Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I'm trying to get it ruled how these dependencies work, because they most certainly exist, and in all [unrelated] cases [involving cost-benefit cards] we currently have if you instead the X you don't get the Y.  The ruling from 2 Elders so far say to apply the X as the act of trying to discard, not the discard itself.  That's good, but they've only ruled on Plot.  But if I were to target a character with an Archer and the discard was insteaded, does my Archer get discarded after battle still?  Unless we address all cards of this type, we will have questions.

I've added my own words above to point out that Plot is not cost-benefit and cost-benefit has been the only ability ruled to work like cost-benefit.

I'm confused by what you say - you say that Plot is addressed, and that there is another group of cards just like Plot, but that this other group of cards hasn't been addressed?  It's simple, just like the Profs said - "Do X.  If you do, then do Y" means "Carry out ability X.  If you do, carry out ability Y" and carrying out an ability does not look for whether the ability actually happened (due to Insteads and so forth). 

Basically, if you activate ability X, you activate ability Y, regardless of the outcome of activating ability X.

Exactly.

Quote from: jmhartz on October 11, 2012, 12:25:44 PM

I've added my own words above to point out that Plot is not cost-benefit and cost-benefit has been the only ability ruled to work like cost-benefit.

Correct. As I pointed out previously, cards like Plot and the Archers are not like any other cost-benefit abilities, in that the "cost" is a positive for the person who uses the card, and the "benefit" is a negative. Thus, it is better to just say (as Pol pointed out) that they do not function like cost-benefit abilities. They are really a specialized kind of triggered ability, where the trigger is the act of choosing to activate the optional first ability, and the result is the second "detrimental" ability.

Cool, good to have a definitive and clear ruling.  I still personally think the card reads more as the second ability would only be triggered if the first ability happened, but I'm fine with this so long as we are consistent.

You persist in viewing having triggers within a card as something that is somehow different from any other trigger. You're not paying attention to the precedent-setting ruling on Plot. You're making the issue needlessly complicated by continuing to reference the completely unrelated ruling on cost/benefit abilities. Underwood has specifically stated that Archer would still be discarded in your example. At this point I am forced to conclude that you are arguing just to argue.

And I will continue to argue that the point on triggers does not apply, as the situations are simply not equivalent for reasons I already pointed out.  In addition, since triggers cannot activate when the triggering event is insteaded but it has been ruled that these cards do still activate, I would be correct in the assertion that they are different (which, oddly, supports your case, so I'm very confused why you are upset with that).

However, I did miss the mention of Archers in the actual ruling, as opposed to the discussion.  If you read my post, you'll see that I had no problem with the Plot ruling, I just wanted it clarified that it applied to the Archers as well (which I now see it is, even if I missed it the first go-around).  I also asked to see what kind of abilities these are, which means what defines these cards as applicable to this rule, looking for a consistent ruling.  Prof A provided one in his subsequent post, so I'm happy.

So to reiterate, I never argued against the ruling proposed by 2 Elders, only asked for the ruling to be expanded or clarified, defining these cards completely.  I have disputed your point about triggers, and I don't see how that's an issue as explained above.

TL;DR There's really no reason to be accusing me of anything, as I haven't done what you've described.

You have the ruling, you have the reasoning behind the ruling, and you even have your example specifically ruled upon. Honestly, what more do you want?

...Nothing? 

Re-read my last post please, I said I was happy

Quote

Unless we address all cards of this type, we will have questions.

This was the last thing you posted, following all the elders posts, which somehow led me to believe you still have questions. Sorry for misinterpreting.

Hey, we both misunderstood the posts.  That post was made because I did not see the part in the ruling about the archers, which I mentioned in that last reply.  No issues