Grapes and Tying

[The Guardian]

From my experience, many people are under the impression that Grapes grants a second rescue even if two players are tied for the most LS. Apparently this was not how it was ruled at Nationals by Bryon and Tim, but they both missed the discussion that took place awhile ago.

For now, consider this issue to be "under review."

[Master KChief]

so continue playing it as in the case of a tie, the player using grapes gets to make another rescue?

[The Guardian]

If 2 players have the same highest number of redeemed souls, they are tied for the most redeemed souls.  In those cases, Grapes of Wrath does not allow an additional rescue attempt, since that player has the most Redeemed Souls.

This is a quote from Bryon in the playtester section of the forum so right now I'm not sure there is an official ruling. Schaef was the only playtester to post in the discussion (though Eric Berkenpas said Mike agreed with Schaef). I would expect this to be officially ruled on before this weekend's tournaments. As for online RooT games, you may need to discuss it with your opponent before the game starts.

[redemption99]

...the arguement on this is kinda silly...

[BubbleBoy]

All I know is that "most" is defined as superlative in my dictionary, which means above all else/others.

[Cameron the Conqueror]

All I know is that "most" is defined as superlative in my dictionary, which means above all else/others.

  IMHO, this one is pretty obvious.

[redemption99]

All I know is that "most" is defined as superlative in my dictionary, which means above all else/others.

  IMHO, this one is pretty obvious.

yea, two ppl can't have 'the most' since 'the most' implies one being more than the other.

[everytribe]

If 2 players have the same highest number of redeemed souls, they are tied for the most redeemed souls.  In those cases, Grapes of Wrath does not allow an additional rescue attempt, since that player has the most Redeemed Souls.

IMHO its pretty obvious that if I have 4 LS and another player has 4 LS we both have the most.

[DDiceRC]

English usage has "most" as a superlative, which generally indicates the singular greatest amount. This would mean that if you do not have more (relative) souls than your opponent you also cannot have "most" (superlative), but if you do have more than your opponent then you have the most.

Redemption usage, on the other hand, can make a tie be a PC "you both have the most" and I'm perfectly willing to abide by that ruling. It would actually be consistent with the new "who goes first" rule, where if two players are tied they flip a coin or something to determine who goes first. In a multi-player game, if two players (or more) are tied for the "most," they are the only ones who are involved in the tiebreaker.

How's that for arguing out of both sides of my mouth?

[BubbleBoy]

If 2 players have the same highest number of redeemed souls, they are tied for the most redeemed souls.  In those cases, Grapes of Wrath does not allow an additional rescue attempt, since that player has the most Redeemed Souls.

IMHO its pretty obvious that if I have 4 LS and another player has 4 LS we both have the most.

Yes, the group of people with more lost souls than any other player besides each other has the most, but looking at each individual person, each one has more than everyone but the others, meaning neither one player has the most. Since Grapes refers to the player (si) who has the most, I would say that if anyone has as much or more than that one player, that one player does not have the most. Bottom line: Keep in mind that we are talking about one person.

[The Guardian]

As I said, it's under review by Rob and playtest group.

[The Guardian]

When a special ability on a card requires "the most" then "the most" needs to equal more than any other player. 

Rob has ruled, a tie grants an extra rescue if Grapes of Wrath is played. Let's move forward. 

[redemption99]

yay!

[juhnkect]

oh gosh. yay for the OP card of TeP. knew this set was too good to be true 



*insert more grumbling*

[RoyCannaday]

Good I was thinking of takeing it out of my
deck...

But I'll keep it in for a lil wile longer...

I always end up discarding it....

[everytribe]

That works for me. Good to have a final ruling.

[Gabe]

  Althought I though the ruling would go the other way, I like to see a good Dominant get a ruling that favors the offense.

[Bryon]

  Althought I though the ruling would go the other way, I like to see a good Dominant get a ruling that favors the offense.

My sentiments exactly.

[BubbleBoy]

I am glad of this.

[Cameron the Conqueror]

I am not, as I still believe this makes very little sense grammatically, but I must agree with Gabe that at least the offense wins.  Still, I would like a Play As to satisfy the grammar nerd in me.

*facepalm*

Teaches me to make sure I know the SA of a card before complaining.....

[The Schaef]

Cameron,

I don't understand.  This ruling supports the superlative definition of most, "more than all others", that BubbleBoy advocated and you agreed with.

[Cameron the Conqueror]

[mumble]Why did I think that Grapes said "if you have the most, make a new RA".....[/endmumble]

[RTSmaniac]

i love the art
i love the verse
i love the ability that goes with them
i love the ruling

[thestrongangel]

  Althought I though the ruling would go the other way, I like to see a good Dominant get a ruling that favors the offense.

I would rather every ruling on a dominant go against defense so as to allow more play styles to have a chance to flourish.  Basing offenses on Dominants is a rather cheap way to play the game, imho.

[DDiceRC]

Basing offenses on Dominants is a rather cheap way to play the game, imho.

Taking this literally (which I know is not intended), I agree. Without a chance at some Dominant rescues and blocks, players who are new to the game or financially strapped would lose to those who can get all the really hot cards and Regional/National promos. This gives the poor folk a chance.

For the record, I can get any card I really want, and have most of the big promos. I lose anyway, because I'm not much of a player. However, I don't think just because you have the best, most expensive cards you should automatically have a big edge in tournaments. I like the option of some "cheap" play options. (And yes, I know Grapes isn't all that cheap, but you should play Magic...or try to buy a FSP.)