Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Seems silly. The card says Joseph, not Joseph of Arimathea or Joseph the Carpenter. We are playing the card the way it's written. The only exceptions are when the card is a same unique character, such as King David, in which case people can target King David as David.

Quote from: megamanlan on September 02, 2012, 01:34:04 PM

Split Altar was errata'd and wouldn't be affected.

Split Altar (P)

Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: • Special Ability: Shuffle all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play the next Enhancement. Cannot be negated. • Play As: Shuffle [return] all Artifacts of each opponent into owners’ deck. You may play an Enhancement. Cannot be negated.


No it wasn't.

Then how's it supposed to be played?

Seems silly. The card says Joseph, not Joseph of Arimathea or Joseph the Carpenter. We are playing the card the way it's written. The only exceptions are when the card is a same unique character, such as King David, in which case people can target King David as David.

Actually, this isn't exactly true. There is a rule out there that says if a card has a name out there: (ie David) it affects all cards with that in the name, (like King David) but if it specifically mentions a specific name, (like OT Joseph) it can only affect that one. (like Begging for Grain isn't negated if either NT Joseph is in play). But there is an obscure rule that you have to follow what the creator intended the card to do instead of following what the card says or was errata'd to say.

We have always played (and should continue to play) that who the person was in the Bible is what determines the use of the card's SA. Really, the only inconsistency is with King David and the use of Promised Land. That ruling was based loosely on Abram vs. Abraham. However, Abraham is a distinct part of the card, much like Saul/Paul, and should therefore be the only exception.

I think we simply need to revisit the King David ruling. Any mention of David or King David should apply to all David cards, for consistency.

The point here is to give more crediability and simplify some of the rules here (especially convoluted, confusing at best and useless to the game) not to mention the lack of this rule would provide some more uses for cards that aren't used.

Besides rescinding this rule wouldn't bring any harm to the game. No one has clearly stated why this shouldn't be besides the fact that they wish to keep Biblical accuracy (which already seems practically abandoned by a lot of themes in support of making the game work better)

Quote from: megamanlan on September 02, 2012, 02:54:38 PM

Then how's it supposed to be played?

It was designed to shuffle in the entire artifact pile, but face down cards are not "in-play," and thus are not touched by Split Altar. However, they decided to leave it as is, rather than errata the ability to work as intended.

So it should not work as intended and my suggestion supports that.

If the Elders/Rob wanted it to work as they originally intended, they would have errata'd it, and not left it as is.

They never errata'd it. It was played wrong for a time, and when somebody pointed it out they pretty much just said "You're right, and that's the way it'll be." Erratas are reserved for cards that are OP or just plain don't work, not because of intentions.

Errata's are to make sure that an effect does what it's meant to do, or (for cards like AnB) to make cards less powerful for over powered cards only. (ie AnB, Golgotha, etc.)

No, the official stance on erratas is to fix cards that straight up don't work as worded:

The Rabshakeh Attacks (Ki)

Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Pale Green • Ability: 5 / 0 • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard all but one Hero in battle. Cannot be negated by an Assyrian. • Errata: Discard all but one Hero in battle. Cannot be negated if used by an Assyrian.

Or to fix cards that are overpowered, such as ANB or Mayhem.

Split Altar was determined to be neither of these. It did not do what it was supposed to, but it still worked as worded.

This is exactly what I'm saying, play cards how they read on the card (and expand the rule that if part of a name is mentioned without limitation, then all versions of that card (or other characters with the same name) should be affected by that card)

It makes the game more familiar with other game players (albeit by a tiny bit) and help draw them in a bit more, plus its a rule that's really not needed. I mean who knows if the Salome that went to the tomb was actually Herod Antipas' daughter as well and was converted to christianity after hearing Christ at some point? No one knows if they could be the same person or if they weren't except for God.

Small interjection:  I have now semi-successively merged topics (goofed the names up in the merge).  The background to this discussion is in the first section.  Then Megamanlan's OP to this thread is about 3/4 down the page...and now your current discussion has the full background to Megamanlan's thoughts.  I hope it is not too confusing after the merge.....

Carry on. 

Quote from: megamanlan on September 02, 2012, 09:58:44 PM

This is exactly what I'm saying, play cards how they read on the card (and expand the rule that if part of a name is mentioned without limitation, then all versions of that card (or other characters with the same name) should be affected by that card)

It makes the game more familiar with other game players (albeit by a tiny bit) and help draw them in a bit more, plus its a rule that's really not needed. I mean who knows if the Salome that went to the tomb was actually Herod Antipas' daughter as well and was converted to christianity after hearing Christ at some point? No one knows if they could be the same person or if they weren't except for God.

No, that's not what you're saying. You're saying that cards can't refer to specific cards, but instead refer to a pantheon of similar cards. Well, not a pantheon, but it's a cool word, so 3 is a pantheon for now.

Bad argument. The burden of proof lies on arguing that she was indeed at the tomb. No proof, no TGT hero.

That's not what I'm saying, I am saying that cards that state a single name (like Joseph) it refers to all Characters that have that name, (Joseph, Joseph the Carpenter, and Joseph of Aramethea) but if it specifically states a card (like OT Joseph) then it is for that specific card. But more generally it's also saying that like with Split Altar, it was supposed to shuffle all Artifact Piles but it only shuffles all active Artifacts by the actual card. So this rule says that you always go by what the card actually says not on what it was intended to do.

But this is also expanding the rule that says that if part of a name is used (ie David) then cards that have that name in the title (King David) are included as proper targets for a card that mentions that part of the name (David). But a card that specifically mentions a card (ie. can be used by King David) it doesn't allow it to be used by a character with a similar name (David) and get the same effect.

I think that also answers your question YMT.

They can note by proper titles: like a card that states Saul can target Saul/Paul (if he is Saul) and King Saul. But if it mentions King Saul then it can only affect King Saul not Saul/Paul.

The official ruling in regards to your question, YMT, is that if a card refers to King David, it can only target the King David card. The same is true of King Manasseh (I.e. the new King Amon won't work with the old Prophets Manasseh in the dc pile). I wouldn't be opposed to a change, but I don't really see any inconsistency either.

As for the proposal, there is not nor will there likely be any discussion for changing the rule as it is. While suggestions to improve the game are always welcomed, I don't see any reason why this change should be made, and I don't know of any elders who do.


Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2