• Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.

    If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.

    - The Lone Wolf Development Team

rules problems - LOTR

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizpatch at gte.net
  • Start date Start date
D

dizpatch at gte.net

Guest
Ok. I've been fighting this for some time now and am still unable to figure
a solution for these two rules issues.

Game is Lord of the Rings

Since Reflections release it is now possible to have alternate ringbearers.
Problem is that the original Frodo ring-bearer had a twilight cost of '0'
and therefore didn't count against the 4 twilight limit in the starting
fellowship. The new alternate rb's have costs ranging from 2-3 twilight.
With that in mind how do I get around the rules to use the new ring-bearers
with a correct cost of zero if in the starting fellowship and still account
for the new rb's if NOT used in the starting fellowship and just used in
your deck normally.

I currently use this as the rule for rb's:

<rule id="frodo" message="There must be at least one copy of Ring-bearer in
the deck" summary="Must have Ring-bearer" priority="20" scope="all">
<![CDATA[
card:resist.? = 1
]]>
</rule>

Secondly:

There are currently 13 cards distinct cards that have a twilight cost of 3
to play during a game. However - if they are in the starting fellowship
their twilight cost is reduced to 2. Is there a way to support this issue
in rules validation. I have a list of those cards if needed. It's
essentially 5 versions of Eomer, 3 of Theoden, 2 of Faramir, Alcarin, Ranger
of Ithlien & Elite Rider (both versions). The following is the rule that
currently is used for validation without the above issue. This is, of course
tied into the question I posted first. Maybe I'm wrong in trying to handle
them separately.

<rule id="strtfellow" message="Your starting Fellowship has a total Twilight
cost greater than 4" summary="Starting Fellowship too big" scope="deck3">
<![CDATA[
sum:twilight.? <= 4
]]>
</rule>


Any help would be appreciated. I've read myself to a total state of
insensibility going over the Rules and Statistics manuel though I did learn
a lot and cut down the size of my rules file.

Thanx loads to the CV guys - they're geniuses in my book.

Jim



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/WuQolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cardvault/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cardvault-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
At 10:23 PM 5/31/2004, you wrote:

>Since Reflections release it is now possible to have alternate ringbearers.
>Problem is that the original Frodo ring-bearer had a twilight cost of '0'
>and therefore didn't count against the 4 twilight limit in the starting
>fellowship. The new alternate rb's have costs ranging from 2-3 twilight.
>With that in mind how do I get around the rules to use the new ring-bearers
>with a correct cost of zero if in the starting fellowship and still account
>for the new rb's if NOT used in the starting fellowship and just used in
>your deck normally.
>
>I currently use this as the rule for rb's:
>
><rule id="frodo" message="There must be at least one copy of Ring-bearer in
>the deck" summary="Must have Ring-bearer" priority="20" scope="all">
><![CDATA[
> card:resist.? = 1
>]]>
> </rule>

If I'm not mistaken, the starting fellowship gets its own 'deck' in Lord of
the Rings. Therefore, there shouldn't be any problem distinguishing between
the SF and your Free Peoples deck - any rules for "deck1" will apply to the
FP deck only, while any rules for "deck3" will apply to your SF deck only.

This means you can do funky things. Here's a way I can think of off the top
of my head:

Everyone has TWO twilight cost tags - one for when they're in the deck, and
one for when they're in the SF. (I don't know whether you'd want to expose
this detail to the user or not - you might keep it hidden 'under the
covers' and just display a single twilight cost for each card, like you
currently do.) To calculate the total twilight cost of the deck, you'd then
need 3 rules:

rule 1: Sets value 'twideck' to sum of 'twideck' tags in deck1
rule 2: Sets value 'twistart' to sum of 'twistart' tags in deck3
rule 3: Does any necessary validation against total twilight cost - twideck
+ twistart.

>Secondly:
>
>There are currently 13 cards distinct cards that have a twilight cost of 3
>to play during a game. However - if they are in the starting fellowship
>their twilight cost is reduced to 2. Is there a way to support this issue
>in rules validation. I have a list of those cards if needed. It's
>essentially 5 versions of Eomer, 3 of Theoden, 2 of Faramir, Alcarin, Ranger
>of Ithlien & Elite Rider (both versions). The following is the rule that
>currently is used for validation without the above issue. This is, of course
>tied into the question I posted first. Maybe I'm wrong in trying to handle
>them separately.
>
><rule id="strtfellow" message="Your starting Fellowship has a total Twilight
>cost greater than 4" summary="Starting Fellowship too big" scope="deck3">
><![CDATA[
> sum:twilight.? <= 4
>]]>
> </rule>

The above should help with this scenario as well. You're already specifying
deck 3 only, so you'd just check against the 'starting twilight' tag value
instead of the 'normal twilight' tag value.

An alternative way to do it would be to 'special case' all the funky cards.
Each of these cards would get a hidden tag, something like 'specEomer1',
'specTheo3', or whatever - just enough to identify them to you within a
rule. Then, in your rule / stat to calculate the total twilight cost, you
can check for the presence of the tag - if it's present, add or subtract to
the total twilight cost appropriately. E.g. if Eomer2 had a twilight cost
of 4 (but 2 in the starting fellowship), in the 'starting fellowship
twilight' validation rule, you would get the total number of 'specEomer2'
tags, multiply that by 2, and subtract that number from the total. For example:

sum:twilight.? - (sum:specEomer2 * 2)

If no 'specEomer2's are in the deck, 0 will be subtracted - if one, 2 will
be subtracted, if two, 4 will be subtracted, etc.

Hope this helps,


--
Colen McAlister (colen@wolflair.com)
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/WuQolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->


Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cardvault/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cardvault-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top