Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I love that Canaanites make great use of a few old cards that previously saw little play. Most of those already existent black Canaanites are alright by themselves, but I expect they'll be quite powerful (and thus much more used) in a Canaanite deck.

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 04:20:50 PM

These are not semantics games to me.  I am making a very important point.

At my expense. You know what I am getting at, but you choose to throw semantics in my face to prove your own point. 

I am very sorry that I offended you.  I did not mean to do anything at anyone's expense.  I was trying to clarify something that I think is important.  The target of a special ability is not semantics.  It is foundational to the understanding of the game.  It is also foundational to my explanation.  I'm not trying to be argumentative.  I'm trying to be helpful.  If there is a new player that is confused about how protect works, you can piece it together for them using these points:
1) Negate, Prevent, and Interrupt target special abilities only.
2) Protect, Ignore, and Immune target the cards they protect.  If specified, they protect from special abilities (as the rulebook states).  If special abilities are not specified, they protect from game rules like rescue by a hero, discard due to numbers, discard due to decrease, etc. (you can point to cards like Failed Objective from Angel Wars, and High Priests' Palace).

Quote from: Bryon on June 26, 2011, 04:20:50 PM

So yes, the old REG and rulebook have incomplete definitions of protect. 

That was, and always has been, my point.

Then I wish you'd said that, and then offered to help complete the definition.

It didn't seem to me like you were trying to help.  At least not when I read things like these:

an annoying old analogy

and

You can save all the other gibberish

I helped create the rock/paper/scissors analogy.  I don't find it annoying in the least.  It has been helpful to players past and present.  It helped us sort out a lot of confusion when it was first printed, and is still helpful to me when I teach new players today.  Though you might call it "old," it is still relevant.  I probably shouldn't feel offended when you call it "old and annoying," but honestly, it does hurt a little.

As for my posts being gibberish, well, I don't know if there is anything I could possibly feel about that other than a direct personal attack.  If you did not intend it that way, then I apologize for being too sensitive.

Quote

1) Negate, Protect, and Interrupt target special abilities only.
2) Prevent, Ignore, and Immune target the cards they protect.

That's backwards, right?  Prevent should be part of 1) and Protect should be part of 2).

Even Bryon gets Aggied sometimes.

I helped create the rock/paper/scissors analogy. It has been helpful to players past and present.  It helped us sort out a lot of confusion when it was first printed, and is still helpful to me when I teach new players today.  Though you might call it "old," it is still relevant.

It might help new players get a fundamental understanding of the game, but if there aren't proper counters in place it's a dated system.
I don't think anyone would play Rock / Paper / Scissors if Rock couldn't be touched by Paper, everyone would just use Rock and the game would be boring.
The Rock in your balance triangle has been causing balance problems for four years and there still aren't enough counters to it.
More regardless of Protection / Immunity / Cannot be ignored is needed to keep it relevant.

As for my other comment, I still want to know why enhancements as character abilities aren't being made consistant.

The only Rock that has issues currently is Protection.  There's only one real counter (Satan's Seat), and that's not hard enough.  Ignore has Golgatha.  Immune is pretty much dead this season.

Do you remember Boston Nats? Playing against 9 Philistine defenses was the most fun I've ever had  .
Golgatha is junky, it has alot of counters including Murmuring and Benedictus (which can be recured indefinately by multiple characters).
I feel bad for anyone who planned on playing Canaanites, you won't be using tower if you don't want to get ignore rolled.
Lol Satan's Seat.

Boston Nats was last season.  There's a bunch of new hate for immunity. Tower is in play, so the brigades count.  It's fairly effective against Ignore.
The new sites are easily counterable?  Huh.

I lol'd.
TGT isn't all preblock ignore.

As for my other comment, I still want to know why enhancements as character abilities aren't being made consistant.

I still want to figure out how it's confusing. Enhancements are not characters. No one is arguing, or ever has argued, that enhancement abilities are character abilities. Would it be clearer if it said negate special abilities on Heroes? Because that's what "negate Heroes" is defined as.

Were you ever confused why Potiphar's Wife was able to capture a male Hero when she played a Gold battle-winning enhancement? Or why when Esau the Hunter played Stocks, the Hero went to Raider's Camp? It's because even though the ability isn't on the character card, it is the character doing the ability. Enhancements are used by characters. The abilities on enhancements don't magically become character abilities. They are, and always will be, enhancement abilities. It's just that enhancements need characters to activate, and in many cases, it does matter which character uses which enhancement ("if used by a [insert identifier here], do this").

I'm sorry if you feel this is inconsistent. But several shorthand phrases have been introduced in the past couple sets, and the new set, and this was done after playtester agreement that they all made sense, and helped us to avoid making cards where the entire picture is covered by text, while at the same time, making cards with a variety of abilities. "Negate Heroes" was one of them, but we quite obviously did not intend to make it negate enhancements, and I assure you it never will. I don't know of any other people that see an inconsistency here, and if they do, they are free to speak up. But I certainly see nothing wrong with how the wording is interpreted on either cards that say "cannot be negated by X" and "negate X".

Quote from: Smokey on June 27, 2011, 02:10:04 PM

As for my other comment, I still want to know why enhancements as character abilities aren't being made consistant.

I still want to figure out how it's confusing. Enhancements are not characters. No one is arguing, or ever has argued, that enhancement abilities are character abilities. Would it be clearer if it said negate special abilities on Heroes? Because that's what "negate Heroes" is defined as.

Were you ever confused why Potiphar's Wife was able to capture a male Hero when she played a Gold battle-winning enhancement? Or why when Esau the Hunter played Stocks, the Hero went to Raider's Camp? It's because even though the ability isn't on the character card, it is the character doing the ability. Enhancements are used by characters. The abilities on enhancements don't magically become character abilities. They are, and always will be, enhancement abilities. It's just that enhancements need characters to activate, and in many cases, it does matter which character uses which enhancement ("if used by a [insert identifier here], do this").

I'm sorry if you feel this is inconsistent. But several shorthand phrases have been introduced in the past couple sets, and the new set, and this was done after playtester agreement that they all made sense, and helped us to avoid making cards where the entire picture is covered by text, while at the same time, making cards with a variety of abilities. "Negate Heroes" was one of them, but we quite obviously did not intend to make it negate enhancements, and I assure you it never will. I don't know of any other people that see an inconsistency here, and if they do, they are free to speak up. But I certainly see nothing wrong with how the wording is interpreted on either cards that say "cannot be negated by X" and "negate X".

I understand HOW it works, but why it isn't being made consistant bothers me.

Specifically, consistancy between these two ideas.

If a character has a target, enhancements count as their abilities.
If a character is being targeted, enhancements don't count as their abilities.

Enhancements should either NEVER count as abilities or should ALWAYS count as abilities.

YOU argued that enhancements count as character abilities.

However, enhancements are used by characters, so it would still be the character doing the negating in the case of CD.

If there's no difference between a character who says "Negate all abilities in battle" or a character who played an enhancement that said that how are they not the same abilities.

Also, Potiphar's Wife and Fallen Warrior's abilities activate because of game rules, not enhancements they use. Would it really be THAT problematic to lose Raiders Camp's ability to hold heroes captured by enhancements to make Thadd be balanced?

Quote from: Smokey on June 27, 2011, 05:29:23 PM

Would it really be THAT problematic to lose Raiders Camp's ability to hold heroes captured by enhancements to make Thadd be balanced?

There's far more that would be affected than just Raiders' Camp. Changing that would also change how immunity works, for example. Suddenly you'd be able to drop any old enhancement to get rid of my Nero, rather than needing an interrupt, negate, or regardless of immunity. As if immunity hadn't gotten nerfed enough by recent sets.

Wat.
I don't see how immunity would be effected in any way.

I find it funny how this thread was posted in Ruling Questions and wasn't a ruling question, but quickly turned into one.

Browarod raises a good point, and if a change is made to how Thaddeus is ruled, then it will be because of a clarification of "protect" vs. "immune" and other similar abilities.

I understand HOW it works, but why it isn't being made consistant bothers me.

It's not being made "consistent" because no one else views it as an inconsistency currently.

Specifically, consistancy between these two ideas.

Quote

If a character has a target, enhancements count as their abilities.
If a character is being targeted, enhancements don't count as their abilities.

Enhancements should either NEVER count as abilities or should ALWAYS count as abilities.

Enhancement abilities NEVER count as character abilities. Character abilities are ONLY those that are printed on character cards, and abilities that characters may gain (such as Gathering of Angels, etc.). Enhancement abilities ALWAYS count as abilities used by characters, since in order to activate, enhancements need to be used by characters. Abilities used by characters consist of both character abilities and enhancement abilities.

YOU argued that enhancements count as character abilities.

Quote

However, enhancements are used by characters, so it would still be the character doing the negating in the case of CD.

I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. What I meant was what I said above: the negate enhancement was used by a character. Therefore the character did the negating, since it was an ability used by a character.

If there's no difference between a character who says "Negate all abilities in battle" or a character who played an enhancement that said that how are they not the same abilities.

There is a difference. One is a character ability, and one is not, but both are abilities used by characters. So in both cases, the character is doing the negating.

Would it really be THAT problematic to lose Raiders Camp's ability to hold heroes captured by enhancements to make Thadd be balanced?

Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but like I said earlier, if Thad is made balanced, it won't be because of this reason, so it's a moot point.

I find it funny how this thread was posted in Ruling Questions and wasn't a ruling question, but quickly turned into one.

Judging by my experience on the boards, I find it completely logical.

In fact, just use this thread as an analogy for your next Sunday school class on predestination.