Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Awaclus]

Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.

Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.

Your statements aren't really in conflict with mine.  Your first point, "if it feels intuitive" -- that's just a less precise way of saying what I said.  When would a player find it intuitive that a Moat would block another card?  When that card forces you to do something you don't want to do, i.e. when it hurts you.

Your second point is more an exception than a rule, as far as we've seen in official cards.  You can use it to help explain why Masquerade and Possession aren't attacks, but it's not really necessary.  "Does it generally hurt?" is enough for those two (though it's controversial with Possession, sure).

According to your statement, Flare should be an Attack. According to mine, it shouldn't. They are in conflict.

[market squire]

I forgot about that Rats are actually pretty good if they are not part of the supply.

So there are 2 possibilities:

A) Have "nice Rats" and forget about the Attack.

Pied Piper (Action) $3
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand.
Gain up to 2 Rats from the Rats pile.


B) Add Rats to the supply and make them evil:

Pied Piper (Action-Attack) $3
+$2
Each other player gains a Rats.
_______________________
In games using this, if Rats are not in the Supply, add Rats to the Supply.


I guess the latter is less promising because the Rats pile does not scale with the number of players.

Printer (Action) $4
+3 Actions
+$1
__________________________
When you discard this from play, if you have played at least 3 Actions this turn (including this), you may trash this. If you do, gain a Library from the Library pile.

[eHalcyon]

Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.

Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.

Your statements aren't really in conflict with mine.  Your first point, "if it feels intuitive" -- that's just a less precise way of saying what I said.  When would a player find it intuitive that a Moat would block another card?  When that card forces you to do something you don't want to do, i.e. when it hurts you.

Your second point is more an exception than a rule, as far as we've seen in official cards.  You can use it to help explain why Masquerade and Possession aren't attacks, but it's not really necessary.  "Does it generally hurt?" is enough for those two (though it's controversial with Possession, sure).

According to your statement, Flare should be an Attack. According to mine, it shouldn't. They are in conflict.

I said it was an exception, given that it hasn't really been done with official cards.

[GendoIkari]

Awaclus, the first paragraph of your post is completely unhelpful to anyone. It makes me think of those annoying people that put up their hands in the middle of a long proof and interrupt the line of thoughts to say there should be 6 instead of 5 closing parenthesis at the end.

Without the first paragraph, there would have been nothing to "therefore" about. And then there would have been no post at all. I couldn't have made statements that were in conflict with eHalcyon's statement without pointing out why eHalcyon's statement isn't true. You can't think that only the first paragraph is completely unhelpful because everything else follows from it. Thinking that the entire post is completely unhelpful is reasonable, of course, but then it would be strange that you only complained about the first paragraph.

Your statements aren't really in conflict with mine.  Your first point, "if it feels intuitive" -- that's just a less precise way of saying what I said.  When would a player find it intuitive that a Moat would block another card?  When that card forces you to do something you don't want to do, i.e. when it hurts you.

Your second point is more an exception than a rule, as far as we've seen in official cards.  You can use it to help explain why Masquerade and Possession aren't attacks, but it's not really necessary.  "Does it generally hurt?" is enough for those two (though it's controversial with Possession, sure).

According to your statement, Flare should be an Attack. According to mine, it shouldn't. They are in conflict.

I said it was an exception, given that it hasn't really been done with official cards.

And even though it would be awkward wording, I think the card would be better if it had the attack type, and included the clause "Reactions may not be revealed in response to this being played."

[Rubby]

And even though it would be awkward wording, I think the card would be better if it had the attack type, and included the clause "Reactions may not be revealed in response to this being played."

And then there should be a Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits reactions, you may reveal this..."

And then there could also be an Ultra Flare card that says "Reactions may not be revealed, even if they say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions"

And then there could be a SUPER Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits even reactions that say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions..."

[GendoIkari]

And even though it would be awkward wording, I think the card would be better if it had the attack type, and included the clause "Reactions may not be revealed in response to this being played."

And then there should be a Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits reactions, you may reveal this..."

And then there could also be an Ultra Flare card that says "Reactions may not be revealed, even if they say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions"

And then there could be a SUPER Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits even reactions that say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions..."

 

[GendoIkari]

And even though it would be awkward wording, I think the card would be better if it had the attack type, and included the clause "Reactions may not be revealed in response to this being played."

And then there should be a Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits reactions, you may reveal this..."

And then there could also be an Ultra Flare card that says "Reactions may not be revealed, even if they say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions"

And then there could be a SUPER Super Moat card that says "When another player plays an Attack card, even if that card prohibits even reactions that say they can be revealed in response to cards that prohibit reactions..."

 

The game Kung Fu Fighting has something like that... you can make an attack unblockable, but even then it can by blocked by certain cards that say they can block even unblockable attacks.