Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sWhiteboy

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Carolina, United States
  1. So, similar to triggering from other out of play areas, like the dead or discard piles. Thanks.
  2. If you trigger an effect from your hand (that is not on an event card, and is not a put-into-play effect), did you play the card that the effect is printed on? I know events have to be played in order to trigger their effects, and the FAQ states that put-into-play effects are never played. I don't see any rulings on this specific type of effect.
  3. It doesn't come with 3 decks of cards; it comes with 3 copies of each card in the expansion because, as kauai said, that is a full playset. Everything that isn't the Core Set will come the same way. Competitive players will end up buying three Core sets so they have a full playset of all the Core cards.
  4. Hello, I looked around the board, but I didn't see any other information on these tokens. What is the price to have these made? How long does it take from order to delivery? Would there be a discount with a large order?
  5. From the FAQ (3.28 on page 11): "Unless otherwise stated (for example, with a specified duration), the change of control is permanent until the card that switched sides leaves play or control of the card switches again via a card effect. Note that attachments that grant control effects end when the attachment granting control leaves play." There is no paradox. The newest card that gives control is the one that counts.
  6. Damon is. But Damon is also known for handing out incorrect rulings when people ask him via Rules Questions or even just in person. Sometimes he doesn't take all the information into account, and sometimes he ignore the old rulings which were grandfathered in from the CCG era. Personally, I think this ruling should stand. It makes some cards much better than they previously were (Tyrion's Chain), and it adds just a little extra restriction on Pyromancer's Cache (though it usually won't matter too much imo).
  7. Assuming you are talking about dual house Randyll, he would not count his strength.
  8. I e-mailed Damon again. This time with a list of three imaginary tied players, their SoS/SoSoS, and the information that the player with the highest SoS/SoSoS had lost to both the other players (but that no one player had beaten both the other players). I then asked him to seed them for me. Apparently he was confused by my initial question, and the new answer lines up with what KTOM said, and is nice and in-depth: "The question about someone beating all other tied players is asked once. If that is not enough to determine who is at the top rank, we discard that question. Each player is considered part of the tied pool and you calculate SOS out as far as necessary until the entire order is revealed. In other words, treat SOS as a number with SOSOS as a decimal point, and if somehow against all odds in the universe there is still a tie, SOSOSOS as a further decimal point. Though this is such an edge case that playing an additional round of swiss would have eliminated this problem. Through all of the Gencon's and Worlds we've run I believe we've only once had to move to SOSOS. So in your example the factoring should have produced a result like this, Player A has 55.150 Player B has 55.180 Player C has 40.130 Giving us the final order of Player B, Player A, and then Player C. It does not matter if Player B has lost to A and C. The only thing that matters is that none of the players has beaten every other player they are tied with. Lets take this one step further Players A, B, C, and D are all tied for 3rd place with a 4-4 record. Player A has beat every other player, so he gets 3rd place. We now have a new tie for 4th place between players B, C, and D. No player has beaten the other two players in that group so now we go to SOS and we calculate that out as many "decimal points" as is necessary until the placement of all three remaining players has been determined." And order is restored to the world.
  9. To be fair, SoS is just as much chance as head-to-head.
  10. That is what I thought, and it is what I have seen at most tournaments (and from asking some TOs, the same thing that they thought as well). Then, I got an answer from Damon: "In your example, you have 3 players who are tied for second place. You use the rule quoted to determine second place. After the tie has been broken, you are left with a new tie, between 2 players who are now tied for 3rd place. Reapply the rule from the top: If one of those remaining two players has defeated the other, he should advance based on the first part of the rule." So, I'm left with this question. Which way is right? I mean, does FFG tournament software normally handle this and everyone just assumed it was straight SoS?
  11. In the tournament rules it says this about tie breakers: "If a tiebreaker between players with identical win-loss records is needed, any player who has defeated each opponent in the tied group is advanced. If no player has defeated each of the other tied players, strength of schedule is used as the tie-breaker." Does this mean that each individual grouping of players is checked? In this example I am seeding for second, third, and fourth place, and I have three players with the same win-loss record: No player has beaten both of the other players. So, we look at SoS. One player has the highest SoS, and they become the second seed. At that point, do I then check the next two players to see if one of them have beaten the other, or do I just go straight down with SoS after the first time I couldn't tie break with head-to-head stats? I would really like to hear from KTOM or someone else who has been TO of a major FFG event (like nationals or worlds).
  12. Just a quick bump for the upcoming SC this saturday!
  13. And for anyone not sure if they want to come, the first Store Championship's venue has beer on tap.
  • Create New...