Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Did a card leave a hand, deck, or discard pile and end up in a location other than those?  Then it was played.



And before I'm asked, "removed from the game" is not a location.  It isn't in the game anymore. 

That's sort of the point, though, is that my definition has been clearly laid out from a very early point in this discussion and has not needed to be altered in the least to accommodate everything that has come up since then.  Bryon has had to re-word his definition some half dozen times over the same period of time.  That suggests to me that the idea of what constitutes playing a card has been more of an "understood" thing than one clearly defined.

Second, the exact scenarios - all the exact scenarios - you mention as not seeming right as "playing a card" are the ones that my definition does not count.  You are also the fourth or fifth person in this thread to say those don't seem right.

So it boils down to this: which is simpler, more clear, and more intuitive to you?
1). to move any card that goes from any hand, deck, or discard pile, to any location other than a hand, deck, or discard pile
- cards placed face-down are still played
- cards placed into a location by a special ability (e.g. Storehouse) are still played
- "abilities that allow you to play" and "play abilities" are two different things

2). to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
- cards placed face-down are not "played" until activated
- cards placed by a special ability are not "played" unless/until activated

and on a related note, the differing definitions of place:
1). to put a card in a location or on a card, as long as it stays there until the next phase
- a card used in battle was never "placed" in the Field of Battle
- not clear whether an Artifact that is used and discarded the moment it's put down counts as being "placed" in your Artifact pile

2). to put a card in a location or on a card

That's a question for a more objective voice regarding the state of the REG.

Was that a slight of me? If so, then LOL.  If not, then I don't get it.

If you're saying that my voice is not worth hearing, then join the club. Otherwise, I would think that any voice should be welcome on these forums if it results in a solution.

Regarding the "New REG," my point has always been that until said REG is released, the "Current REG" lays in disrepair and despair with hosts making incorrect rulings on unclear (or false) quotes. I (and others) have volunteered our time to make updates to the "Current REG" to avoid such confusion. We know that the rest of you are consumed by the production of the "New REG," which is why we have offered our services. To refuse our help and then poke us in spite of it leaves you no more objective than me.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2010, 08:53:30 AM

If you're saying that my voice is not worth hearing, then join the club.

I was saying that I don't think I am qualified to answer the question.

Then the "otherwise" portion of my statement applies. Your opinion still matters, regardless of what some may consider contradictory.

But as "the rest of you" is a term applied more loosely than you realize, the point turns out to be moot.

I admit, then, that you are right about what I realize. I was under the impression that all significant moderators were part of the "New REG" construction, which is a subset that would include you. Who exactly is working on the "New REG" then, so I don't generalize inappropriately?

Well playced STAMP, lol.

Right now, EVERYONE on this board is (supposed to be) contributing to the new REG.  Tim posted a link to most of it for everyone to read and comment on.  A couple people have actually helped by calling out sections that they didn't understand or agree with.

Others just complain or tease about how long it's taking everyone else to do it.  

There is only so much we can do to help with only one section posted. If we could see more sections of the REG to offer advice, then I think things may move along faster.

Well playced STAMP, lol.
There is only so much we can do to help with only one section posted. If we could see more sections of the REG to offer advice, then I think things may move along faster.

One section?!?  I count about 37. 

Lol.  I see the almanac of abilities as one piece.

LOL.  The "almanac of special abilities" IS the new REG. 

Hey,

I see. Are the definitions of "Play" and "Place" clarified in the "New REG," or is that part of the debate (i.e. How should we define them?).

The new REG clearly defines the keywords "Play an Enhancement" and "Place."

That is different from the conditions "played" or "placed."  I believe a major source of confusion in this thread is that people see "Play an Enhancement" on Ethiopian Treasurer and "If no good enhancements are played" on Trembling Demon and think that they refer to the same term.  They don't.  It would be nice if they could refer to the same term, but we're 15 years in to a game that doesn't cycle out cards, has never had a rules reset, and hasn't always had an abundance of forethought in game development.  Sometimes (often) we have to just do the best with what we have.  In this case that means that an ability to "Play an Enhancement" is different than a condition of "in play."

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

2) to place a card "in play" by game rule and/or to activate its special ability
- except that every time a character, weapon, or multi-colored site leaves your territory and enters battle to activate its special ability, that doesn't count as "play"
That is not an exception to the above.
- except that every time a character, weapon, or site returns from set aside by game rule (not by a "return" special ability stated on a card), that doesn't count as play
That is not an exception to the above

I find it incredibly disappointing to see a mischaracterization in response to my honest, accurate and unembellished layout.

Our definitions of "place" (the special ability) are identical...Our definitions of "place" (the action by game rule or the consequece of other abilities) are identical as well...

If you consider there to be any distinction between these two definitions, then it is logically impossible for your two definitions to be an identical match to my one definition.  I would think the mere fact that you have two different definitions should make that obvious.

Another interesting factoid about my definitions is that they don't require a distinction from the conditions by the same name, as has been supposed in this thread.

Honestly, Schaef, I was NOT trying to mischaracterize anything.  HELP ME UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, for crying out loud.  HOW is it not an exception?  I DON'T get it.  Help.  Really.  Please.

The way I read your definition, placing a hero into territory is playing it, and then pushing it into battle to activate its special ability is playing it again, and then returning the character from set aside to territory is playing it again, right?  Am I understanding your position?  If not, then clarify it.  Clarify your rule so that it doesn't confuse me.

And again,

There IS a difference between "discard abilities" and "discard" (see HPPalace).

There IS a difference between "place abilities" and "is placed" (see exchange lost soul + deck discard soul)

There IS a difference between "play abilities" and "is played."

Since I never even used the word "again", and since I have accepted from the very beginning of this discussion that your position only suggests that a card is played the first time it meets the condition, and not every time, I made the mistake of assuming you were giving my definition the same consideration.

Ah.  Now I understand completely.

I was mistaken in thinking your definition was complete.  It assumes a nebulous "first time" (though is that true for deactivated and reactivated artifacts by your definition?  Not returned to hand and put in play again?)  Please rewrite your rule so that it clarifies this "first time" for me.

You were mistaken in thinking my definition was incomplete.  It is not.  It is a play EVERY time it satisfies the condition.