Print

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

[GendoIkari]

I can see that, though the wording doesn't quite work out that way. The wording is set up more as a general rule, and not as an effect of the event.

That's because the Event (or in general any 0$, +1 Buy, no "once per turn" restriction Event) emulates a rule change. Gee, that's what this is all about, a stab, probably not a very good one, at the upcoming "gain now, pay later" mechanism.

But I don't want this rule to exist in every game, so it should be conditional upon the Event being there, and for practical reasons I obviously want the rule text on a card.
Just read in this thread about Ankenaut's Mortgage. According to Ankenaut it is totally game-changing and feels like a variant. I wanted something less radical though, hence the steeper costs via interest (Mortgage can be "payed back" at any time) and the restriction to only two cards.

There's no reason to ever buy that event that I can see.

Buying the Event costs nothing so it is moot to discuss whether you do or do not buy it. All the Event does is specify WHEN, namely during the Buy phase.
All this confusion on your part is obviously due to the fact that you do not seem to grasp the mechanical equivalence of a rule amendment and an zero cost Event.
Boils down to the usual error of rule lawyering before getting the mechanics. First you gotta consider how something works and whether it works fine before you express and formalize it perfectly. I'd rather discuss something actually relevant e.g. whether the implicit interest rate should be 1/2 and 1/3 and whether -3VP sounds like a decent penalty for default on a Loan.

I don't know why you're being so hostile towards GendoIkari. I happen to agree with him, that's why I suggested new wordings for the Credit event.

It seems like you're always hostile towards anyone who doesn't follow your flawed logic to arrive at the exact interpretation you do or that you intended. We're not you, so knock off the whole "rule lawyering" thing; caring about the rules, which you sometimes seem to not do, is not the same thing as being pedantic about them.

I just looked through some old threads and saw that this isn't the first time these types of discussions have happened with Tristan and I, or Tristan and others.

[LastFootnote]

I just looked through some old threads and saw that this isn't the first time these types of discussions have happened with Tristan and I, or Tristan and others.

Yeah, he can be a real horatio83 sometimes. 

[tristan]

I don't know why you're being so hostile towards GendoIkari. I happen to agree with him, that's why I suggested new wordings for the Credit event.

It seems like you're always hostile towards anyone who doesn't follow your flawed logic to arrive at the exact interpretation you do or that you intended.

I am not hostile towards Gendo. This is not about persons but principles.

I dislike rule-lawyering in general BEFORE you settle on how to implement a mechanic well. Very often folks post ideas here and the first or even only reactions are question about rule ambiguities and funky combos that rarely happen. I think that you should first consider whether the rough idea is good and what should be changed mechanically before you make a card watertight and perfectly worded. It makes little sense to fine-tune a card when the basics are not even settled yet.
Of course in the latter stages folks who are savvy about the rules and fine wording are useful (not that it is that relevant, most cards are only used by the folks who designed them anyway so they could easily explain any rule ambiguities to the folks they play with). But initially cards should be analyzed technically, especially in a case like this where the card includes a novel idea that could very well be total crap.

About "flawed logic", no idea about what you refer to. This card is about a new mechanism and naturally implies some rule changes. Folks who have an issue with that might wanna stick to more conservative cards instead of accusing fan card designers who do not care that deeply about staying within set parameters of using a "flawed logic".

[GendoIkari]

I think there's a different between discussing a mechanic and discussing a card.

I've posted a few threads in the variants forum suggesting a general idea that I think could be used on a card. But I didn't have an actual specific card to work with. If you post a full card, with a card name and price and text, then I think you should expect that people will treat it as a full card, and not as a mechanic idea.

And sometimes you won't be able to separate the mechanic from the text... you might have an idea of a mechanic that could work in theory, but the wording that would be needed would make the mechanic impractical or impossible. In this particular case, that could apply to the idea of "reducing the total cost of your buys". Such a mechanic requires wording that fits; and the discussion of if there's a wording that can do that IS discussing if the mechanic itself is viable.

If you didn't want your event to have it's specific wording discussed; then you could have posted a general idea instead of an actual event.

[tristan]

"This is a rough idea" ...