Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: theselfevident on March 14, 2012, 08:33:46 PM

Quote

The rules also outline what you are to do if such an occurance occurs. You are not allowed to control duplicates by game rule. This means you cannot use normal game rule functions to put duplicate Heroes in play. This is not the case for special abilities. If such a rule existed that you are unable to put duplicate characters into play no matter what (special abilities included), then it would be completely pointless to include the actions that must be taken when you control duplicate characters (discard duplicates until you only control 1).

There in lies the contention: when a card says you must do something, you have to do it, even if it causes another rule to be broken. Therefore, you must fix the broken rule to allow for the break. Thus, it becomes a rule that in a forced duplicate situation you must discard one of the duplicates. Problem fixed... what the problem becomes is whether or not you allow people to intentionally break the rule, or only allow the provisional rule apply to forced situations. This problem is that "May" abilities are not required by game rule, but "Must" abilities are...

The biggest argument for "May" abilities to be treated the same way "Must" abilities are in these scenarios is that of intention. It makes a lot more sense and offers a lot less potential breakage to simply leave things the way they are.

How does it offer less breakage? (sincerely, I can listen to a well argued thought-out point here)

I'm tired and sick, and thus unable to conjure specific examples right now, but I think the main thing is that it currently isn't broken, so why mess with it? I think the old adage, "If it ain't broke don't fix it" applies here. I'm sure MKC or Alex or somebody can come up with a better reason than that though.

I will then wait for the response =)

Quote from: theselfevident on March 14, 2012, 08:33:46 PM

There in lies the contention: when a card says you must do something, you have to do it, even if it causes another rule to be broken. Therefore, you must fix the broken rule to allow for the break. Thus, it becomes a rule that in a forced duplicate situation you must discard one of the duplicates. Problem fixed...

No, because even if the special ability said must, you are still being prohibited from carrying out such an ability by hard game rule. Therefore it is still pointless to include what to do when a duplicates situation arose.

Quote

what the problem becomes is whether or not you allow people to intentionally break the rule, or only allow the provisional rule apply to forced situations. This problem is that "May" abilities are not required by game rule, but "Must" abilities are...

Must abilities make you break the game rules, no ifs ands or buts (unless prohibited by hard game rule), so there is no argument there. I think the real problem is how we are defining 'may'. Consider this: just because a special ability contains 'may' syntax, does that somehow automatically mean that if a portion of the may ability causes a game rule to be broken, that the game rule takes any authority over the special ability? Or is the 'may' ability just simply giving the player 2 options: to break a game rule or not to break a game rule? Seeing as how special abilities naturally break game rules by their very existence, its quite easy to see what 'may' abilities default to.

but they don't break game rules... game rules allow them to operate within their parameters... what I have seen is that they create rules to fix it when rules get broken by other rules, so therefore there are rules that govern the game, they don't get broken, they get amended/provision to explain what should happen in specific situations... this debate is chicken or egg at this point... what it comes down to is how the elders see it and they see enough of an issue to look it over...

If special abilities do not break game rules, then please explain to me how you are able to draw 3 cards during battle phase. Convert a human evil character during prep phase. Discard all evil characters during battle phase. Are these game rules that allow a person to do this? Because I would just love to tell my opponent I'm discarding all of his evil characters without using a special ability.

But there are game rules that govern the allowance and limitations of those special abilities. Think of it this way, special abilities are allowed by provisional rules within the phases. Territory class cards were provisioned/added/written-in/allowed/amended to the game rules. They have rules that govern them. All special abilities are governed by the rules of the game or there would be chaos without those rules that allow for them.

Quote from: theselfevident on March 14, 2012, 09:08:45 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on March 14, 2012, 09:05:04 PM

If special abilities do not break game rules, then please explain to me how you are able to draw 3 cards during battle phase. Convert a human evil character during prep phase. Discard all evil characters during battle phase. Are these game rules that allow a person to do this? Because I would just love to tell my opponent I'm discarding all of his evil characters without using a special ability.

But there are game rules that govern the allowance and limitations of those special abilities. Think of it this way, special abilities are allowed by provisional rules within the phases. Territory class cards were provisioned/added/written-in/allowed/amended to the game rules. They have rules that govern them. All special abilities are governed by the rules of the game or there would be chaos without those rules that allow for them.

None of this explains what I have asked of you. I'm asking you to tell me how I am able discard all of your evil characters during battle.

due to a special ability that is allowed to be played according to the game rules.

Quote from: theselfevident on March 14, 2012, 10:09:36 PM

due to a special ability...

This is the only part that is relevant. We already know game rules dictate when special abilities can be played. This however has no correlation to what special abilties do: break a game rule somewhere.

but they are still restricted to the games rules. SA's have rules that they follow...

Hey,

Game rules that govern how the game happens if no special abilities are used can be overridden by special abilities.
Game rules that govern how special abilities work and are carried out cannot be overridden by special abilities.

The duplicates in play rule that is currently in the REG is partially the first and partially the second, and isn't clear about which part is which, thus the source of our confusion on the topic.

Some people are tripping up on the fact that Samuel is an optional ("may") ability.  That's not the issue here.  We have allowed optional abilities to cause a player to control duplicate copies of the same unique character for at least 8 years.  For those that like examples, Unholy Writ is the prime and probably original example of this.  Prof U has expressed a personal desire to change that, but that is representative of his opinion, not the status quo.  (In ironing out this ruling we could decide to change that.)

Since this is not a may/must issue the following rule isn't really pertinent to this discussion, but since some people have emphasized the optionality of Samuel it's worth noting that...

If a search ability is optional once you choose to view the cards you must select a target (if there is one) for the ability paired with the search ability.

So once you pick up the deck to look through it, the search ability isn't optional anymore.

The issue here is the destination.  The elders have uniformly allowed capture (destination=land of bondage) to cause a player to control duplicate copies of a unique character.  The elders have uniformly disallowed banding (destination=field of battle) to cause a player to control duplicate copies of a unique character.  We are now, as a result of current discussions, realizing that some elders have been allowing and some elders have been disallowing put in play (destination=a territory) to cause a player to control duplicate copies of a unique character. 

So as far as how to rule between now and when an official announcement comes from the Elders, that should answer the question for all cards except Samuel and Woman at the Well.  For those two cards the host/judge will have to use their own digression.  The majority of the elders involved in the private discussion on the matter believe the status quo allows Samuel to put into play a unique character that you already have in play, but it is only a slight majority.

It is also noteworthy that in addition to unifying the national understanding of the status quo on this issue, we are also considering making modifications to the rule that governs it, so when we do announce an official ruling, it may include a change from what everyone is used to.

Lastly, and slightly off topic,

If a search ability states what to search “for” but does not have an ability paired with the search ability on the card, then there is an implied “place it in hand” ability paired with the search ability that targets the card that is searched “for.”

This means that if a search ability states what to search "for" and does have an ability paired with the search ability on the card, then the destination of the card searched for is determined by the ability paired with the search ability.  The implied "place it in hand" ability only applies to cards that do not specify what to do with the card.  So you can not use Samuel and end up with Saul or David in your hand.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Yes, thanks Tim, now I see where the battle lies and other possible consequences .

Actually the word "may" does still apply considering that one of the options that we are discussing on the other side does differentiate between "optional" and "forced" situations.

We may or may not end up going with that option, but it is currently on the table.

Well this is one where:

A. I've ruled it differently over the past 11 years.
B. I can see all points of view and don't rightly have a preference.

So due to A. and B. I can only offer my advice to make it SIMPLE and CONSISTENT. 

Actually, the point is (if some people need it reiterated) is may abilities creating duplicates has been the precedent for 8 years.

Actually, the point is (if some people need it reiterated) is may abilities creating duplicates has been the precedent for 8 years.

Actually the point--according to Sir Nobody (and how I learned to play it)--is may abilities creating duplicates has been a precedent for 8 years in certain situations and may abilities not being allowed to create duplicates has been a precedent for 8 years in a different situation. Now there is a third situation and the elders are trying to decide which of the two earlier precedents will apply.