Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Unfortunately, the suggestion makes it more confusing. I see it that if I band (or something like a Choose the blocker card) and my Opponents Human is in Battle, then Hormah still works with Opponents Character, and it makes the definition of Opponent questionable too and destroys Kir too.

So you'd want combos like the Silver Trumpets one mentioned previously?

It would be something that simple, yes, but it would come at a price.  I'd rather not go into detail because it is far from a sure thing, and even if it changes, it will probably wait till the 4th Edition Rules.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on June 13, 2012, 07:15:18 PM

An example of why people should actually read what was written and not respond with a strawman...

I take exception to this description.  I am not arguing my point dishonestly and I hope you will have the courtesy to apologize for the accusation.

I was not saying you were arguing dishonestly. To the extent that my comments read that way I apologize right up front

Here are my comments explained...

Once Pol hit the discussion and explained that people were looking at separating the concept of temporary versus permanent control, we were past the original question. At that point of the conversation we were already 18 hours past when Pol had already explained why The Name of the Lord was not really pertinent to the conversation. You then came in and decided to post in direct response to the first post from three days earlier (and provided absolutely no context to point to this fact), and used exactly the same example that had already been discussed and found lacking. I said "should actually read what was written" precisely because it appeared that you had not red the thread.

I am also in agreement with Pol who noted in his response to your post, "NOBODY is advocating the position you were arguing against." This is the pretty much the definition of a arguing a strawman. So, if my claim was incorrect I apologize for that, but in my defense I was not pulling my interpretation of your remarks out of thin air.

It wasn't you, its that the two are the same, and where I come from are understood as the same. I just don't like when my questions are twisted against what I'm saying.

I am sorry, megamanlan; I shouldn't have chosen your post as an example. I was trying to say that anyone who skips over three days of discussion in a thread (with no clear mark that he was doing so)--especially when that anyone is someone like The Schaef--will inevitably have the effect of forcing the whole conversation to jump back in time which will lead to rehashing of old claims. Especially when there is a fundamental disconnect between the two sides of the discussion and what was posted would tend to exacerbate that problem.

I should have simply stated my concern as such.

I think if a change is needed/desired, then it would be that your = (own OR permanently/semi-permanently control) AND temporarily control. That way:

I am not sure you want/need "own" in the first half of the OR clause, otherwise I believe this is what I understood both JSB and Pol to be asking for. 

Unfortunately, the suggestion makes it more confusing. I see it that if I band (or something like a Choose the blocker card) and my Opponents Human is in Battle, then Hormah still works with Opponents Character, and it makes the definition of Opponent questionable too and destroys Kir too.

If I band to my opponent's character, I do not have permanent/semi-permanent control of the character. As such--even though I have temporary control over the character--my opponent's character is still "his" character" and not "my" character. So, discarding my opponent's EC (whom I have banded to) would not trigger Hormah's sa.

Do you disagree with this analysis? If so, why?

In order to avoid more (mis)interpretation of others' positions, Imma lock this thread. I'd say that the positions were fairly well laid out, and I don't see continuing the discussion here as being productive.

I doubt that the definition of "your" will change anytime this season, but it may be something that can be looked at as a rule change for next season.