Cactus Game Design Message Boards

What I think is interesting is erratas come along to fix abuses (example: A New Beginning, Holy Grail, etc). I think, for prevention of Samuel draw abuse with multiple Davids and Sauls in someone's deck, this rule should be solidified as Prof. Underwood is expressing.

Regarding existing rules, It seems to me that the intent of the rule is to prevent multiples of unique characters in a territory.  So, question on the rule, If I had Siegeworks placed on a fortress in my opponent's territory, my opponent wouldn't be able to place a new copy of that fort in play to discard the old fortress to effectively get rid of my Siegeworks, would they? It is my understanding they would not, but I had an opponent play it that way due to the fact that Sam was allowed to bring in David/Saul and discard existing David/Saul in play. How is it any different to have an optional search and put in play vs just putting a duplicate in play to discard the old one? I think for appropriateness of the game rule, Sam. should be able to search but not put into play a David/Saul if it causes a duplicate situation in that player's territory because it is an optional ability. Or put another way, "Players are restricted from placing a nonlegal duplicate unique card in a territory"

Due to the relatively small and scattered following of the game and the lack of a simple guiding principle like "Cards are played as written," this is what this is.

Exactly. Isn't that the purpose of a card special ability? Is that not one of their reasons for existence? To sometimes allow you to do what the regular rules do not ordinarily allow you to do? Do card abilities not trump game rules? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Jar definitely does not work, that's why it's terrible (effective) for Type 2. If a unique character is set aside via jar I cannot discard the one that is set aside to the one that I have in my hand in play. If Samuel said must, I would agree with the statement that the card abilities override the game rule, but it does not. It says may, and may means that you must have a target. If the target is already occupied, game rule says I can't replace it. TSE's example does apply in this situation. Are we also saying that If I use Rachel instead with Joseph having Palsy on him, I could exchange Rachel for the white Joseph in my deck (for sake of argument) and then I could get rid of the blue one in play for the white one? If so, why?

Quote from: theselfevident on March 14, 2012, 12:09:54 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on March 14, 2012, 12:01:21 PM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on March 14, 2012, 08:32:14 AM

Due to the relatively small and scattered following of the game and the lack of a simple guiding principle like "Cards are played as written," this is what this is.

Exactly. Isn't that the purpose of a card special ability? Is that not one of their reasons for existence? To sometimes allow you to do what the regular rules do not ordinarily allow you to do? Do card abilities not trump game rules? Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

Shouldn't game rules guide card play? Every game I've ever played outside of this one is guided by its rules... furthermore rulings by elders should be based on these rules... still no one has answered my concern, Sam's ability is not required but rather optional, therefore a player's option should not be outside the game rules.

Guided by the rules yes, but every mainstream CCG out there follows the pretty simple rule of card special abilities overriding basic game rules. 'When a special ability and a general rule contradict each other, the special ability wins.' Sams ability being optional by the player is irrelevant. It is still a card special ability.

Calling a point irrelevant does not make that point invalid or irrelevant... the point remains, if I don't have the option to put a card into play because of a game rule then it should apply across the board relating to optional plays.

Jar definitely does not work, that's why it's terrible (effective) for Type 2. If a unique character is set aside via jar I cannot discard the one that is set aside to the one that I have in my hand in play. If Samuel said must, I would agree with the statement that the card abilities override the game rule, but it does not. It says may, and may means that you must have a target. If the target is already occupied, game rule says I can't replace it. TSE's example does apply in this situation. Are we also saying that If I use Rachel instead with Joseph having Palsy on him, I could exchange Rachel for the white Joseph in my deck (for sake of argument) and then I could get rid of the blue one in play for the white one? If so, why?

Samaritan Water Jar is a great example in favor of Samuel being ruled the way most do currently.  Lets say you have a Samuel in play.  I reveal Samuel with Samaritan Water Jars.  The Samuel that goes to set-aside area from SWJ is discarded due to not being able to control duplicates but is still targeted.  Same thing when I reveal a duplicate artifact or fortress with SWJ.  The one revealed is discarded when a copy is currently in play.  SWJ is able to target duplicates so Samuel should be able to as well.

Quote from: TechnoEthicist on March 14, 2012, 12:14:42 PM

Jar definitely does not work, that's why it's terrible (effective) for Type 2. If a unique character is set aside via jar I cannot discard the one that is set aside to the one that I have in my hand in play. If Samuel said must, I would agree with the statement that the card abilities override the game rule, but it does not. It says may, and may means that you must have a target. If the target is already occupied, game rule says I can't replace it. TSE's example does apply in this situation. Are we also saying that If I use Rachel instead with Joseph having Palsy on him, I could exchange Rachel for the white Joseph in my deck (for sake of argument) and then I could get rid of the blue one in play for the white one? If so, why?

Samaritan Water Jar is a great example in favor of Samuel being ruled the way most do currently.  Lets say you have a Samuel in play.  I reveal Samuel with Samaritan Water Jars.  The Samuel that goes to set-aside area from SWJ is discarded due to not being able to control duplicates but is still targeted.  Same thing when I reveal a duplicate artifact or fortress with SWJ.  The one revealed is discarded when a copy is currently in play.  SWJ is able to target duplicates so Samuel should be able to as well.

You're missing the point.  Samaritan Water Jar is a MUST. It MUST happen, and so you have to resolve the multiple characters.

Samuel is a MAY.  It MAY happen, so you cannot use it to control multiple characters.

The difference here is between MUST and MAY, and the examples are in no way relevant to each other.

I missing what intent has to do with anything. Of course you can put him in your hand. So if you want to get your other David, push the first one into battle, let it get defeated, and then you can put in play the other one. Who knows, you might get a lost soul out of the deal instead. Now, it could happen that your opponent places an enhancement (like Palsy or other disease) or you run into a stonewall defense, but that's a chance you might have to take...

a MUST ability does not care if there is a valid target, a MAY does. Show me an example where you MAY do something that you the game rules prevent you from doing...

Specifically capture abilities. You have always been able to capture a duplicate character and discard one.

What do you want, an example of, say, placing characters?  It's the same thing.  The game rules state I MAY place characters in my territory during my prep and discard phases.  Obviously, since that is a may, I may also place them and just discard one of the ones already there or in set-aside, right?  No.  That's the point.  The game rules already have plenty of examples of this.

How about "you may play an enhancement", does that mean I can play one that is illegal to play due to brigades if that is the only enhancement in hand?  No, it means I have the option to play WITHIN THE GAME RULES.  If I "may add a character to territory", I still have to do so WITHIN THE GAME RULES.

If I can place David off of Sam on a may ability in violation of the game rules, why can I not violate the game rules on a may ability that allows me to play an enhancement?

What do you want, an example of, say, placing characters?  It's the same thing.  The game rules state I MAY place characters in my territory during my prep and discard phases.  Obviously, since that is a may, I may also place them and just discard one of the ones already there or in set-aside, right?  No.  That's the point.  The game rules already have plenty of examples of this.

Game rule vs game rule.

How about "you may play an enhancement", does that mean I can play one that is illegal to play due to brigades if that is the only enhancement in hand?  No, it means I have the option to play WITHIN THE GAME RULES.  If I "may add a character to territory", I still have to do so WITHIN THE GAME RULES.

Game rule vs game rule.

If I can place David off of Sam on a may ability in violation of the game rules, why can I not violate the game rules on a may ability that allows me to play an enhancement?

Special ability vs game rule. Big distinction.

I love when people post blanket statements without specific examples...thanks MKC...

I'm sorry, I thought it would be pretty clear when I said 'pretty much every may ability in the game'. Does this really require a list of examples?

Not a list, but a few would have been appropriate to show you actually want to contribute logic to the situation. What does saying "nearly every may ability" add to the conversation? I am not trying to be snarky, but I do not know every ability like the back of my hand. So cut me a little slack and show me a few examples that would satisfy your claim...


Also, you still have yet to explain what would happen in my Palsied Blue/Green Joseph so I attempt to use Rachel to get White Joseph out of the draw pile to put Blue/Green Joseph into the discard to grab at another time...If this doesn't work, how does Samuel and David/Saul work?

Please actually explain your posts.  Your entire post added nothing to the discussion.

You failed to tell me how the SA for "play enhancement" and the SA for "put character in territory" don't BOTH violate game rules.

Please actually post content.

The point is EXACTLY as I posted it. We have already established that all of these examples break game rules. Lets move away from that. The point is that one instance breaks game rule without a special ability. The other breaks it by implementing a special ability. Special abilities are in nature allowed to do that.

Not a list, but a few would have been appropriate to show you actually want to contribute logic to the situation. What does saying "nearly every may ability" add to the conversation? I am not trying to be snarky, but I do not know every ability like the back of my hand. So cut me a little slack and show me a few examples that would satisfy your claim...

The logic is there. I answered your question entirely. Every may ability in the game. As in, every single one. If you want an example, lets use an oldie but goodie: Reach of Desperation. Normally you are not allowed to draw cards outside of draw phase by game rule. However, the special ability on Reach gives you the option of drawing 3 if you wish. That is a special ability. That is what is allowing you to break the standard game rule of not drawing outside of draw phase. That is my point: that special abilities by virtue allow you to do something you are not normally allowed to do by game rule. That is what makes them 'special'.

I'm not trying to be offensive either and I do apologize if I came off that way. I just do not know how to frame it any simpler than what I have already said.

That's the one place you can never control duplicate characters, in order to prevent a situation where you band in your opponent's unique character in order to discard it because of the one in your territory. It may seem a bit convoluted, but it really has been this way for a long time.

I understand it has been this way for a long time. Apparantly there are 'hard' game rules that can never be broken even by special ability, and that is one of them. At least that was the way it was posed to me when I had a ruling question awhile back about Fishing Boat. And that is where the lines are skewed and primarily why some ruling questions cause huge problems and headaches. Because we have no concrete list to point to which are the 'hard' game rules that can never ever be broken. This is why I have always favored the top-down system, because there would be no question whatsoever what trumps what.

If we feel no need for the simple top-down system and find the necessity to invent 'hard' rules at a moments whim, then I propose we have a solid list posted somewhere to reference.