Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Hey,

I said this in the Arrogance thread that was linked to earlier in this thread but I think it merits repeating.

Arrogance is like Babel for enhancements.  You choose a certain number of enhancements to play put them all into play at once, they then take effect in the order you choose.  Once the last enhancement completes you determine initiative normally (giving a character the opportunity to negate their own removal from battle if that is applicable).

I asked Mike to include a Play As for Arrogance in the REG update that is coming out this weekend.  If things go smoothly come Monday Arrogance will have the play as, "Holder may play X enhancements."  With the new identifier: "X = any number that holder chooses"

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Please don't rush to making a play as. I disagree. Arrogance is not like Bable for enhancements. Allowing to play say Murmuring after Wrath would be a big mistake. Arragance is just fine playing it the way it is. If the rescueing hero is removed they can negate it. Each enhancement completes before you play the next enhancement. No stacking should be allowed.

Also, your logic of "Arragance is just fine playing it the way it is" is flawed. Why? Because obviously nobody agrees one how it is played. So currently, it's only how YOU interpret it as being played. This is why this debate is here in the first place, because we are all trying to figure out EXACTLY how it is played.

Tell that to my Kerith Ravine thread. It feels the same way, nobody knows how it works.

Hey,

Please don't rush to making a play as.

Arrogance has been discussed ad naseum on more than one occasion privately.  We're not rushing to anything, if anything we've been too slow to act on the matter which is why it keeps coming up.

Arragance is just fine playing it the way it is.

The way I described it as being like Babel is the way it is.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Right, Tim?

Correct.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I don't think so.  In his example, when intiative finally did pass then the opponent could play a negate as long as they could target Wrath.  If his last card was an end the battle card then the opponent would not have a chance to negate. 

To Tim:

I realize that what you are saying is probably the current official ruling.  However there have been many times that a rule was "decided" and they later discovered a problem with it and changed it so I'm not giving up on this.  I do agree that cards like this need to be clarified so people can use them without having a debate at every tournament but I feel your solution is not ideal. 

From what I recall, the logic was that it targeted all the enhancements at once because Arrogance is listed in the "play next" section in the Reg and those cards target enhancements.  That assumes that the categorization in the Reg was correct which I think is clearly faulty logic.  I know that there is an effort to standadize the language and the abilities but I don't think you should force a card into a group that it obviously is not according the language on the card.  What you are saying is errata not a play as. 

There are several cards that have no precedent, are unique to the game, and you do what they say not something else that is worked out in the rule set.  I don't see why this can't simply be a unique card (in the miscellaneous section?) that targets a player and temporarily changes the rules of initiative for a battle, which is what the card sounds like it is doing. 

The only reason I can see to not do this is that it might be considered overpowered but I thought we tried to not base rules on that.  Also, since the best draw cards allow you to play an additional enhancement anyway then I don't think it will make much practical difference in the game. 

So for gameplay it doesn't matter much to me but I prefer to have as few Holy Grail-like erratas as possible (where a new player will only know the correct language if they check the card online). 

Hey,

Quote

i decide not to play one and pass initiative to no one, as the hero is already dead

What!?  You mean this bypasses the rule of being able to negate a card that is removing you?

If a card played under the Arrogance umbrella discards your hero, you would get initiative to negate it, but not until after Arrogance completes.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Yes, assuming you ever got initiative to play (i.e. they didn't end the battle with Gibeonite Trickery or something).

If you ended the battle with Forgotten History or Wonders Forgotten, you might not even need Murmuring.

Unless their entire offense wasn't out, then they might be able to use Chariots of fire or something

Exactly.

Hey,

Wait? Who would you interrupt with? Your guys are removed from the game.

If you negate the ability that discarded your characters you would indirectly negate their removal from game.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

The way I described it as being like Babel is the way it is.

Not in MN.

Please forgive me, you have to remember I learned how to interpret cards from Chris Bany who in the early days was the keeper of the REG’S and made most of the rulings.

You mean right now?