Cactus Web Site special offer: Orders over $75 will receive a free Angel of God 2023 National Promo card while supplies last.
What happens when draws are negated and cards are played or the draws triggered other effects is one of the most complicated parts of the game (and I still haven't seen a definitive ruling on parts of that issue).
Quote from: Redoubter on November 10, 2012, 10:32:26 PMWhat happens when draws are negated and cards are played or the draws triggered other effects is one of the most complicated parts of the game (and I still haven't seen a definitive ruling on parts of that issue).If I draw a dominant and play it, then that cannot be undone by a negate. Therefore, would the opponent get to keep one of the drawn cards from Gifts (assuming the ruling is as stated)? Obviously this is problematic. The more touchy issue with negating a draw is being sure that the player actually returns the same cards he drew (and in the correct order), rather than make "strategic substitutions" (aka "cheat").
Quote from: Redoubter on November 10, 2012, 10:32:26 PMWhat happens when draws are negated and cards are played or the draws triggered other effects is one of the most complicated parts of the game (and I still haven't seen a definitive ruling on parts of that issue).If I draw a dominant and play it, then that cannot be undone by a negate. Therefore, would the opponent get to keep one of the drawn cards from Gifts (assuming the ruling is as stated)? Obviously this is problematic. The more touchy issue with negating a draw is being sure that the player actually returns the same cards he drew (and in the correct order), rather than make "strategic substitutions" (aka "cheat"). I suggest that we create a list of abilities that can be prevented, but not interrupted. We already effectively do that with reveal and look at opponent's hand abilities. I think we should do the same with draw abilities.
I will continue to argue that the status quo is ridiculous, a bottom-up ruling that is too complex, inconsistent, and needs to be changed. I have no support, however.
...if we make it so that no cards can be unplayed. Period. Once it hits the table, the act of placing it on the table is CBI. If we can get more support behind that, I think it is a cause definitely worth considering.
The tradeoff is too high. Yeah, it's more simple, but it'd be more simple if we just made all cards CBN too.
It's not inconsistent or bottom-up.
I don't think you understand what bottom-up means. That is a ruling on a specific card or a specific situation. Top-down rules don't have to be free from exceptions or simple in order to be top-down.What's actually going on here is that you're confused about what rules are in play. There is no such thing as a rule that says the playing of a card can be undone with these exceptions. That'd just be ridiculous. What is happening is that:1. CBI abilities have a rule that makes them always stay played once played.2. Play abilities are inherently CBI (along with a couple other abilities).3. There is a rule that causes negates to cascade, but the previous two rules take precedence over it.So what you're describing is just made up. You're proposing adding a new rule just to change what the default state of cards are, not changing an existing rule.The rules are consistent and as simple as they can be without causing broken mechanics such as loops. Adding another rule does not make things less complicated. There are three rules, not two, in play, and none of them have exceptions.
My disagreement is based on the power boost it will give to speed. While the inertia argument is not a be-all, it is a deal breaker when you propose changing a rule in a way that will make the game worse just to simplify it. Good rule changes always make the game better.