Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Fortunately, the REG has that one correct 

Has anyone double checked the custom cards?  I'd definitely lose sleep if the REG though I was female.

It may have something to do with your screen name. No offense, but SomeKittens sounds female. For the longest time I thought stefferweffer was female. 

Yes, the REG has some outdated wording, we've established that approximately 3,578 times over the past couple of years.

I did a quick search and stopped at 3,579 times just to prove you wrong.     

All I said was this particular argument has no legs.

That would make sense based on TGT's identifier.

If you disagree, thats fine, but I feel claiming I'm doing this out of spite is baseless.

Scenario One: I'm right, and I nerfed TGT better than the makers. This is a win for me.
Scenario Two: I'm right, and they quickly change it. This is a win for me .
Scenario Three: I'm allegedly wrong, and they claim that ignore has had a different definition for 4 year.s This is a loss for everyone, and I complain for a month. Beings I like complaining, this is also a win for me.

So yes. No matter what, I win.

Although you may try to play off your sarcasm as just a joke, common sense would indicate that often times you say exactly what you mean.

SomeKittens comes from video games.  Confused?
If one person kills/defeats another, it announces so on the screen:
*name* killed you.
ergo:
SomeKittens killed you.
*much laughter and applause*

The reverse works to: "You killed SomeKittens".  You horrible person.

The whole point's moot, I didn't have enough money to get a custom card.

At least your name is genderless. 

I was talking about perception. I would argue that most people would assume math teachers are male. Ironically, I am the only male in the math department of my high school.

SomeKittens comes from video games. 

Never heard of it. But, then again, I rarely play video games.

Perhaps all my preconceived notions are outdated.  

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 11, 2010, 11:17:02 AM

Perhaps all my preconceived notions are outdated.  

Translation: You're old.

LOL. You made SomeKittens old. 

Quote

Never heard of it. But, then again, I rarely play video games.

It's not from an actual video game, it's the screen name he uses so that when his character kills another in a shooting game, his opponent sees You were killed by Some Kittens!
 

Oh I see. 

The only FPS I ever played was N64 Goldeneye, and that didn't use screen names. In my days, the only laugh you got from video games was when you were beaten by Gorf.

You're inconsistent about it. Half the time you act like there's no problem because common sense, and half the time you agree with the world (recently v. somekittens) that the REG is Swiss cheese at best.

I have never acted like there was no problem, and I defy you to show me where I have said there is no problem with the REG.  There's nothing inconsistent about acknowledging an obvious need while defending rulings that I know to be correct.  What I said, and am now repeating for the third time, is that this issue is not caused by changes or something incorrect within the REG.  It is caused by someone trying to play word games and split hairs to get a desired outcome on a single card.  This rule has been the same since Day One of the game and no one has ever interpreted it in that manner at any time.  There are no grounds to consider this problematic.

Moreover, he is not considering the ramifications of twisting words that were intended only to show the distinction between a specific opponent you are facing in battle and a general opponent which can be any other player at the table.  He considers it cute to say TGT doesn't work unless both players have a character in battle, but he's not thinking about the fact that he would break every other card that refers to his opponent that might occur at a time when one player or another happens not to have a character in battle at that exact moment.  Additionally, if this were accepted as the pure definition of opponent and not just this one small distinction, then it would be impossible for any player to block a Hero ever, because the rulebook says: Your opponent may block your Hero by placing an Evil Character into the Field of Battle.

So either:
- we accept his interpretation of a single phrase to the exclusion of everything else and break countless aspects of the game in a way that no one had even thought was remotely correct in the game's 15 year history, or
- we accept this distinction between "the" opponent and "an" opponent in the context of the existing rules and the way everybody understands them intuitively and without question

What surprises me about the (loudest) critics of the REG is that this is the hill they're willing to die on.  Knowing there are real problems with real impact that require real work to solve, and knowing that resources and manpower are limited - sometimes even to the point of hindering progress - they prefer to waste those limited resources on obvious "issues" like who is your opponent, or what gender is a card named "Damsel" depicting a woman.  Is this really where you want them expending their energy, rather than defining something like "cannot be ignored" or working out a good list of abilities that do and do not convert with the character?

No Need For Walls of Text, I Can Sum up This Whole argument in one phrase...

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

With No Action, That Wall of text Doesn't Change The Others Opinions because Frankly Ever Post of yours Looks almost exactly the same to me:
Defend something that's going nowhere

Okay, you guys are all correct and I and the entire history of the game are wrong.  You officially never have an opponent unless two players have characters in the Field of Battle.  Have fun with that.

Quote

It takes about half an ounce of common sense to understand that your opponent is the guy you're fighting, even if at a particular moment during the battle he happens not to have a character in the Field of Battle.  You have no reason to complain because there is no issue here except one you are inventing by attempting to split hairs, and so I would not recommend attempting it just for spite.

When has this game ever run on "common sense"?

When has Christianity ever run on common sense?

OK, so you're not being sarcastic, you're just being silly. 

Power to the Players. Master KChief would be so proud.