City Wall

[kevmo]

Yeah i do it all the time with my honden deck and priveleged positions its the same concept. One protects the other and pretty much game over. Remember though that the wording on city wall is cant be targeted by things without LOS. Thats all i will say . I think people are forgetting that part. City wall is not the end all if you think hard enough you can get around it.

[Deleted]

sojomojo said:

I agree its an ULRTA RARE case.. Thanks Keith

Sojo, it's probably better if you don't get argumentative with new members.

In either case, the only reason the issue came up about only controlling one came from Keith anyway, who originally thought it was too "broken" to be able to control 2. That, plus, no one seemed to agree with me before when I suggested that the 2 Walls would protect each other. Now it seems its all but common knowledge.

The card doesn't need or ever needed errata. Everyone just had to get on the boat. Glad we're here I guess...

[Deleted]

kevmo said:

Yeah i do it all the time with my honden deck and priveleged positions its the same concept. One protects the other and pretty much game over. Remember though that the wording on city wall is cant be targeted by things without LOS. Thats all i will say . I think people are forgetting that part. City wall is not the end all if you think hard enough you can get around it.

Right. In fact, I still think Sutraps is coming up in the world again, especially with Magical Wings...

[Deleted]

Wow...I dont' know why I came back to this, but this was the craziest debate of all time, if you couple it with the 3 page thread of "City Wall" in the QUESTIONS ABOUT STRUCTURES section.

If you guys ever wanted in on the new Judge's Chambers, this is kind of what it looks like...Spiller, Sojo, and myself going at it, giving Keith headaches, and confusing everybody else. LOL.

So in the end, all other permanents you control are in fact under the protection of the City Wall. In the unlikely buy awesome case that you control both City Walls (like stealing an opponents), then they would protect each other as well. No erratas were filed.

Ah...the memories...

[cadrac]

It does lead to a logical impossibility, however.

admin said:

It doesn't actually state that everything is behind the wall, but it is.

This would mean that if you controlled two City Walls each would be behind the other. I would say, instead, that, as was often the case with cities as they grew, you had built a second City Wall around your entire city (including the old City Wall), so the new City Wall would protect the old one, but not vice-versa.

[Keith Katsikas]

This is a good idea.

[Deleted]

Ugh!!! I cannot stress enough that this is a CCG, and play must be defined by literal wording and rules defensability. Whether it is three-dimensionally physically possible is irrelavent. As would be judged by the current wording of the cards, it would work...they would protect each other.

Keith, I stronly urge that if you want it to work differently...it needs errata. Otherwise, IMO it is what it is.

[cadrac]

queue said:

Ugh!!! I cannot stress enough that this is a CCG, and play must be defined by literal wording and rules defensability. Whether it is three-dimensionally physically possible is irrelavent. As would be judged by the current wording of the cards, it would work...they would protect each other.

Keith, I stronly urge that if you want it to work differently...it needs errata. Otherwise, IMO it is what it is.

Q, the game itself is already getting into defining a physical space by saying things are "behind" the wall. That is a term of relative location. Two things cannot both be "behind" each other. If it said the things were "protected" by the wall, rather than specifying that they were "behind" the wall, then there would be no issue of two items "protecting" other.

I believe you are the one that has elsewhere commented about getting the language airtight. I am merely working on a language issue here. (If there are already language issues in English, imagine the headaches as the game begins to get translated into other languages as the export to Europe moves forward.)

[cadrac]

And besides, the defining of a physical space that can be interacted with is one of the innovative things about this game that I really enjoy. I like being able to envision a Creature huddling behind a Wall, then dashing across open space (vulnerable for a Round) on its way to enter a Building.

[Deleted]

admin said:

All other Structures your Character, Creatures, Items, and Effects, cannot be Targeted by any Characters or Creatures outside of L.O.S.

I am also the one who in other posts has acknowledged that bringing as much realism to a game can improve it, and logic can be fun, but it is precisely the exact wording of the card that I'm putting into play. IMO there is no room here in this wording for us to have infer anything. 2 City Walls per this wording would recognize each other as "other structures" that they would then protect from non-LOS Targeting. We cannot rule intention or physics when we have this sort of language that to me has always been clear.

Trust me when I tell you that you are not the first one to have a problem with this. I have myself wondering if my position is defensible as other Judges have even tried to debate your position. But yet, I remain unchanged in my opinion, and that is because I believe my position is backed by ruling and game mechanic, which I must insist take precedence. But when I am trying to get across is that if you as a player or Keith as the designer want to change or errata the card, or otherwise have any sort of opinion which are very sound and perhaps valid, those are all still different matters. There is no rules basis on why the new Wall should protect the old wall. You now as well as I do Cadrac that these are too continuous effects overlapping from different sources. We've seen it before.

I have no problem if it does get changed, but I don't think we should rule this on preference, feeling, or logic. I reiterate that it is what it is.

[cadrac]

Oh, I completely agree that as written the walls have to be ruled as protecting each other. I merely have been arguing in favor of an errata or wording change that alters that. I apologize if my position has been unclear. My point was that two copies of the card simultaneously needed to be interpreted as a mutual protection and admiration society, but went on to describe each as behind the other, so we should do something to fix it.

[synergy]

ya i want it that way cadrac

[kevmo]

Q is right here where you cant always think of things in a physical sense. The effect City Wall provides is a constant effect which means it is constantly checking for structures you control. Therefore one City Wall would protect the other. MY suggestion is play with Fire Elementals and Earth Elementals if you see a City Wall.

[tirus]

My only reason I may EVER playing earth elements is.. 1, I have alot of flyiers in my deck, 2, I see a city wall.

[Deleted]

cadrac said:

Oh, I completely agree that as written the walls have to be ruled as protecting each other. I merely have been arguing in favor of an errata or wording change that alters that. I apologize if my position has been unclear. My point was that two copies of the card simultaneously needed to be interpreted as a mutual protection and admiration society, but went on to describe each as behind the other, so we should do something to fix it.

Oh...ok. I prolly did misunderstand you. Sorry! Well, as long as we all do know that is the way it actually works, there is no harm in opinionating and/or acknowledging that perhaps it would be appropiate a different way. Good job being all over it!