Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I understood your point completely.  And while I agree that it provides an analogy and therefore a possible precedent, I respectfully disagree that it is the best analogy and precedent. 

You're focusing on a consistency in action: targeting.

I am focusing on a consistency in state of cards in the game: a card's state changes and no action can be made with it's previous state.

That then would mean that CwD would Negate CD then,

I understood your point completely.  And while I agree that it provides an analogy and therefore a possible precedent, I respectfully disagree that it is the best analogy and precedent. 

That's reasonable.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You're focusing on a consistency in action: targeting.

I am focusing on a consistency in state of cards in the game: a card's state changes and no action can be made with it's previous state.

But that is my point is that there are certain cards in the game that DO affect a "previous state".  These include "negate last", which reaches cards that are out of play as if they were still in play, and "interrupt", which reaches during special initiative to a game state before the removal from battle (to tie this into our other recent ruling thread).  I understand that you aren't a big fan of either of those rules though, so it is good to see that both of us are being consistent in trying to fit this ruling into our overall understanding of the rules

I agree with Prof U's post on the previous page about how DS works.