Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Making drawing CBI makes it more powerful. That element shouldn't need explanation.

Making all cards sticky makes draw+play abilities more powerful because you can no longer negate the cause. This isn't as big a problem as making drawing CBI, and really factors in much less than the argument against making new rules for no gameplay benefit. New rules should only be added to the game when 1. it would benefit the game or 2. something in the existing rules is broken. Neither is true for these proposals.

I don't think Redoubter ever suggested making drawing CBI, just the playing of any cards CBI, which it should be.  The only thing that it would power up would be draw play (which often if you were able to negate the draw to stop the card played, you could just negate the card played), and it makes a blanket rule over the playing of all cards, instead of making exceptions for specific types of cards.  It makes the rules simpler.

Yeah, my suggestions had 0 to do with draw being CBI.

There are no exceptions. There are three different rules that interact in a way that makes it look like there are exceptions. Accepting this fact, if you can make an argument for adding a "playing of cards cannot be negated" rule, I'll probably get behind it because I do love simple. But you'll make to headway if you keep trying to fudge the numbers on the front end.

Really, you're going to say that the reason you aren't behind the suggestion is because you feel I'm being dishonest about the background?    I'm very confused, because as far as I can see it, nothing is being 'fudged'.  I already said I understand your side, I'm asking you to see that it makes sense this way, too.

But fine, no matter how you want to refer to it, there are three different situations regarding play, and I want to simplify them.  However, I wouldn't go to CBN status like you mentioned in the post (not sure if that was intentional), instead I would simply say "the playing of a card cannot be interrupted".  Can we all agree that would be better?

I know you didn't, I was responding to both your and YMT's proposals.

I initially like your suggestion on the grounds of simplicity (although it would have to be playing of cards from hand), but consider this: currently, if a blocker plays a banding card, bands in a Horsed blocker and then plays something off it, negating the band will negate everything that came after it. With your proposed rule, the card that was played off Horses would remain played even though the band, draw, and any SA on the character were negated. That sounds more complicated to me than the normal cascade chain.

Ah, you're right. My example was wrong because it doesn't change anything. Better example:

Hero attacks and bands to someone in hand. That band is now CBI. That's an enormous leap in power.

That just doesn't work. You can't partially negate a card: nothing allows the card to go to territory if it was banded in from hand and the band was negated. If it was played, then its SA activated.

And in response to Redoubter's earlier post about negating a band that brought in a mounted EC - if the played enhancement was drawn via Horses, it actually does get unplayed and goes back to deck if the Horses are negated.

That's not true, as Pol also acknowledged.  Any card played via a 'Play' ability cannot be unplayed.  Play abilities are CBI, and therefore the card would remain played.

And as far as the band being negated, Drrek pointed out my response already.  It only doesn't make sense because you aren't thinking in terms of the way the rule would be handled.  The card cannot be unplayed, but that never stops the band from occurring.  The ability can still be negated, and nothing is changing that.  However, the character still hit the table, and would remain there.  Again, if you don't actually approach it from the new perspective, and only from the current system, then it seems to be a problem when it isn't.

Actually, in my haste to be accommodating I was too much so. My initial example would indeed result in the "unplaying" of the card if it were drawn by 2kH as Hartz reminded me.

I would disagree with that based on precedent, and this post:

Play abilities (i.e. You may play the next enhancement, holder may play the next enhancement, etc.) are inherently CBI. So if I attack with Ethiopian Treasurer and play an enhancement, and you block with King of Tyrus, the enhancement is negated if it can be, but it doesn't go back to hand, since KoT can't negate ET's play ability.

Draw abilities are not inherently CBI. So if I attack with Matthew and draw 3, and you block with King of Tyrus, the drawn cards go back to where they came from. This is true even if the card drawn was already played, unless the card played is CBN/CBI. What this means if you block my Matthew with Herod the Great, and I play Preaching the Truth which I drew with Matthew, then you play Mask of Fear, then PtT goes back on top of the deck, along with the other drawn cards.

The confusing part is cards like Reach of Desperation or the various Horsey weapons, which have both draw and play abilities. In those cases, the two abilities are separate abilities on the same card, and are treated separately along the above guidelines.

Prof may need to clear that up, but from how it reads, drawn cards would return except those played using a Play ability (per the bold part).  So that point still stands, and shows another problem with the current rules when consistency is considered.

Also, just in case anyone still thinks otherwise, my proposal is "Playing a card is CBI", and has nothing to do with drawing.  I know you know where I am now, Pol, but in this and all previous threads people thought I was referring to draw at various points, so just want to make sure that stays clear

I don't know how you're getting that from his post, but it would definitely be unplayed.

I can sort of see where you would get that idea from his post, but that is definitely not how it reads to me.  How about instead of arguing about what someone else said, we just ask?   I'll PM the Prof and ask if he can clarify.  I will post here if/when I get clarification so we can discuss it further

While you're at it, PM a few more Elders so you can get an overturn if it's true.