Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Drrek on August 27, 2012, 07:44:32 PM

What if the character who was banded in has a CBN ability?  I'd assume from the previous logic of this thread, that character would stay in play, how did it get into play?

No, the exceptions are something I'm trying to suggest we avoid.  They wouldn't be treated any differently as far as staying in battle, but their ability sticks as normal.

I was supporting you there, I was saying based off the logic for the current ruling, the cbn character would stay in play, so what he's saying would be an exception to the rules already happens.

We're really going around in circles now. The way it works currently makes total sense to me. I don't oppose having it changed exactly, I just don't support it. And anything I don't support I oppose simply because it takes focus off what I consider to be the real problem of splitting "play" abilities.

We're really going around in circles now. The way it works currently makes total sense to me. I don't oppose having it changed exactly, I just don't support it. And anything I don't support I oppose simply because it takes focus off what I consider to be the real problem of splitting "play" abilities.

What are these real problems, so that I can focus on them as well?  And what do you mean by 'splitting', are you implying that I'm splitting, because my proposal unifies the rules in a single statement, so I want to be clear.

What I meant is that I want all of my efforts to be focused on getting the "add to battle" ability separated from banding or play abilities, as that's something that needs to happen soon to avoid something else getting printed in the new rulebook. Whether or not draw abilities should become CBI is something that can be changed without urgency, and because it also involves banding and play abilities, the question in this thread confuses the issue.

While I understand this, why would fixing everything not be a good idea?  You haven't shown an actual reason to oppose this, and as far as I can tell you think this is a good idea.  So your post is basically confusing and seems to assume that your suggestion is going to get added as you want it.

Seriously though, you say you want 'all of your efforts' in that, yet spend it fighting me when you don't disagree?  You see my confusion?

If there is an issue, let's suggest ways to fix them, even if they don't get implemented, shall we?

After the new rulebook is finalized, I'd be more than happy to take another look at other things going on.

So you don't disagree?  Okay, well, I'm still going to push for it myself.

I have given ample reasons why no card should be 'unplayed', and how this would make the game overall better and simpler in terms of rules.  It comes down to one sentence:

"The playing of a card cannot be interrupted."

That's it.  I'd like to hear what any Elders have to say about this, given that the current rules are riddles with confusion, exceptions, and inconsistency.

I still don't like that. It causes more problems for the game then any help.

I've shown the ways it would help.  You show no ways it would hurt.  Please post those so your posts actually add to the discussion.  Blanket statements like this are useless.