Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Am I the only one who noticed the fact you can't get Spirirtual Warfare with Zadok anoints?

Am I the only one who noticed the fact you can't get Spirirtual Warfare with Zadok anoints?

Yes you can. Zadok allows you to search for a card with a brigade other than teal, which would include Spiritual Warfare.

Never mind. That would indeed be a bigger problem. 

I played a certain card game for 17 years. Strict wasn't even the word for it. Unless your just playing to practice, if its a 'may' ability, when you forget there is no going back.

I'm reminded by a saying, "Practice makes perfect."

My basketball coach in high school always said, "PERFECT practice makes perfect!"

When playing against kids in my play group, casual games with less skilled players and sometimes even "teaching" games with experienced players, I will allow take backs. Sometimes I even encourage them by pointing out how my opponent can benefit from making a different play.

However, in tournament play and when preparing for a tournament, I try to adhere strictly to the rules. Part of the reason I've had success in high level tournaments is because of the high standard I expect of both myself and my opponents. When two quality players face off, the deciding factor between who wins and who loses most often comes down to who makes the most (or biggest) mistake(s), even more so than "luck of the draw".

Some very insightful posts so far, most in favor of no takeback.

I would say that both Alex and Prof U acted within their "rights" as players of the game.  Alex had every right to make his demand, as it was within the rules.  After he spoke up, Prof U had every right to request mercy, as he made a mistake, and there is no rule saying players can't make concessions for others.  The final word should always rest with Alex, though, since it was Prof's error.  If Alex still says "we follow the rules" after Prof's request, then it should be done so with no argument.

Redemption players play for different reasons; many of the better or more competitive players would want the rules followed to a T so that the outcome is "by the book" or "authentic".  Some players focus more on the relational aspect of the game and prefer to show mercy to (some) mistakes.  I see this as very similar to Paul's writings on weaker and stronger Christians. 

I'm not saying one is a weak position and the other is strong; I'm just saying, players can believe different things and still both be right.  If someone points out a mistake you have made, either:
1.  Take back what you did in error and do not raise complaint or hold a grudge.
2.  Ask for a takeback (mercy).

If a player chooses option 2 above after you have pointed out an error, either:
1.  Kindly insist on the rule being followed, which is within your rights.
2.  Let the player take it back and do not raise complaint or hold a grudge.

If a player chooses option 1 after option 2 was chosen, then take it back, since it is within the other player's right to demand that the rules be followed.  Don't take it personally or hold a grudge.

The key is not complaining, taking it personally, or holding grudges.  These are too often the outcome when people of different beliefs have their beliefs conflict.

So maybe we should be measuring the rankings by number of mistakes with the least mistake-prone being the number one player...and maybe focusing on the mistakes rather than strength of schedule or W-L record and such?

I think we should include a place in the Hall of Fame for the most mistakeless person of all time, which should include their grammar and spelling on the Message Boards!

We just need to put the keyword Takeback in the REG glossary.