Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Ok well, it was mostly related to the inconsistancy argument I had going. Sorry if I sounded rude calling you out like that.

So now I direct this question to everyone so we can get this discussion back on track:

Does it make sense that I can have four AoCP's in a 200 card deck, but a max of 3 centurions?

I never made a claim to knowing the full extent of the governing logic.  The change was made for the third edition, before I was asked to help, and it predates any board posts on this board or the EZBoard, so my research (which I have been conducting this entire time so as to try and provide a legitimate, verifiable answer) has not turned up anything useful yet.

Ah, I see, I shall wait and be patient then. It just sounded like ya knew.

Lambo

I think he misunderstood this:

Your other "reason" is that you don't understand the logic behind the ruling, but that has nothing to do with consistency.

It sounded like you knew the logic behind it and we didn't. But we know you don't so we can drop it. 

I know, I'm just saying Josh misunderstood what you meant.

*EDIT*

Also, I know you had no say in the making of the rule but, What is your opinion on how it is now? Do you agree with me that the example I gave makes no sense as to why it works that way? (4 AoCP, but 3 Centurions max.)

While we are waiting for someone to dig up the origin of the rule, we can at least discuss what we think about the rule itself, not the practicality of big decks. 

I think 3 per 50 is a bridge too far because cards like Windows and similar support cards can make older cards viable to the point where having 12 in the deck would constitute some form of spammy abuse.

In order to have 12 though, you need a whopping 200 cards though. So I see it as a balance of Risk vs Reward.

Hey,

First of all, I do not believe this rule is inconsistent.  The rule as it currently exists is functional.  It is a bit of a strange quirk in the rules, but that doesn't make it inconsistent.

Regarding the logic behind the rule, I don't think there is any.  I explained on the first page of the thread how I believe the rule came into it's current form.  Since it came into it's current form I believe the logic has been "the rule isn't a problem so lets leave it alone."

I was not trying to suggest that I didn't want this rule to be addressed because I have some sort of bias against big decks.  And the comment about the deck placing in the top 10 at nationals was not meant to suggest that I'm only concerned about how things affect the top decks.

At any given time I have a list of usually five to ten topics that I am hoping to help address.  Generally the most important ones are the ones I try to get addressed first.  I see this as a pretty low importance issue so the chance of it ending up on the top of the list isn't very good.

The comment about a big deck placing top 10 at nationals was meant to say that if a big deck ever did well in a big tournament it would make me think of this as a more important issue than I do currently, which would make it much more likely that it would become important enough to get to the top of my list and get addressed.

If I was going to push to get this topic addressed I would suggest extending the limit of three copies of a cards per deck to include cards with special abilities (in addition to them being limited to 1 per 50).

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

Yeah, putting a 3 card max cap really WOULD make T1 a lot like T2 in the fact that you are cramped to X amount of cards, regardless of deck size.