Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Bryon on August 20, 2012, 06:11:13 PM

IMO, the "special ability" on Lost Souls is not and should not be considered a special ability...Rather, the text on the card is an identifier...The only "errata" issued for the card should be that the Lost Souls card is limited to one per 50 in deck building.

Although this isn't the official position, I actually like it a lot.

That was the way it was, unless someone has some insight I'm missing 

There is no gameplay or rules difference between those two proposals, just the semantics involved.  The only real reason to do it one way over the other is that if you keep it the way it had been (and is being proposed again) of it being an identifier but the card being restricted, you're editing the game rules and adding an exception to the rulebook, whereas the current ruling of it being a CBN special ability changes the card.

If you want to leave the rulebook untouched, keep it the way it is.  If you'd rather the card plays as read, change it back.

I'll just point out that the card literally can't play as read in either case, as it is 'written' as a special ability, so if it has an errata of being CBN or an errata of being an identifier, it is still going to result in an errata.

Another option is to make T1 rescuer's choice like T2, the Lost Souls card won't be nearly as powerful if the rescuer can choose not to go after it.

This is not an option I would support, FYI.

If we did that we would make Jacob's Ladder a completely irrelevant card and we don't want to do that...now do we.   

That would be a bummer for those who put all their money's worth into copies of Jacob's Ladder... 

Kirk

We could errata Lost Souls to be a demon.

That is just semantics, too.  Silly Women isn't errata.  The definitions of stars are identifiers.  But it is printed as a special ability.  But it isn't errata.  The same could be true about Lost Souls.

I would disagree with this statement on the basis that your example ("*" in either strength or toughness) has been ruled to be an identifier on all cards by game rule.  It is not specifically regarding Silly Women, but also AwSN, King Jehu, and other cards of that type.  The ruling on "*" is a top-down ruling that affects all cards of that type.  A ruling specific to one card's ability would be bottom-up (hence why Pol agrees with me for once when I oppose that option ) and this is that case.  Not that it matters, of course, since it all ends up the same spot, but I do not like the way we end up there with the identifier option.

We could errata Lost Souls to be a demon.

Cannot be redeemed.  Done.  Love it.

I'm not so sure that we're going to get any kind of concensus about this, and are more likely to get aversion. I think that any kind of change for a card that has been in circulation as long as this card has is well past its Statute of Limitations. Most of us have been using this card for its infuriating purposes from Day 1.

I really hate the inertia argument.

I actually agree with Pol on this one, inertia is very important in science, and it has to be considered in a game like this, but it's not a good reason to not change things that should be changed (because of brokenness and/or consistency.)

I will however say I don't think the Lost Souls needs to be changed... but I don't play T1 so this ruling and the power of it doesn't really affect me.

I'm sorry you feel inertia is a big word?

I've never said that the liner absolutely must be changed, only that I saw a lot of hate for it at Natz and if it were to be changed this should be the way to do it. Thinking about it more has convinced me changing it would be a good thing, but I don't believe I've been actively arguing for it here. If I have, it was not my intent to and I chalk it up to my MO being arguing for stuff, but I have more pressing pet issues (like getting banding fixed before the rulebooks are printed).

Mostly because I haven't been to a major tournament in three years. I have no idea whether the dislike has been around longer because I wasn't there to observe.

The anti-Liner sentiment was expressed before the tournament started/after one round, so it was most definitely not even effected by how the Liner had or had not burned anyone.