty cost -> so they have 0 loyalty.

Seems legit Mallumo.

Yeah, it's legit. It's logical. We didn't get a ruling, we got a clarification. Lukas clarified something everyone should have been able to conclude themselves, from facts in the core rules.

You acted like a jerk on page 1 of this thread: "It's time to stop posting.", "You won't change the fact". And you had nothing. No proof. No logical argument. Just your gut feeling. Then you got a clarification, and you didn't accept it and kept acting like a jerk. "Paranoia would prevent neutral cards, beacuse nothing is still fewer than 3.", "Neutrals don't have zero loyalty icons. They have none.", "Neutral cards have 0 layalty because Lucas says so. It's totally counter-intuitive but hey.". And you weren't the only one, Doc9 went "Sounds like rules are being made up on the fly. That really stinks." That's the kind of behaviour I'm talking about. People, casual observers who might be interested in the game or just got into it, go away from this thread with a bad opinion of the devs and the whole game, when in fact the problem here weren't the devs or the rules they make, it was a couple of people who have trouble with logic acting like condescending jerks. It really doesn't have to be like that, and everyone would benefit if it weren't.

Mallumo said:

Funny thing is noone did (except from maybe you).

Mallumo said:

Calling me a jerk won't change the fact that this ruling is totally counterintuitive as I have shown in my last post. Don't be surprised that people see it that way as well (even HappyDD, you know the guy you're making podcast with, I hope he isn't a jerk because working with one would be a chore).

No, not except me. That's why I said "everyone". My intuition was the same as yours. I would have said neutral cards have no loyalty. But after Entropy's explanation, I tried to comprehend it. And I found it makes sense. The attitude you display, the dismissing of explanations you don't immediately understand or agree with, is unhealthy. You come in here with nothing but your intuition, and if something doesn't match it, you don't consider that your intuition might have mislead you and that this other explanation might be good or correct, you dismiss it and stick to your old idea and make derisive comments.

Yeah, HappyDD wasn't happy with the ruling either, but go ahead, compare your statements. There's a difference between saying you have trouble understanding something and trying to make sense of it, and dismissing it the way you did. Just like there's a difference between saying "I think neutral cards have no loyalty, but I can't actually back it up" and telling people "It's time to stop posting". If HappyDD had acted like a jerk, I would have called him out for that too. This isn't about who I make a podcast with and who not, it's about facts, and attitudes and behaviours that create a bad atmosphere. You didn't just say "This is counter-intuitive for me", don't act like you did.

But if you want to play that game: Calling the ruling counter-intuitive doesn't change the fact that you acted like a jerk, and it doesn't change that the ruling is perfectly logical. But you and others don't accept it. You go and dismiss it, imply it doesn't make sense, that the devs just make rulings up on a whim. And the next time you don't understand a ruling or don't agree with it, you'll be reminded of this. It'll be dumb, just like the loyalty ruling. And thus the negative attitude and the negative atmosphere builds, and new players who visit this forum get the impression the devs are doing a bad job and there's a generally bad attitude among the community because it's a poorly handled game.

Regularly, people wonder why there isn't more activity in these forums, and I think it's at least partly because of threads like this. Just try to imagine you came in here with a question and someone replied to your question and later reacted to the official clarification and the explanation the way you did.

Mallumo said:

Good for you as others clearly didn't.

Mallumo said:

Quoting me out of context is example of argumentum ad hominem. Don't know why you're trying to change discussion about rules into discussion about whether I am or not a bad boy.

Mallumo said:

Ruling is perfectly logical because you see it as such? Wow.

Mallumo said:

I think it is mostly because of the decreasing popularity of the game (as much as I hate to admit it). Two guys arguing about one exception in rules means nothing for the activity of the forums. You're taking this way too personal or you're trying to make public enemy number 1 out of me. This isn't what this topic is about so don't try to derail it (on purpose or not).

I wonder how many more posts will you write about me being a jerk instead of addressing my arguments (devs ruling vs neutral ruling).

I had a great deal of respect for you Mallumo up until the point wher you called me a jerk for voicing my personal opinion. Oh, and the rule makes no sense unless your a developer fan boy who gets asked to write "spotlight" articles for the company. jerk.

Since my name has been invoked in the traditional way by both combatants the Demon Code dictates that I must descend from my throne and participate. First off, thanks for mentioning the podcast, Winvasion, the Warhammer Invasion podcast! Check it out if you don't know it: winvasion.net

There have been many times where I've been wrong about stuff and Mallumo tells me, and obviously my interpretation is the best despite what the true answer happens to be. The key to all of these rules debates is being respectful, and the key to the internet is that no matter how respectful you think you are being there is always someone out there ready to get offended, so it's difficult to tell someone "You're wrong" without them getting upset, but not impossible, and I think Mallumo does a good job of it all the time. He's my friend, so maybe it's obvious that I'd say something like that, but it's true. In fact, there've been times where I try to answer a rules question and someone says something like "Thanks, but I'm going to wait until Entropy or Mallumo answer". If they said that to me in real life I'd swear directly into their face and call them a disgruntled amateur idiot, because I have a jerk streak in me a mile wide. Then Mallumo or Entropy wade in and say something like "Yes, but blah blah blah" and the issue is resolved. They do that for free, all the time, over the most mundane rules questions like "How does a response work?"

In this particular instance I was a bit surprised by the ruling/clarification/statement-on-how-the-game-works and it triggered my kneejerk reaction of "I hate card game logic" which I've invoked before. I can see Virgo's points, I thought the same way, but it does make sense when Mallumo explains it and I've lived with worse (Gathering the Winds responding to itself, for example, is stupid to me). I tried to think of a situation where this rule would lead to an insane outcome, like a support card having no HP or zero HP and that making a difference, but I wasn't able to come up with a hypothetical situation. I woke up this morning and decided "You know what, I can live in a world where neutral cards have zero loyalty and Paranoia keeps them out of a zone, or something similar." It's fine. The no cost thing also makes sense. It all made sense later after I decided that adjusting my way of thinking to how the rules are supposed to work instead of clinging to a sense of indignation that I was wrong.

But on the other hand, it sucks when you think things work one way and it turns out you're wrong. It actually isn't an attack on you when someone says "you're wrong in this case" but a lot of people take it that way all the time, not just on the internet.

I think Mallumo pointed out that Virgo's strategy of answering a rules question on the first page of this thread was the opposite of diplomatic, then it turned out the ruling went the other way and people grumbled in a passive-aggresive way which he took exception to. I'd be pissed too if I bothered to be right all the time (I try to be, but sometimes I can't be bothered and appreciate Entropy and Mallumo thinking about it harder) and had to deal with people (who are arguably rules experts too) fighting me on it or being bitchy after a resolution is made by the powers that be. Anyway, after you guys cool down I think you'll see we can live in this world and forget about the perceived insults on both sides.

TL, DR? Let's not make the Xirat'p rules question thread on neutral tactics the thread where we fight about respect, jerks, and fanboyism. We all care about this game, and that's the only reason we're fighting in the first place. Even from a fluff point of view it makes sense, right? Xirat'p is flying around on his **** disk finding all the spells in the gd world, obviously he can cast neutral spells for free, those are the most basic of spells!

HappyDD said:

Like I said before, Paranoia has always kept neutral units out of a zone.

HappyDD said:

I hardly see it as such as the answers I have been giving were correct at the time. I only used the phrase about stoping posting in response to question whether the game will implode. I don't like sillyfing* the discussion.

HappyDD said:

No, they are not Raise Dead costs 4 for god's sake!

Also it's not like I'm hurt with this ruling or whatever, I already posted it on polish forum as an official. Also it's not like it's creating any overpowered imba shenanigans. Call of the Kraken allows you to discard neutral card to put into play a Walking Sacrfice

It's just that it is completely, I will use this word again, counterintuitive. Just like this discussion I had with Mallumo a while ago:

http://deckbox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2790

Xirat'p ruling changes a less lot, I highly doubt he will see competitive play and casual players won't even hear about this ruling.

@Mallumo : Thank you for your explanation. You couldn't make it any clearer. Now, the "zero-cost/no cost" and loyalty stuff makes sense to me.

I did not quote out of context. I addressed the rules issue and the behaviour issue in separate paragraphs. I did not try to change the discussion away from rules, I merely expanded the scope of this thread because it is the latest example of a problem that has been going on for quite a while, so I addressed it here. I didn't call anyone a jerk for having trouble understanding the clarification, or for just calling it counter-intuitive. I said people acted like jerks because they made condescending, derisive remarks, towards other users and/or the devs.

The ruling isn't logical because I see it as such, but because it is. Logic isn't a matter of opinion. If anyone still has trouble understanding the logic, he's welcome to ask for further explanation. That's helpful for everyone. Dismissing the clarification if you can't follow it and keeping insisting it doesn't make sense and was just made up doesn't help. If anyone thinks the rule is illogical or doesn't make sense, he's welcome to explain why. With actual arguments, not just saying it doesn't make sense followed by an insulting remark of some kind. Counter-intuitive and illogical are different things. Saying the devs make things up or something isn't the way it is because it follows logically but simply because the devs say it is, isn't dealing with the clarification, isn't trying to understand it, it's dismissing it and being derisive. Saying I said what I said because I'm a "fan boy" isn't dealing with my arguments, it's dismissing them and being derisive.

I've said all I had to say on both matters. I'm getting the impression Virgo and Doc9 refuse to consider they might have acted wrong, just like they refuse to try to understand the logic behind the rule, so this won't go anywhere. So fine. The rule is nonsense, people who accept it don't do that because it's logical but out of some unrelated motivation, it's okay to be derivise towards others, and when somebody calls you out for that you're the victim. Let's leave it at that, I'll bow out of this one.

Mallumo you have your beliefs and I have mine and the fact that you're saying that I acted wrong honestly doesn't make me feel like I did. Especially since you're the one who started insulting people in this thread. HOWEVER moving our animosities aside:

Mallumo said:

The printed cost is the numerical value in the upper left corner of the card -> Developments don't have that, so they have no printed cost -> Not a cost of 0.

The loyalty is the number of loyalty icons under the printed cost. -> Neutrals don't have that, so they have no loyalty cost -> so they have 0 loyalty.

Explain how once 2+2=4 but then again 2+2=/4.

mallumo, just because you are under the opinion that I "might have acted wrong" doesn't make it so. I simply stated that it SEEMS as though rules were being made up on the fly. That is obviously my opinion. Sharing my opinion of something in an open forum is not "acting wrong". For you to start insulting me and calling me names simply because you disagree with my opinion shows a lack of maturity on your part. jerk.