Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Because the last time the rulebook was printed "Some fortresses affect all players" wasn't true. 

Exactly. Which is why TGT sets a precedent....

... and it's not a change of precedent.   

TGT sets no new precident. 

with YMT.  If the rulebook needs to be changed to accommodate this fortress, it is obviously a change in precedent.  Until now, fortresses have only benefited the holder.  Since now, there is a fortress that benefits both players, the whole thought upon fortresses has changed.

Though some of you may have thought the entire time that fortresses could benefit both players if it was worded correctly, most of us had not until TGT started getting ruled as such.  I think that's why we have some people saying it's new, different, and should have had a better presentation upon it's release, and others are saying that it makes sense and it was presented fine.

Um...why does it matter if TGT sets a precedent? 

Because that is the main point CountFount was trying to make on the previous page, and his conclusions were tossed aside with careless disregard. A simple acknowledgement was all he requested, but that still seems too much to ask.

Fini

Quote from: Bryon on March 12, 2009, 10:32:57 AM

Wow.  Um, Crown of Thorns has been around for a long time.  So has Taskmasters (deck C).  A lot of cards effect everyone's characters.  TGT sets no new precident. 

Crown of Thorns is an artifact. The rulebook specfically says, "Some artifacts affect all players," on page 11. Character/enhancement abilities are already known to affect all players since the beginning of the game (i.e. Authority of Christ). The rulebook does not say, "Some fortresses affect all players." If this is just common knowledge as y'all are suggesting, then why have the page 11 quote for artifacts? Would that not be superfluous?

Yes.  It is superflous.  There is a lot of superfluous stuff in the rulebook.  It is 4 years old, and even when it was written we did not remove all the redundancies.  We figured saying too much was better than saying not enough.  Apparently we were wrong.  For THAT, I am honestly really sorry.  I didn't know the problems it would cause. 

Apparently, saying too much back then somehow set a precident for the future.  According to some, that precident forces us to continue to say too much or else we'll be blasted for not announcing any time a card of a certain type does some same OLD ABILITY that previously only cards of other types have done.  What bothers me is that we didn't need to do that for artifacts that banded heroes or ECs into battle, or for evil fortresses that give first strike to both good and evil characters, or for sites that place themselves beneath deck, or any other OLD ABILITY that that is put on a different card type (which we have done a lot in the last few years, since the rulebook was printed).  For some reason playtesters are to blame when some players think that an ignore ability on a fortress is to be treated differently than an ignore ability on a character, enhancement, or artifact.  All because we were not extra redundant in the fortress section of the rulebook.  Ugh.  We should have dropped every instance of redundancy when we had the chance.