Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 230

Thread: Indines spoilers?

  1. #51
    Senior Member Doji_Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sheffield, England
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by dutpotd View Post
    Way to spoil cards that aren't released and don't make sense... <hopes whoever is designing or proof-reading these doesn't leave discard redirects on in-play staging area effects (and they say my cards have too much text ) >

    Actually, I just want Righteousness back, this is a an asset-action no? Discard for 1 momentum? Or can I just play that when its in play (and not from hand). Need to know this stuff now ^^
    Can I has righteousness pwease?
    2011 UK Team National Champion
    2012 UK National Champion
    2012 UK Team National Champion
    2015 UK Extended National Champion
    2016 UK Team National Champion
    2017 UK Team National Champion

    Just a washed up scrub who has to be dragged to victory these days...

  2. #52
    Senior Member Ryunosuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    622
    I think you are being overly technical here. Just like Sugar and Spice we all know the intended use and function and thus how it mechanically should work really and the card itself is fine imo

  3. #53
    Senior Member -OMB-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryunosuke View Post
    I think you are being overly technical here. Just like Sugar and Spice we all know the intended use and function and thus how it mechanically should work really and the card itself is fine imo
    I'd say the exact opposite. Card games work because they function within a rigid set of rules so that two people can look at the same card and both understand exactly how it functions within that framework. When you start having bad or loose wording it leads to disagreements and cards that don't work. Saying "intent is clear" basically just means "this is bad design, but I think I know what they were going for". We just had a monthly promo that got an errata to function properly and the intent on that card was crystal clear it just didn't work within the framework of the rules.

    I'm all for interesting effects, but part of design's job is getting proper wording for things. I've done fan design for other games and I've spent hours and hours pouring over rules documents and other card effects to make sure I have commas in the right places. It sucks, but it's the little things that make everything go smoothly.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Cetonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vernon, CT
    Posts
    3,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryunosuke View Post
    I think you are being overly technical here. Just like Sugar and Spice we all know the intended use and function and thus how it mechanically should work really and the card itself is fine imo
    You -can- operate a game's rules that way, but then you have major top cuts delayed for three hours while people argue about subjective interpretations or try to lawyer "loopholes". The idea behind a comprehensive rulebook is to codify things precisely enough so that this becomes impossible - you look at the relevant rules, look at the hopefully well-worded card text, and you can answer any question.

    In this case, the pertinent rules snip is this:
    E.4 Playing a Card or Ability
    The following describes the process of playing a card or an ability. In the case of an action card, both the card and the chosen ability are played in one process.

    E.4.1 Announce which card or ability you are going to play.
    E.4.1.1 You may not attempt to play a card or ability that you cannot pay the costs for (excluding control checks).
    E.4.1.2 You may not attempt to play a card unless it has a resource symbol that is present on both your character and on every card in your card pool that has resource symbols.

    E.4.2 If you are playing a card, add it to the transitional zone.
    E.4.2.1 If, after gaining a new current state (see C.3.3.4), the card no longer meets the requirements in E.4.1.2, discard it from the transitional zone and abort this process.

    E.4.3 Starting at this time, all game events that would occur are suspended until E.4.5

    E.4.4 Pay all costs associated with the card or ability, excluding control checks.
    E.4.4.1 If playing an ability, pay the printed costs first, in order as they are written on the card.
    E.4.4.2 Then pay any costs added by effects, in the order of your choosing.

    E.4.5 At this time, all game events that would have occurred during E.4.4 (but were suspeded by E.4.3) occur now as a single event.
    The E.4.3 / E.4.5 mechanism could perhaps use a note to explain this, but the upshot is that you can't play responses and effects can't trigger before or during the process of paying the non-check costs of a card or ability. Including Sugar and Spice, as well as this.

    The reason for this is because without that, we can't have E.4.1.1. You would have to allow for players to "try" to play abilities whether they have the capacity to pay all its non-check costs or not, just in case they have some responses or triggers that might change the game state in between one part of the cost and the next.

    In other words, if you had a cost like "F Destroy 1 foundation, discard 1 momentum:", a player would have to be allowed to try and fail to activate it over and over just to destroy foundations at will, which is something that has never been allowed since (afaik) day 1 of the game's inception.

    So we need E.4.1.1, but then you need the game to be able to accurately determine whether or not a cost is payable. That can't happen so long as action cards and abilities playable from the hand exist - the rules (and players) can't be told they have to parse every permutation of every possible combination of action cards in the game, plus any ensuing interactions that may occur from staging areas.

    The answer to this is to 'lock down' that part of the process. If it's not possible for surprise / optional effects to change the picture, (replacement effects which exist prior to cost payment aside) then it becomes perfectly plausible to tell whether a cost can be paid or not. But then in turn, effects like Sugar and Spice (and this) need to be worded carefully in order to allow them to do their intended job.

    As for what the errata would need to be, in this case it probably needs to be a 'static' replacement effect. Early in the morning, but something like:

    If your character is Khadath, while this card is in your staging area, when paying costs you may destroy this asset instead of destroying 1 foundation or discarding 1 momentum.
    Last edited by Cetonis; 04-01-2016 at 06:39 AM.

  5. #55
    Just make it a static "if, then" statement. As Shaneth had said on facebook, "If your character is Khadath, you may use this card in your staging area to pay the cost of destroying 1 foundation or discarding 1 momentum." or something like that.

  6. #56
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by -OMB- View Post
    I'd say the exact opposite. Card games work because they function within a rigid set of rules so that two people can look at the same card and both understand exactly how it functions within that framework. I've done fan design for other games and I've spent hours and hours pouring over rules documents and other card effects to make sure I have commas in the right places. It sucks, but it's the little things that make everything go smoothly.
    100% this. I actually can't play certain card games because the wording on the cards, or they've gone through so many tiny infinitesimal differences in card effects due to balance and it makes things really really bad.
    2016 UFS Team Worlds: 3rd place, Demitri Life

  7. #57
    Member sdejarn2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Finnrot View Post
    Just make it a static "if, then" statement. As Shaneth had said on facebook, "If your character is Khadath, you may use this card in your staging area to pay the cost of destroying 1 foundation or discarding 1 momentum." or something like that.
    I think the real issue with this sort of re-worked wording though is from my initial reading of the sub-par text such a change actually makes this card better than was intended perhaps. Then again I don't necessarily know that but given the fact that it was setup as an R I'm thinking that was the plan.

    As written on the card currently:
    I play Finale Rosso and only have 1 momentum and the Key in my staging area. I can play Multiple 1 because I have 1 momentum. I cannot play Multiple 2, the key is not allowed to be discarded to pay any part of the cost directly. It is in response to something attempting to be discard or destroyed as a cost (as Cetonis points out this will take place during step/rule E.4.5, this ability would be played as a response to this game action).

    Conversely with the modified wording and interpretation people seem to be going with that scenario plays out as:
    I play Finale Rosso and only have 1 momentum and the Key in my staging area. I can play Multiple 1 discarding 1 momentum because I have 1 momentum. I can play Multiple 1 discarding the Key. I can play Multiple 2 discarding 1 momentum and also discarding the key.

    Honestly the more I read that card and look at the LGR I don't actually think I see an issue here. I may just be interpreting the intent of the card wrong because of how I think it actually plays but I think people are getting hung up on the wrong thing. I don't think this card lets you circumvent E.4.1.1 at all, it just replaces something that happens at E.4.5. Of which I don't see any particular problem with this (I don't know if Sugar and Spice actually needed an errata to deal with this either, then again when was that Errata and when did the LGR end up with this formatting?, I will admit the errataed text is cleaner and simpler for that card of course but it also altered how that card interacts with other cards and effects [HRK R would keep the card from being destroyed and returning, Tough and Cool doesn't commit but rather gets destroyed and then comes back into play]).

    I think the real danger here is just that the LGR doesn't actually mention anything weird happening if for some reason costs somehow cannot be paid come E.4.5. Then again I don't think there are any response abilities that exist which would throw a wrench into that right now. That might be something that should be added perhaps to just make it along the lines of "failing your control check". But even right now with the way I'm thinking this card operates you cannot actually end up in a situation where you can fail to pay the cost come E.4.5. You can use the ability on this card to attempt to replace the cost but if for some reason someone decides to cancel it with Out of Your League or Avoiding Danger you were already set to pay the cost to begin with. No replacement for you, just discard the 1 momentum or destroy the 1 foundation you were already set to.
    Last edited by sdejarn2; 04-01-2016 at 10:16 AM.

  8. #58
    Senior Member Cetonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vernon, CT
    Posts
    3,375
    Honestly the more I read that card and look at the LGR I don't actually think I see an issue here.
    The issue is that you literally can't play that response ability at the time it wants to be played.

    All game events (in other words, "triggers") are suspended by E.4.3 until after the non-check costs have all been paid, then anything that happened during that process gets treated and responded to as if it all happened at the same time. So you wouldn't be able to use this R until after you've already discarded the momentum or destroyed the foundation.

    I think the real danger here is just that the LGR doesn't actually mention anything weird happening if for some reason costs somehow cannot be paid come E.4.5.
    The point of E.4.3 is to make that impossible. Any kind of active replacement effect that might modify cost payment is going to be public knowledge and can thus be accounted for in the E.4.1.1 determination.

  9. #59
    Member sdejarn2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    167
    I think I see what you are saying and yeah I'm not dense and understand who around here wrote these documents. But I'm still not entirely certain I understand or agree from reading the document.

    From the time you lock things with E.4.3 until the time costs actually are properly paid during E.4.5 from the game state perspective you are simply choosing which things will pay those costs. Correct? According to the game state, literally nothing has been allowed to happen. At E.4.5 the lock is gone. Really it's just a question of whether this lock is seen to be released immediately before or immediately after E.4.5. I guess you're saying the lock is gone immediately after E.4.5 executes? I was thinking it would clear immediately before. I'm not actually certain I see the potential harm in allowing this response window here by releasing the lock immediately before.

    As mentioned you may need to have a caveat for costs somehow not being capable of being paid at that point due to some responses which could then be played there, but I don't know if any actually exist. There probably is some nonsense in Legacy and maybe Extended that I just am not aware of but I don't think Standard has anything along these lines (I may just not be thinking broadly enough about the myriad of effects though).
    Last edited by sdejarn2; 04-01-2016 at 10:35 AM.

  10. #60
    Senior Member Cetonis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Vernon, CT
    Posts
    3,375
    The lock is released after the cost has been paid, so there's no way for anything to interject and make a cost unpayable - or importantly, payable when it might not have been initially.

    If responses were allowed, we'd have to axe 4.1.1 - after all, there are cards like Dashed Hopes that can lead into all kinds of nonsense that might allow a player to actually pay a cost they couldn't before. Keeping 4.1.1 and allowing responses would introduce various inconsistencies that aren't worth it when they could just word one card per five years properly instead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO