Author Topic: destructive sin (Read 3548 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** March 12, 2012, 08:30:36 PM »

No problem. I thought it was "two elders makes it official" too until I reread the actual thread more closely. Placing cards on characters of opposite alignment has been ruled as harm in the past, so while I have no problem with it not being harm anymore, I'm confident that whichever side the elders decide on will be more correct for having been vetted.

SirNobody · « **Reply #26 on:** March 15, 2012, 12:31:27 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on March 11, 2012, 11:26:45 AM

did we ever come to a final verdict on this?

Yes, it was discussed by the elders during the drafting of the REG and the sentence I quoted from the REG states our conclusion.

Harming is causing a negative effect. Negative effect is being targeted by a card of a different alignment. The REG clearly states that the underlying card is not targeted by the place ability. I realize that it's a little counter-intuitive, but I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion based on what's in the REG.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Korunks · « **Reply #27 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:38:16 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on March 15, 2012, 12:31:27 AM

Hey,

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on March 11, 2012, 11:26:45 AM
did we ever come to a final verdict on this?

Yes, it was discussed by the elders during the drafting of the REG and the sentence I quoted from the REG states our conclusion.

Harming is causing a negative effect. Negative effect is being targeted by a card of a different alignment. The REG clearly states that the underlying card is not targeted by the place ability. I realize that it's a little counter-intuitive, but I don't know how you could come to any other conclusion based on what's in the REG.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

And why was it desirable to make such a counter-intuitive ruling? I fail to see the benefit to the game by making such an awkward rule?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #28 on:** March 15, 2012, 12:07:06 PM »

I would assume the he does not support the ruling, but was outvoted by the majority of other elders. If does, in fact, think the rule is counter-intuitive but supports it nonetheless, he's probably a bit thick.

SirNobody · « **Reply #29 on:** March 15, 2012, 01:32:21 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Korunks on March 15, 2012, 08:38:16 AM

And why was it desirable to make such a counter-intuitive ruling? I fail to see the benefit to the game by making such an awkward rule?

The alternatives are equally awkward and inconsistent. Place is an odd ability, so it wasn't going to work out clean regardless of how we did it. We opted for the option that is consistent but counter-intuitive rather than the option that was intuitive but inconsistent. Which I believe was the right way to go.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #30 on:** March 15, 2012, 03:37:00 PM »

why is it that a placed card doesn't target the card under it? how can you place a card without first targeting the card you are gonna place it on?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #31 on:** March 15, 2012, 05:27:43 PM »

Also, where is the inconsistency? I'd be fine with doing it this way if having placement target the card it's placed on would cause problems, can you give an example of a problem it would cause?

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: destructive sin (Read 3548 times)

Minister Polarius

Re: destructive sin

SirNobody

Re: destructive sin

Korunks

Re: destructive sin

Minister Polarius

Re: destructive sin

SirNobody

Re: destructive sin

sepjazzwarrior

Re: destructive sin

Minister Polarius

Re: destructive sin