Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I do understand the reasoning behind that, and I can also say that we have a lot of discussions about Search, Look, Reveal, etc. to try to make things work and not break the game at the same time (harder than it sounds, sadly  ).

The issue here would be that "implied Look" would have the same implications; there will be cards that interact with the ability "look" that would not be obvious there either, in the same way people are not seeing the cards that target in the way Search describes are also searches (since it isn't printed on the card).  Look also adds various other components, much like Search, and so there would still be those unforeseen consequences of such a definition.

Lastly, this would pretty drastically change the way that the game works and would be ruled.  I'm not saying that's a bad thing or a good thing, but a thing, which means a lot of work to hammer out (what rulings would change, how would this affect the cards people already have, would this limit design in the future, would the game become unbalanced in the way that counters are shifted, etc.).

Interesting thought, which at first blush doesn't seem to fix "the problem" that people have been having and would certainly have a huge impact on the game, but could bear out discussion and research into outcomes.


TL;DR - This would actually be a huge change, we constantly work behind-the-scenes to try to make things work better without breaking other stuff, and I'm sure this one will get added to the overall discussion.

I don't see it as having the same problems. What cards specify that they protect against "look" or "look abilities?" The issue that I have seen is that there are cards that protect against "search" or "search abilities."

I'm not just referring to "protect" from an ability, I'm referring to interacting with it at all.  Anything that says "Look ability" in the future would have to be designed with that in mind; additionally, if you ever got to the point that you decided we needed some sort of counter to Look (which would happen), we'd be in the same position as a Naz and Search (though hopefully nothing so...broad...) then as well.  We'd have the same confusion about "wait, why is this card negated, when that thing only negates Look?"  That is the parallel I'm trying to point to, defining it as a different ability still leads to that confusion; we'd just have different cards causing issues.

The other issue you'd have is a complete redefine of what Search is; the things that people point to as "not searches" definitely meet the definition we have, and a general description of "searching" will still define those things then.

In the meantime, can we make a simple change that fixes many current problems?

It really is not a simple change; the entire game would be changed dramatically if the rulings all changed and certain cards were no longer counters and/or interacted the same way.  So no, we won't be putting this change into effect immediately, for sure; there is so much that would have to happen first, and a lot of research and testing.  There isn't really a "dilemma" either, just a sudden realization that rules that have been in place for years weren't being consistently applied.

That said, like I pointed out before, it is definitely something for the group to be discussing as we look to the rules of the future.

... and I'm sure this one will get added to the overall discussion.

Thank you for considering my proposal.