Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
LastLast
  1. #241
    Deleted
    It's just oversimplifying the matter. It's like saying that Halo was doom+ or that WoW is baldur's gate+... just cause it uses the same systems, doesn't mean it's the same game "+".
    I do see where you're coming from but I just can't agree with it.

    Let's take the 5 color system, for example, since eroginous mentioned it. It's 5 colors because 5 colors works best. 2 or 3 is way to little variety and having 8+ is just way too overwhelming. Now we're left with 4,5,6 and 7. Some games can get away with 7 but they have to really ease you in with it. I think infinity wars is doing that? I'm too lazy to start it up now but it might only have 6. 6 can also work but it's a bit of a strech, same as 4 can work but it just doesn't give you the feeling of having a real choice. MTG and a few other CCGs pick 5 because of what the general strategy behind a "color" can be...
    you have your fast growth decks (green), you have your direct damage decks (red), you have the healers (white) you have the controlers (blue) and you have the debuffers/dots (black/purple)... now how would you add another color to that and what would it represent? Deck destruction? that would mostly be blue, sometimes black. Buffing? Usually that's in white and green since it's a synergy... and it can also be blue... a turtle deck? Usually that's also control. All other options usually don't work "by themselves". That's why all RPGs usually have str, dex, int and con... and some just add a little wis so that the healers can feel special. 5 is the optimal number in most cases and that's why MTG went with it and that's why HEX now is also using it.

    In a way it's like suing someone for making a wheel. The wheel already works the way it is, look at the whole car. We all know, I hope, what HEX could potentially do to the online CCG genre. A card game where I can progress by doing quests and exploring the world? Heck, me and a friend of mine have been talking about a game like that since 2001... we're both just too lazy to make one :P
    It's breaking the barriers of the CCG and what it can do and to do that... it's building on a foundation that works and has been tested and needs very little improvement. To be honest, I'm completely fine with that. Could it be a bit more diverse tho? Hard to say... How DOES one improve the wheel?

  2. #242
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by PROdotes View Post
    *snip*.


    Such a bad example....

    Try it this way....


    Baldur's Gate is just like DnD. But wait, it is DnD right? Correct, because they paid for the right to use the DnD rule-set in a licencing agreement. Unlike Crypto, who just used MTG's rules to make their own version, without any financial agreement (Or any other type of agreement).....hence the suit
    Last edited by mmoc3c347a2199; 2014-05-22 at 06:30 PM.

  3. #243
    Quote Originally Posted by PROdotes View Post
    How DOES one improve the wheel?
    Everything you said, has nothing to do with the rules of the game. Also, I still think even though it's a video game we're discussing, chess as a video game is still chess. MTG as video game is still MTG, or, a cardgame. In the case of HEX, it rests on the exact same rules as MTG.

    Really..the wheel? My god where do these people keep coming from. You don't know the rules, you don't understand the rules, you don't understand why MTG is MTG and why HEX is MTG+ and why that isn't allowed and you address none of the points I make, yet you make up your own, out of thin air as if they miraculously explain how HEX is not the same. Or whatever. Really, I'm currently not even sure what people are trying to prove, since, once more, I can keep linking to the rules of the phases of MTG and I can keep saying that HEX matches those rules exactly, but people just won't accept it.

    Then they start a debate about how additions to rules are automatically changes to rules. I proof that this is false, which leads to people stating that surely HS too, must be a clone then, which I proof to be false, which leads to people rehashing arguments from way back in this thread, about colors not matching or why they use 5 colors.

    Really? We're discussing this little insignificant aspect of the rules, colors, that aren't even part of the [FRAMEWORK] I mentioned earlier? It has no significance. None.

    The rules of the game, combined, form HOW the game is played. THOSE rules never changed. HOW, HOW, HOW. the Sequence from start of the turn to end of the turn is identical in both games. This makes HEX borrow the entire [FRAMEWORK] from MTG, making it [MTG+], which is not allowed, because it's property owned by WotC.

    And there are MANY card games that do not follow the rules of MTG. MANY. A friend of mine in Sweden is creating his own Cardgame as we speak and is going to conventions with it and it's absolutely fucking brilliant (contact me if you want to know more *cough*) and it's a pity I can't exactly find friends here to play it, but his rules aren't even close to MTG. Nowhere near. Nothing in hell or heaven will call that game a clone.

    HEX, is really pushing it, by copying the entire [FRAMEWORK].

    @ Telila; Dear god, I feel so lonely sometimes, with all this stupid around me, but you saved my face from being palmed too many times today.
    Last edited by Vespian; 2014-05-22 at 06:30 PM.

  4. #244
    Deleted
    There are many card games that do things completely differently... there are some that don't. and most use some aspects of MTG. That's really not always copying. Stuff like life, deck size, hand size, phases... all of that has to be in a card game in one way or another. One could even go so far and argue that old card games have hit points, attack points and phases.
    But let's have it your way. Colors aren't part of the framework... OK... are hitpoints? Deck size? Phases?
    As mentioend before, how many of the numbers do you have to change before it's different?
    Or as I've put it... if it's 8 cards in your hand, 25 hit points, no main phase 2... is it now a different game? No? What if the attacker can choose who'll block... is it now a different game? If yes... can i put the hitpoints back to 20 and it becomes the same again?
    Colors are mentioned in the lawsuit, among other things. So saying that they are not important is not accurate. It's the age old problem of "how many persons does it take until you have many. And if X is many, and X-1 is not many, then obviously 1 is enough for it to be many".

    You're arguing that the entire thing is a copy/paste... but when people point out that you can change X, you say that X is not important. When does X become important?

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by PROdotes View Post
    There are many card games that do things completely differently... there are some that don't. and most use some aspects of MTG. That's really not always copying. Stuff like life, deck size, hand size, phases... all of that has to be in a card game in one way or another. One could even go so far and argue that old card games have hit points, attack points and phases.
    But let's have it your way. Colors aren't part of the framework... OK... are hitpoints? Deck size? Phases?
    As mentioend before, how many of the numbers do you have to change before it's different?
    Or as I've put it... if it's 8 cards in your hand, 25 hit points, no main phase 2... is it now a different game? No? What if the attacker can choose who'll block... is it now a different game? If yes... can i put the hitpoints back to 20 and it becomes the same again?
    Colors are mentioned in the lawsuit, among other things. So saying that they are not important is not accurate. It's the age old problem of "how many persons does it take until you have many. And if X is many, and X-1 is not many, then obviously 1 is enough for it to be many".

    You're arguing that the entire thing is a copy/paste... but when people point out that you can change X, you say that X is not important. When does X become important?
    The answers to your questions lie in waiting, for proper paragraphs.

    If you had been reading carefully, you would have already seen the answer.

    The fact that you can change things, doesn't mean that they did. They didn't.
    - Hand size; doesn't affect HOW the game is played.
    - Hitpoints; doesn't affect HOW the game is played.
    - No additional Main Phases; Affects HOW the game is played.

    So arguably, in this example, only the lack of the phase affects how the game is played. It's not strange for friendly matches to play with 1v1v1 setup with 30 Health, but you would still be playing MTG. The fact that you took 5 mulligans and are now left with 3 cards in your hand doesn't mean you're no longer playing MTG.

    That's the short version of a very large array of possible changes that could be made, of which only the game-changing changes determine whether it is or isn't a clone.

    Granted, had they changed the hand-size and the health and all those other little things that ultimately are part of any game, it would have been less similar to MTG, but you can't judge the game for having 7/8 cards starting hand, or 20hp. You can judge the game based on the presence of the entire rulebook for phases. To the dot.

    I'm confusing myself here, I think MTG had 7 card draw starter hand, but meh, point remains the same.
    Last edited by Vespian; 2014-05-22 at 08:18 PM.

  6. #246
    Quote Originally Posted by Telila View Post
    Such a bad example....

    Try it this way....


    Baldur's Gate is just like DnD. But wait, it is DnD right? Correct, because they paid for the right to use the DnD rule-set in a licencing agreement. Unlike Crypto, who just used MTG's rules to make their own version, without any financial agreement (Or any other type of agreement).....hence the suit
    Actually that is a bad example as well. Could WotC sue Paizo? No because of tabletop's OGL. Bear in mind that Pathfinds is compatible with DnD 3.5.

    It's hard to draw a line on this sort of thing, what helps Hex is the fact that it is strictly a video game; Crypto can probably use that. It doesn't follow the same payment method as physical board/card games. WotC can probably only compare their video games to that of Hex, but bigger copycats have made it out of court before.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    If Hex is MTG+, then HS is MTG-.



    The specific colors of cards aren't important. It's the fact that Wotc has spent over 20 years crafting a game balanced around 5 different colors of cards, where specific mechanics are restricted by color and the colors/cards you choose in your deck has a significant impact on how the game plays out. The 'color pie,' as it's called, represents where most of the work on MTG has been done. Knowing that green cards are resource efficient and blue cards provide the most control, if you can show that these mechanics are confined by color in Hex in the exact same way as they are in MTG, you can establish that Crypto has directly copied the design of MTG.
    I'd say the color does matter, a bit. The mechanics of having five colors and how they behave isn't copyright, trademark, or patent infringement.

    Here's some examples of actual copyright/trademark infringement after a quick search.

    Blatant copyright and trademark

    Copyright for using the exact name and cards

    and another generic one based on apps

    Just want to quote from one of the WotC letters.
    as infringing Wizards' copyrights and trademarks: (1) the "MTG" trademark in the app name; (2) the abstracted version of Wizards' "Pentagon of Colors" in the icon for your app; and (3) the card art and creative content of the MAGIC: THE GATHERING(r) cards, which may not be copied, displayed or distributed
    Mechanics alone won't win the suite, especially for a video game. WotC will need to convince the court otherwise, but I wish them luck.

  7. #247
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespian View Post
    Le /sigh.

    I'm going to try and make this reasonably comprehensive.

    We have the core rule set that makes MTG, MTG. It's what I've been playing since early 90's and which hasn't changed since. That framework of rules has NOT changed, ever. The only things that were later ADDED by WotC were new conditions.

    [FRAMEWORK] = [MTG].
    [FRAMEWORK] + [WOTC ADDITIONS] = [MTG]
    [FRAMEWORK] + [CRYPTOZOIC ADDITIONS] = [MTG] & [BREACH OF LAW]

    Now, in the case of Hearthstone;
    [FRAMEWORK] = [MTG].
    [FRAMEWORK] - [90%FRAMEWORK] < [MTG] | [NO LONGER MTG]

    The framework is owned by WotC. It's their core rules. Those core rules make MTG , MTG. If those core rules are no longer there, there is also no MTG. In the case of HEX, those core rules are represented identically, albeit with different naming conventions, but they are there, all of them. In the case of HS and pretty much all other card games currently in existence, those core rules are no longer identical and in many cases no longer resemble.
    You're being ignorant. I've already claimed that HS is much simpler than MTG. That doesn't mean HS doesn't play out like MTG. Here's the turn order of MTG:

    1. Untap, Upkeep, draw a card.
    2. Play a land, spells, creatures.
    3. Attack
    4. Play a land (if you hadn't played one yet), spells, creatures.
    5. End your turn.

    Here's how HS breaks down:

    1. Your mana crystals, minions, and hero power are ready to use again (untap), get a mana crystal (play a land), draw a card.
    2. Play minions, spells, attack.
    3. End your turn.

    Just because HS does not follow a rigid set of phases each turn, does not have the same number of them, and has more flexibility for things like attacking/playing spells, does not mean it feels any different than MTG. HS IS MTG, with simpler rules and a Wow theme.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespian View Post
    WE AGREE. BUT IT IS NOT CHANGED. It only has additions to things that do not form the game in cardgame. Stop pursuing this madness. I made very clear what are and what are not changes to the game. As long as the game, the WAY, THE HOW, it is played DOES NOT DEVIATE FROM MTG, IT's NOT a change. NOT.

    I don't care how many tits and nipples they add to the art, it is NOT a change compared to MTG (which is titless, just saying). A change, would be when instead of drawing cards, you draw cards into your graveyard. BAM, a direct change compared to MTG,which DEVIATES from the rules. HEX does not have such a deviation no matter how much you whine.

    With the exception of earlier mentioned 1, maybe 2, but I'm talking to a clueless brick wall, so I doubt that was even noticed.
    Well, I'm not whining. But just adding thresholds = a change, a deviation etc .. since MTG doesn't thresholds.. thats just one example.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by PROdotes View Post
    You're arguing that the entire thing is a copy/paste... but when people point out that you can change X, you say that X is not important. When does X become important?
    Glad someone else gets it .. It can't be a copy if there is a difference. Similar, but not a copy.

  9. #249
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    You're being ignorant.
    In any other situation I would probably agree with you, well, not on the ignorant part, but in the case of a cardgame, or boardgame, the more rules disappear or are changed (because even the leftover rules in HS are not exactly the same), the less and less remains of it's source of insipiration and it's my firm believe, that using MTG as a source of inspiration, is a good thing. The question is, at what point does source of inspiration become copyright infringement and in that case I say; HEX pretty much took the rules 1:1. Not just in essence, but also in volume.

    So while you could ban out EVERY card game in the world, based on the principal of it using turns, and a deck of cards, it's not quite the same as the case that's currently being made. And WotC know this. They're not suing Blizzard, they're suing the game that is actually a form of theft.

    Edit: I also forgot, that's not how MTG plays out. This is how MTG plays out:
    500.1. A turn consists of five phases, in this order: beginning, precombat main, combat, postcombat main, and ending. Each of these phases takes place every turn, even if nothing happens during the phase. The beginning, combat, and ending phases are further broken down into steps, which proceed in order.

    500.2. A phase or step in which players receive priority ends when the stack is empty and all players pass in succession. Simply having the stack become empty doesn't cause such a phase or step to end; all players have to pass with the stack empty. Because of this, each player gets a chance to add new things to the stack before that phase or step ends.

    500.3. A step in which no players receive priority ends when all specified actions that take place during that step are completed. The only such steps are the untap step (see rule 502) and certain cleanup steps (see rule 514).

    500.4. When a step or phase ends, any unused mana left in a player's mana pool is lost. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.

    500.5. When a phase or step ends, any effects scheduled to last "until end of" that phase or step expire. When a phase or step begins, any effects scheduled to last "until" that phase or step expire. Effects that last "until end of combat" expire at the end of the combat phase, not at the beginning of the end of combat step. Effects that last "until end of turn" are subject to special rules; see rule 514.2.

    500.6. When a phase or step begins, any abilities that trigger "at the beginning of" that phase or step are added to the stack.

    500.7. Some effects can give a player extra turns. They do this by adding the turns directly after the current turn. If a player gets multiple extra turns or if multiple players get extra turns during a single turn, the extra turns are added one at a time. The most recently created turn will be taken first.

    500.8. Some effects can add phases to a turn. They do this by adding the phases directly after the specified phase. If multiple extra phases are created after the same phase, the most recently created phase will occur first.

    500.9. Some effects can add steps to a phase. They do this by adding the steps directly after a specified step or directly before a specified step. If multiple extra steps are created after the same step, the most recently created step will occur first.

    500.10. Some effects can cause a step, phase, or turn to be skipped. To skip a step, phase, or turn is to proceed past it as though it didn't exist. See rule 613.10.

    500.11. No game events can occur between turns, phases, or steps.

    501. Beginning Phase

    501.1. The beginning phase consists of three steps, in this order: untap, upkeep, and draw.

    502. Untap Step

    502.1. First, all phased-in permanents with phasing that the active player controls phase out, and all phased-out permanents that the active player controlled when they phased out phase in. This all happens simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. See rule 702.23, "Phasing."

    502.2. Second, the active player determines which permanents he or she controls will untap. Then he or she untaps them all simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. Normally, all of a player's permanents untap, but effects can keep one or more of a player's permanents from untapping.

    502.3. No player receives priority during the untap step, so no spells or abilities can be played or resolved. Any ability that triggers during this step will be held until the next time a player would receive priority, which is usually during the upkeep step. (See rule 503, "Upkeep Step.")

    503. Upkeep Step

    503.1. First, any abilities that trigger at the beginning of the upkeep step and any abilities that triggered during the turn's untap step go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

    503.2. Second, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

    504. Draw Step

    504.1. First, the active player draws a card. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.

    504.2. Second, any abilities that trigger at the beginning of the draw step and any other abilities that have triggered go on the stack.

    504.3. Third, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

    505. Main Phase

    505.1. There are two main phases in a turn. In each turn, the first main phase (also known as the precombat main phase) and the second main phase (also known as the postcombat main phase) are separated by the combat phase (see rule 506, "Combat Phase"). The precombat and postcombat main phases are individually and collectively known as the main phase.

    505.1a If an effect causes a turn to have an additional combat phase and an additional main phase, the additional main phase is also a postcombat main phase.

    505.2. The main phase has no steps, so a main phase ends when all players pass in succession while the stack is empty. (See rule 500.2.)

    505.3. First, any abilities that trigger at the beginning of the main phase go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

    505.4. Second, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities. The active player may play a land.

    505.4a The main phase is the only phase in which a player can normally cast artifact, creature, enchantment, planeswalker, and sorcery spells. Only the active player may cast these spells.

    505.4b During either main phase, the active player may play one land card from his or her hand if the stack is empty, if the player has priority, and if he or she hasn't yet taken this special action this turn. (See rule 305, "Lands.") This action doesn't use the stack. Neither the land nor the action of playing the land is a spell or ability, so it can't be countered, and players can't respond to it with instants or activated abilities.

    506. Combat Phase

    506.1. The combat phase has five steps, which proceed in order: beginning of combat, declare attackers, declare blockers, combat damage, and end of combat. The declare blockers and combat damage steps are skipped if no creatures are declared as attackers or put onto the battlefield attacking (see rule 508.5). There are two combat damage steps if any attacking or blocking creature has first strike (see rule 702.7) or double strike (see rule 702.4).

    506.2. During the combat phase, the active player is the attacking player; creatures that player controls may attack. During the combat phase of a two-player game, the nonactive player is the defending player; that player and planeswalkers he or she controls may be attacked.

    506.2a During the combat phase of a multiplayer game, there may be one or more defending players, depending on the variant being played and the options chosen for it. Unless all the attacking player's opponents automatically become defending players during the combat step, the attacking player chooses one of his or her opponents as a turn-based action during the beginning of combat step. (Note that the choice may be dictated by the variant being played or the options chosen for it.) That player becomes the defending player. See rule 802, "Attack Multiple Players Option," rule 803, "Attack Left and Attack Right Options," and rule 807, "Emperor Variant."

    506.2b In the Two-Headed Giant multiplayer variant, the nonactive team is the defending team. See rule 806, "Two-Headed Giant Variant."

    506.3. Only a creature can attack or block. Only a player or a planeswalker can be attacked.

    506.3a If an effect would put a noncreature permanent onto the battlefield attacking or blocking, the permanent does enter the battlefield but it's never considered to be an attacking or blocking permanent.

    506.3b If an effect would put a creature onto the battlefield attacking under the control of any player except an attacking player, that creature does enter the battlefield, but it's never considered to be an attacking creature.

    506.3c If an effect would put a creature onto the battlefield blocking but the creature it would block isn't attacking either the first creature's controller or a planeswalker that player controls, that creature does enter the battlefield, but it's never considered to be a blocking creature.

    506.4. A permanent is removed from combat if it leaves the battlefield, if its controller changes, if an effect specifically removes it from combat, if it's a planeswalker that's being attacked and stops being a planeswalker, or if it's an attacking or blocking creature that regenerates (see rule 701.11) or stops being a creature. A creature that's removed from combat stops being an attacking, blocking, blocked, and/or unblocked creature. A planeswalker that's removed from combat stops being attacked.

    506.4a Once a creature has been declared as an attacking or blocking creature, spells or abilities that would have kept that creature from attacking or blocking don't remove the creature from combat.

    506.4b Tapping or untapping a creature that's already been declared as an attacker or blocker doesn't remove it from combat and doesn't prevent its combat damage.

    506.4c If a creature is attacking a planeswalker, removing that planeswalker from combat doesn't remove that creature from combat. It continues to be an attacking creature, although it is attacking neither a player nor a planeswalker. It may be blocked. If it is unblocked, it will deal no combat damage.

    506.4d A permanent that's both a blocking creature and a planeswalker that's being attacked is partially removed from combat if it stops being either a creature or a planeswalker (but not both). It's not removed from the portion of combat that's relevant to the card type it still is.

    506.5. A creature attacks alone if it's the only creature declared as an attacker during the declare attackers step. A creature is attacking alone if it's attacking but no other creatures are. A creature blocks alone if it's the only creature declared as a blocker during the declare blockers step. A creature is blocking alone if it's blocking but no other creatures are.

    507. Beginning of Combat Step

    507.1. First, if the game being played is a multiplayer game in which the active player's opponent's don't all automatically become defending players, the active player chooses one of his or her opponents. That player becomes the defending player. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. (See rule 506.2.)

    507.2. Second, any abilities that trigger at the beginning of combat go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

    507.3. Third, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

    508. Declare Attackers Step

    508.1. First, the active player declares attackers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. To declare attackers, the active player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of attackers, the active player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration was illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 714, "Handling Illegal Actions").

    508.1a The active player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will attack. The chosen creatures must be untapped, and each one must either have haste or have been controlled by the active player continuously since the turn began.

    508.1b If the defending player controls any planeswalkers, or the game allows the active player to attack multiple other players, the active player announces which player or planeswalker each of the chosen creatures is attacking.

    508.1c The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can't attack, or that it can't attack unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of attackers is illegal.

    Example: A player controls two creatures, each with a restriction that states "[This creature] can't attack alone." It's legal to declare both as attackers.

    508.1d The active player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must attack, or that it must attack if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of attackers is illegal. Tapped creatures and creatures with unpaid costs to attack are exempt from effects that would require them to attack.

    Example: A player controls two creatures: one that "attacks if able" and one with no abilities. An effect states, "No more than one creature can attack each turn." The only legal attack is for just the creature that "attacks if able" to attack. It's illegal to attack with the other creature, attack with both, or attack with neither.

    508.1e If any of the chosen creatures have banding or a "bands with other" ability, the active player announces which creatures, if any, are banded with which. (See rule 702.19, "Banding.")

    508.1f The active player taps the chosen creatures. Tapping a creature when it's declared as an attacker isn't a cost; attacking simply causes creatures to become tapped.

    508.1g If any of the chosen creatures require paying costs to attack, the active player determines the total cost to attack. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes "locked in." If effects would change the total cost after this time, ignore this change.

    508.1h If any of the costs require mana, the active player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, "Mana Abilities").

    508.1i Once the player has enough mana in his or her mana pool, he or she pays all costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed.

    508.1j Each chosen creature still controlled by the active player becomes an attacking creature. It remains an attacking creature until it's removed from combat or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. See rule 506.4.

    508.2. Second, any abilities that triggered on attackers being declared go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

    508.2a Abilities that trigger on a creature attacking trigger only at the point the creature is declared as an attacker. They will not trigger if a creature attacks and then that creature's characteristics change to match the ability's trigger condition.

    Example: A permanent has the ability "Whenever a green creature attacks, destroy that creature at end of combat." If a blue creature attacks and is later turned green, the ability will not trigger.

    508.3. Third, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

    508.4. Effects from a creature that refer to a defending player refer only to the defending player it's attacking (if it's attacking a player) or the controller of the planeswalker it's attacking (if it's attacking a planeswalker).

    508.5. If a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking, its controller chooses which defending player or which planeswalker a defending player controls it's attacking as it enters the battlefield (unless the effect that put it onto the battlefield specifies what it's attacking). Such creatures are "attacking" but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, they never "attacked."

    508.6. If no creatures are declared as attackers or put onto the battlefield attacking, skip the declare blockers and combat damage steps.

    509. Declare Blockers Step

    509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. To declare blockers, the defending player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of blockers, the defending player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration was illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 714, "Handling Illegal Actions").

    509.1a The defending player chooses which creatures that he or she controls, if any, will block. The chosen creatures must be untapped. For each of the chosen creatures, the defending player chooses one creature for it to block that's attacking him, her, or a planeswalker he or she controls.

    509.1b The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can't block, or that it can't block unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of blockers is illegal.

    A restriction may be created by an evasion ability (a static ability an attacking creature has that restricts what can block it). If an attacking creature gains or loses an evasion ability after a legal block has been declared, it doesn't affect that block. Different evasion abilities are cumulative.

    Example: An attacking creature with flying and shadow can't be blocked by a creature with flying but without shadow.

    509.1c The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any requirements (effects that say a creature must block, or that it must block if some condition is met). If the number of requirements that are being obeyed is fewer than the maximum possible number of requirements that could be obeyed without disobeying any restrictions, the declaration of blockers is illegal. Tapped creatures and creatures with unpaid costs to block are exempt from effects that would require them to block.

    Example: A player controls one creature that "blocks if able" and another creature with no abilities. An effect states, "Creatures can't be blocked except by two or more creatures." Having only the first creature block violates the restriction. Having neither creature block fulfills the restriction but not the requirement. Having both creatures block the same attacking creature fulfills both the restriction and the requirement, so that's the only option.

    509.1d If any of the chosen creatures require paying costs to block, the defending player determines the total cost to block. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. Once the total cost is determined, it becomes "locked in." If effects would change the total cost after this time, ignore this change.

    509.1e If any of the costs require mana, the defending player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, "Mana Abilities").

    509.1f Once the player has enough mana in his or her mana pool, he or she pays all costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed.

    509.1g Each chosen creature still controlled by the defending player becomes a blocking creature. Each one is blocking the attacking creatures chosen for it. It remains a blocking creature until it's removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. See rule 506.4.

    509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat. (Some effects can change whether a creature is blocked or unblocked.)

    509.2. Second, for each attacking creature that's become blocked by multiple creatures, the active player announces its damage assignment order among the blocking creatures. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. (During the combat damage step, an attacking creature can't assign combat damage to a creature that's blocking it unless each creature ahead of that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage.)

    Example: Craw Wurm is blocked by Llanowar Elves, Grizzly Bears, and Serra Angel. The Craw Wurm's controller announces the Craw Wurm's damage assignment order as Serra Angel, then Grizzly Bears, then Llanowar Elves.

    509.2a During the declare blockers step, if a blocking creature is removed from combat or a spell or ability causes it to stop blocking an attacking creature, the blocking creature is removed from the attacking creature's damage assignment order. The relative order among the remaining blocking creatures is unchanged.

    509.3. Third, for each creature that's blocking multiple creatures (because some effect allows it to), the defending player announces its damage assignment order among the attacking creatures. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. (During the combat damage step, a blocking creature can't assign combat damage to a creature it's blocking unless each creature ahead of that blocked creature in its order is assigned lethal damage.)

    509.3a During the declare blockers step, if an attacking creature is removed from combat, that creature is removed from all relevant damage assignment orders. The relative order among the remaining attacking creatures is unchanged.

    509.4. Fourth, any abilities that triggered on blockers being declared go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

    509.4a An ability that reads "Whenever [this creature] blocks, . . ." generally triggers only once each combat for that creature, even if it blocks multiple creatures. It triggers if the creature is declared as a blocker. It will also trigger if that creature becomes a blocker as the result of an effect, but only if it wasn't a blocking creature at that time. (See rule 509.1g.)

    509.4b An ability that reads "Whenever [this creature] blocks a creature, . . ." triggers once for each attacking creature the creature with the ability blocks. It triggers only if the creature is declared as a blocker.

    509.4c An ability that reads "Whenever [this creature] becomes blocked, . . ." generally triggers only once each combat for that creature, even if it's blocked by multiple creatures. It will trigger if that creature becomes blocked by at least one creature declared as a blocker. It will also trigger if that creature becomes blocked by an effect or by a creature that's put onto the battlefield as a blocker, , but only if the attacking creature was an unblocked creature at that time. (See rule 509.1h.)

    509.4d An ability that reads "Whenever a creature blocks [this creature], . . ." triggers once for each creature that blocks the named creature. It will also trigger if an effect causes a creature to block the attacking creature, even if it had already been blocked that combat. It won't trigger if the creature becomes blocked by an effect rather than a creature.

    509.4e If an ability triggers when a creature blocks or becomes blocked by a particular number of creatures, the ability triggers if the creature blocks or is blocked by that many creatures when blockers are declared. Effects that add or remove blockers can also cause such abilities to trigger. This applies to abilities that trigger on a creature blocking or being blocked by at least a certain number of creatures as well.

    509.4f If an ability triggers when a creature with certain characteristics blocks, it will trigger only if the creature has those characteristics at the point blockers are declared. If an ability triggers when a creature with certain characteristics becomes blocked, it will trigger only if the creature has those characteristics at the point it becomes a blocked creature. If an ability triggers when a creature becomes blocked by a creature with certain characteristics, it will trigger only if the latter creature has those characteristics at the point becomes a blocking creature. None of those abilities will trigger if the relevant creature's characteristics change to match the ability's trigger condition later on.

    Example: A creature has the ability "Whenever this creature becomes blocked by a white creature, destroy that creature at end of combat." If the creature becomes blocked by a black creature that is later turned white, the ability will not trigger.

    509.4g An ability that reads "Whenever [this creature] attacks and isn't blocked, . . ." triggers if no creatures are declared as blockers for that creature. It won't trigger if the attacking creature is blocked and then all its blockers are removed from combat.

    509.5. Fifth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

    509.6. If a spell or ability causes a creature on the battlefield to block an attacking creature, the active player announces the blocking creature's placement in the attacking creature's damage assignment order. The relative order among the remaining blocking creatures is unchanged. Then the defending player announces the attacking creature's placement in the blocking creature's damage assignment order. The relative order among the remaining blocking creatures is unchanged. This is done as part of the blocking effect.

    509.7. If a creature is put onto the battlefield blocking, its controller chooses which attacking creature it's blocking as it enters the battlefield (unless the effect that put it onto the battlefield specifies what it's blocking), then the active player announces the new creature's placement in the blocked creature's damage assignment order. The relative order among the remaining blocking creatures is unchanged. A creature put onto the battlefield this way is "blocking" but, for the purposes of trigger events and effects, it never "blocked."

    Example: Lumengrid Warden is blocked by Grizzly Bears. The defending player casts Flash Foliage, which puts a Saproling token onto the battlefield blocking the Lumengrid Warden. Lumengrid Warden's controller announces the Lumengrid Warden's damage assignment order as the Saproling token, then Grizzly Bears.

    510. Combat Damage Step

    510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how each blocking creature assigns its combat damage. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. A player assigns a creature's combat damage according to the following rules:

    510.1a Each attacking creature and each blocking creature assigns combat damage equal to its power. Creatures that would assign 0 or less damage this way don't assign combat damage at all.

    510.1b An unblocked creature assigns its combat damage to the player or planeswalker it's attacking. If it isn't currently attacking anything (if, for example, it was attacking a planeswalker that has left the battlefield), it assigns no combat damage.

    510.1c A blocked creature assigns its combat damage to the creatures blocking it. If no creatures are currently blocking it (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. If exactly one creature is blocking it, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. If two or more creatures are blocking it, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. This may allow the blocked creature to divide its combat damage. However, it can't assign combat damage to a creature that's blocking it unless each creature that precedes that blocking creature in its order is assigned lethal damage. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that's being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that's actually dealt. An amount of damage that's greater than a creature's lethal damage may be assigned to it.

    Example: The damage assignment order of an attacking Craw Wurm (a 6/4 creature) is Wall of Wood (a 0/3 creature) then Eager Cadet (a 1/1 creature). Craw Wurm can assign 3 damage to the Wall and 3 damage to the Cadet, 4 damage to the Wall and 2 damage to the Cadet, 5 damage to the Wall and 1 damage to the Cadet, or 6 damage to the Wall.

    Example: The damage assignment order of an attacking Craw Wurm (a 6/4 creature) is Wall of Wood (a 0/3 creature) then Eager Cadet (a 1/1 creature). During the declare blockers step, the defending player casts Giant Growth targeting Wall of Wood, which gives it +3/+3 until end of turn. Craw Wurm must assign its 6 damage to the Wall.

    Example: The damage assignment order of an attacking Craw Wurm (a 6/4 creature) is Wall of Wood (a 0/3 creature) then Eager Cadet (a 1/1 creature). During the declare blockers step, the defending player casts Mending Hands targeting Wall of Wood, which prevents the next 4 damage that would be dealt to it. Craw Wurm can assign 3 damage to the Wall and 3 damage to the Cadet, 4 damage to the Wall and 2 damage to the Cadet, 5 damage to the Wall and 1 damage to the Cadet, or 6 damage to the Wall.

    Example: The damage assignment order of an attacking Enormous Baloth (a 7/7 creature) is Trained Armodon (a 3/3 creature) that's already been dealt 2 damage this turn, then Foriysian Brigade (a 2/4 creature that can block an additional creature), then Silverback Ape (a 5/5 creature). The damage assignment order of an attacking Durkwood Boars (a 4/4 creature) is the same Foriysian Brigade, then Goblin Piker (a 2/1 creature). Among other possibilities, the active player may have the Wurm assign 1 damage to the Armodon, 1 damage to the Brigade, and 5 damage to the Ape, and have the Boars assign 3 damage to the Brigade and 1 damage to the Piker.

    510.1d A blocking creature assigns combat damage to the creatures it's blocking. If it isn't currently blocking any creatures (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage. If it's blocking exactly one creature, it assigns all its combat damage to that creature. If it's blocking two or more creatures, it assigns its combat damage to those creatures according to the damage assignment order announced for it. This may allow the blocking creature to divide its combat damage. However, it can't assign combat damage to a creature that it's blocking unless each creature that precedes that blocked creature is assigned lethal damage. When checking for assigned lethal damage, take into account damage already marked on the creature and damage from other creatures that's being assigned during the same combat damage step, but not any abilities or effects that might change the amount of damage that's actually dealt. An amount of damage that's greater than a creature's lethal damage may be assigned to it.

    510.1e Each creature's damage must be assigned fully before another creature's damage may be assigned.

    510.2. Second, all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. No player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the time combat damage is assigned and the time it's dealt. This is a change from previous rules.

    Example: Suntail Hawk (a 1/1 creature with flying) and Goblin Piker (a 2/1 creature) are attacking. Mogg Fanatic (a 1/1 creature with the ability "Sacrifice Mogg Fanatic: Mogg Fanatic deals 1 damage to target creature or player) blocks the Goblin Piker. The defending player sacrifices Mogg Fanatic during the declare blockers step to deal 1 damage to the Suntail Hawk. The Hawk is destroyed. The Piker deals and is dealt no combat damage this turn. If the defending player instead left Mogg Fanatic on the battlefield, the Fanatic and the Piker would have dealt lethal damage to one another, but the Suntail Hawk couldn't have been dealt damage.

    510.3. Third, any abilities that triggered on damage being assigned or dealt go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

    510.4. Fourth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

    510.5. If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike (see rule 702.7) or double strike (see rule 702.4) as the combat damage step begins, the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat damage step. The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are the remaining attackers and blockers that didn't have first strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double strike. After that step, the phase proceeds to the end of combat step.

    511. End of Combat Step

    511.1. First, all "at end of combat" abilities trigger and go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

    511.2. Second, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

    511.3. As soon as the end of combat step ends, all creatures and planeswalkers are removed from combat. After the end of combat step ends, the combat phase is over and the postcombat main phase begins (see rule 505).

    512. Ending Phase

    512.1. The ending phase consists of two steps: end and cleanup.

    513. End Step

    513.1. First, all abilities that trigger "at the beginning of the end step" or "at the beginning of the next end step" go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")

    513.1a For many years, abilities that trigger at the beginning of the end step were printed with the trigger condition "at end of turn." Cards that were printed with that text have received errata in the Oracle card reference to say "at the beginning of the end step" or "at the beginning of the next end step."

    513.2. Second, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

    513.3. If a permanent with an ability that triggers "at the beginning of the end step" enters the battlefield during this step, that ability won't go on the stack until the next turn's end step. Likewise, if a delayed triggered ability that triggers "at the beginning of the next end step" is created during this step, that ability won't go on the stack until the next turn's end step. In other words, the step doesn't "back up" so those abilities can go on the stack. This rule applies only to triggered abilities; it doesn't apply to continuous effects whose durations say "until end of turn" or "this turn." (See rule 514, "Cleanup Step.")

    514. Cleanup Step

    514.1. First, if the active player's hand contains more cards than his or her maximum hand size (normally seven), he or she discards enough cards to reduce his or her hand size to that number. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.

    514.2. Second, the following actions happen simultaneously: all damage marked on permanents (including phased-out permanents) is removed and all "until end of turn" and "this turn" effects end. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.

    514.3. Normally, no player receives priority during the cleanup step, so no spells can be cast and no abilities can be activated. However, this rule is subject to the following exception:

    514.3a At this point, the game checks to see if any state-based actions would be performed and/or any triggered abilities are waiting to be put onto the stack (including those that trigger "at the beginning of the next cleanup step"). If so, those state-based actions are performed, then those triggered abilities are put on the stack, then the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities. Once the stack is empty and all players pass, another cleanup step begins.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Well, I'm not whining. But just adding thresholds = a change, a deviation etc .. since MTG doesn't thresholds.. thats just one example.
    Yes Lemon, welcome to 5..no 10, pages back. It's the only example.
    Last edited by Vespian; 2014-05-23 at 05:54 AM.

  10. #250
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by kail View Post
    Actually that is a bad example as well. Could WotC sue Paizo? No because of tabletop's OGL. Bear in mind that Pathfinds is compatible with DnD 3.5.

    It's hard to draw a line on this sort of thing, what helps Hex is the fact that it is strictly a video game; Crypto can probably use that. It doesn't follow the same payment method as physical board/card games. WotC can probably only compare their video games to that of Hex, but bigger copycats have made it out of court before.

    Smaller copycats, also pay in or out of court as well....and Hasbro gave Crypto the chance in 2011

    As for the OGL, yes, is makes is "harder" to establish a case....but trademark/copywrite/patent protections that Hasbro has in place around the core fundamentals of MTG, is what HEX has to prove they haven't infringed on.....and trust me, they have

    (Once again, "KING" backer of HEX)


    Quote Originally Posted by kail View Post
    I'd say the color does matter, a bit. The mechanics of having five colors and how they behave isn't copyright, trademark, or patent infringement.

    Here's some examples of actual copyright/trademark infringement after a quick search.

    Blatant copyright and trademark

    Copyright for using the exact name and cards

    and another generic one based on apps

    Just want to quote from one of the WotC letters.
    Mechanics alone won't win the suite, especially for a video game. WotC will need to convince the court otherwise, but I wish them luck.

    Colour does matter yes, but not how you look at it. The PROCESS, in their game FUNDAMENTALS, is based on the concept of the 5 colours. That is what they show the court, not the it's red/blue/purple/black/pink-with-pookadots. The actual colours are irrelevant.....the fact MTG is based on using playing out their game with 5 (As it's defining core feature) is what HEX has copied.

    And yes, mechanics alone won't win a suit.......BUT.......having given them a chance out of court (Which every Judge always likes - not wasting the courts time blah blah blah) And the fact that they have many, many trademarks/copy-writes (See those issued to MTG) based purely on their defining features Hasbro has an exceptionally strong LEGAL case. Whether they will win, is a totally different matter. But they DO have a case.

  11. #251
    Quote Originally Posted by Vespian View Post
    Yes Lemon, welcome to 5..no 10, pages back. It's the only example.
    Well, no, there are more. But that right there is enough to be a change, or deviation, and a difference. Glad you can finally change your position.

  12. #252
    Edit: I also forgot, that's not how MTG plays out. This is how MTG plays out:
    Yes, those are the comprehensive rules that apply to every game. What I listed is the general flow of the game without throwing in 3 pages of rules that are generally skipped over anyway. The core of each game feels really similar. That's what's important, whether or not the rules are identical or HS is as rigid as MTG in structure.

    When I play my Shaman deck it plays out similarly to every single aggro control deck I've ever built in MTG. Play out small-medium beaters, use spot removal to kill theirs, get damage through each turn, eventually you win.

    For the record, you can disagree with what I say all you want to, but when I say MTG and HS are nearly identical, and you're only point of contention is that the rules are different, well that's just you being ignorant.

    As someone who has played a lot of card games in my life, I can safely say that HS and the Wow tcg were modeled directly from MTG, to the point where a MTG can easily pickup and understand those other games, applying his knowledge and experience with MTG to those games successfully. It's like going from roller blading to ice skating. It's a very similar experience, to the point where they are both based on the same design concepts and a player experienced with one can easily pick up the other.

    I'm interested to see how this whole thing plays out between WotC and Hex, and I'd be interested in seeing something between Blizzard and WotC as well (even though Hasbro has partnered with Blizzard to produce Wow themed board games).

  13. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    As someone who has played a lot of card games in my life, I can safely say that HS and the Wow tcg were modeled directly from MTG, to the point where a MTG can easily pickup and understand those other games, applying his knowledge and experience with MTG to those games successfully. It's like going from roller blading to ice skating. It's a very similar experience, to the point where they are both based on the same design concepts and a player experienced with one can easily pick up the other..
    EXACTLY, it's going from one sport to the other, but it's not the same sport. (Which was acknowledged by Hasbro, no doubt, since there is no lawsuit against them right now, so scream all you want, but they're not even remotely similar)

    The problem is that HEX copied the entire comprehensive rulebook
    Last edited by Vespian; 2014-05-23 at 09:14 AM.

  14. #254
    EXACTLY, it's going from one sport to the other, but it's not the same sport. (Which was acknowledged by Hasbro, no doubt, since there is no lawsuit against them right now, so scream all you want, but they're not even remotely similar)
    Sigh....

    You're clueless.

  15. #255
    I feel like a number of you are deliberately being a jerk about what "clone" means.

    FYI, the non-biological meaning of clone, from dictionary.com is "a person or thing that duplicates, imitates, or closely resembles another in appearance, function, performance, or style". Clone doesn't mean 100% identical, it just has to be closely similar, by imitating or resembling.

    Hex is definitely a clone of Magic. And guess what? Being a clone is not illegal.
    Author of Postal, Omen3, GemHelper, BankItems, WoWEquip, GatherMate, Routes and Cartographer_Routes

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Telila;27221539And yes, [B
    mechanics alone won't win a suit[/B].......BUT.......having given them a chance out of court (Which every Judge always likes - not wasting the courts time blah blah blah) And the fact that they have many, many trademarks/copy-writes (See those issued to MTG) based purely on their defining features Hasbro has an exceptionally strong LEGAL case. Whether they will win, is a totally different matter. But they DO have a case.
    That's all they really have, mechanics. As for the trademark and copyright infringement (you can look them up if you want), there is no case on those two accusations. Unless you want to point out something I'm not aware of. And please don't mention the five colors, taping, artifacts, etc. That is all listed as mechanics, no matter how core they are to the game.

    Wizards does have a case, they did patent tapping. But Crypto has a case as well, can't really deny that.

    This thread reminds me of the one asking if gamers should be treated as pro-athletes. The thread was then filled by many posts explaining why they shouldn't be called pro-athletes and laughed at the notion; they didn't even bother reading the whole title and ended up severely missing the question.

    Hex is extremely similar to MTG, that is irrefutable. Too many people arguing over that simple fact. The big question: is it illegal?

  17. #257
    I see the argument about health size which is rather small in the overall lawsuit but they didn't just go with 20 health, they tested various health numbers before they went to 20. It shows they didn't just snatch it right from MTG but rather came to it by themselves.

  18. #258
    Deleted
    Here's a 10 minute video uploaded last night from a guy who worked at Hasbro, and is now a law school teacher and specialised in IP law. Of all the people who've claimed to be knowledgeable on the subject so far, this guy seems to have the best professional credentials & experience.

    He isn't a Hex backer and didn't know much about Hex before the lawsuit but having worked at Hasbro is obviously very experienced with MtG.

    Last edited by mmoc99cfbcce04; 2014-05-28 at 09:23 AM.

  19. #259
    Quote Originally Posted by Shamanic View Post
    Here's a 10 minute video uploaded last night from a guy who worked at Hasbro, and is now a law school teacher and specialised in IP law. Of all the people who've claimed to be knowledgeable on the subject so far, this guy seems to have the best professional credentials & experience.

    He isn't a Hex backer and didn't know much about Hex before the lawsuit but having worked at Hasbro is obviously very experienced with MtG.

    I wish I was convinced by this, but I'm far from it. The video is 11 minutes long. If a suit like this could be explained in 11 minutes, we would have had an agreement coming out of this already.

    He never actually touches the core of the problem; Is the flow of the game a functional design, or is it a core aspect of what makes MTG, MTG. And, in what sense can functional design be regarded as impossible to present as evidence, when the entire MTG rulebook has been taken and placed within HEX, only to add more on top of it, rather than change these rules. Once more, I don't believe individual rules such as flying properties can be presented as evidence, because when that day comes, no card game anywhere, could have flying creatures, but what we are looking at is not individuality, it's the contrary, we're looking at the entire collective of rules that MTG carries, taken from MTG and placed 1:1 into HEX. My question is, even if individual similarities cannot be presented in court, could the entire functional design of the entire game be?

    I wish he had touched the main issue with HEX and he did not. I care not for the presence of 5 color resources. It matters not, it's merely an additional similarity, but nothing big. The game that is MTG, which is now HEX. How can that not be admissible? It's irrefutable, even to a layman and even those that wish to refute it in this very thread, do this by suggesting that additions are changes, but they are fundamentally different.

    A missed opportunity, mostly used to explain what is already clear to everybody. But, actually, that should have been clear from the the first 4 minutes, since he doesn't know anything about HEX. At all.
    Last edited by Vespian; 2014-05-28 at 10:44 AM.

  20. #260
    Actually, I was liking the game about Cryptozoic (Hex) until I read this thread. Is the speculation against hex true? I would hope that it is not. Although now I have found this *snip* reliable sources too.

    I thought that Cryptozoic probably should have been wise enough to avoid the copyrighted parts, not surprised because this is how it always goes when two products are a bit similar.
    Last edited by Edge-; 2018-05-31 at 04:39 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •