Cactus Game Design Message Boards

The fundamental never changed. All my arguing was to prove that your point of view was not the only reasonable one. You seemed unwilling to acknowledge even that much.

My "point of view" is what the rules are.  My job is to explain the way things are, not to hold a jam session about all the way that things might be.

You claimed that the rule was bad for reasons which did not make sense given the examples I provided in response.  Then you went and said you thought the rule was bad for a reason that had absolutely nothing to do with what you were arguing about for the last day.  If those points were not your problem with the rule, you were only wasting your own time in pursuing something that wasn't going to help your understanding anyway.  I responded to what you gave me.

Everyone else seemed to accept the ruling as portrayed by you and YMT, so if I'm the only one that dissented why would anyone else need the answer? I'm perfectly willing to post it if anyone is still left uncertain as to why the ruling is the way it is.

This sentence leaves me confused as to whether you think the world is better or not if people are aware of multiple points of view.  Since I am approaching this thread from the angle that it needs to educate people to the correct answer in the future, let me put it to you in a way that might make my meaning more plain: if someone else comes along next month and has difficulty understanding this definition, how would you rather have it explained to them, the way I said it or the way your mystery benefactor said it?

You were explaining the how of the function, yes, but I already knew how it functioned. I only ever wanted the why. I don't know or care what you every other person who might read this thread in an attempt to understand cannot-be-ignored takes away from this, that's really only your business significant to people who want to make sure that everyone knows and understands the rules properly so everyone can just play and have a good time.

Fixed it for you.  Protip for next time: if you want the why, don't waste your own time arguing about the how.

For future reference, so Schaef can stop complaining that I'm hiding things, here's the answer I got as to why the ruling is this way: "This was discussed awhile ago and it seemed that most of the elders agreed with Schaef. I was originally on your side, but I think that although it makes in-battle ignore a lot less powerful, it's more intuitive to rule pre-block ignore the same way as in-battle ignore. One of the reasons is this: You attack with Susanna, I block with a Sadducee. You play NNfS. I am now ignored, so I put a black enhancement on Golgotha. Assuming you are correct, any characters that are in battle are still ignored, but anyone who isn't in battle cannot be ignored (given how you would rule TGT, right?). So I could play Babel and bring in any number of black NT EC's, all of which would not be ignored. It just seems that ruling it as you have been arguing could lead to too many confusing possibilities, and it would just be better to have cannot be ignored apply universally to ignore abilities. So essentially, having "cannot be ignored" in the game adds a condition to the ignore ability that says "ignore a character, unless that character cannot be ignored.""

Can this be locked now?

All I said was that I did the best I could with what I was given.

Neither am I "complaining" about anything, just wondering whether multiple points of view are supposed to be discussed openly or kept to ourselves, so I can be clear for the next time someone asks me a question.

And a point of clarification regarding this quoted response, the reason "most of the elders agree with Schaef" is because Schaef is reiterating the solution on which most of the elders agreed.  I don't want to leave the impression that I held sway over the fine points of this ruling since, for reasons not related to the objections raised in this thread, I do not recall offering an opinion on the parameters of the ability.

:edit: Locked by request.