Jump to content

WonderWAAAGH

Members
  • Content Count

    6,103
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WonderWAAAGH

  1. Possibly, but only if I can get FFG to sticky the thread this time. I was holding out hope for more than 4-5 stories over the course of 2+ months. Still, I'm always excited to see how creative people can be in explaining their Archon's title. Yeah, that's my bad. 😞
  2. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Apologies again to all the entrants for taking my sweet @#$ time getting around to this; you put in the time and energy to craft some terrific stories, I should have put in the time and energy to address them sooner. I'm ashamed of myself, frankly, for not having done so. @backupsidekick Message me so we can get the ball rolling on your prize. You should have had it a month ago!
  3. "Go to the discard pile" is replaced with "go to your hand."
  4. I wasn't disagreeing with you. A replacement effect takes the place of another effect, usually part of the core rules. In this case Penny would normally go to the discard pile, but that framework effect is instead replaced by her trigger text. "If this creature would be destroyed, place it in its owner's hand instead of the discard pile."
  5. If you press the little + symbol in the bottom left corner of somebody's post it will add it to your multi-quote queue. Then you can click the multi-quote box that pops up on the bottom right and it will generate quote boxes for each separate poster in one single post, so you can address all of them without having to keep typing out their names.
  6. This is just a simple replacement effect.
  7. That also means FFG had 25+ years of card game "dos and don'ts" to learn from, but they chose not to.
  8. I fear we're going to end up with some SW: Destiny deja vu before all is said and done. To wit: what happens when a "before destroyed" effect prevents an object from being destroyed in the first place? Is it still destroyed, and if not, does the destroyed effect trigger anyways?
  9. Is "Before Destroyed" a new rules function that needs to be addressed now?
  10. I accept that they are real issues, and I've been making the same complaints about FFG for years - here, and occasionally in person. The totality of my frustration has amounted to an understanding that FFG starts every game deaf, dumb, and blind to all of their own franchises as well as their competitors. FFG, as a brand, has come to rely on gimmicks, loyalty, and market saturation over quality R&D. How can we change these facts? We probably can't, but coming here to b**** about how you lost $400 is probably the least productive way to go about trying.
  11. How did we let a complaint thread get to a second page? 😕
  12. Let me give some examples using very basic, common effects. You have a card in play that says your creatures get one more power. Your opponent has a card in play that says all creatures get one less power. Here are the questions that arise: Which effect is resolved first? Does playing a creature with only 1 power go straight to the discard pile? If there is some order of precedence, what is it? Is it by when the lasting effect was created (effects that were there first are resolved first)? Is it by who controls it (apply your lasting effects first, then your opponent's)? Is it by card type (lasting effects created by permanents first, then action cards)? Is it by active house / inactive house? For effects that trigger off of creature power, when is that power calculated? If, for example, a trigger reads "do X when a creature with 2 power comes into play," does it trigger when you play something with 1 power (coming into play with one more)? Does it trigger when you play something with 2 power (coming into play with one less)? That's just two cards with basic effects. Imagine how much more complicated it could be with other cards: You have a card in play that says your Brobnar creatures get one more power. Your opponent has a card in play that says all creatures get one less power. You play an action card that makes all of your creatures Brobnar until end of turn. Same questions as above.
  13. I know you're probably not interested, but here are the rules for continuous effects in Magic: https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Continuous_effect I bring them up here only to illustrate the variety of common interactions that might come up in the future, interactions that wouldn't even be on somebody's radar unless they had some experience with them. Without a definition for "lasting effects," we wouldn't know: 1) How to identify the duration of the effect 2) How to apply the effect if it would somehow be invalidated or changed upon resolution (like an illegal target) 3) What it applies to, and whether or not that can be changed 4) When the value of a variable is determined, and if that variable can be changed 5) If they apply to the card that is creating them, especially in the case of permanents And then there's the ultimate nightmare of rules interactions: layers. When you have two competing lasting effects, how do they interact with each other? Which takes precedence, and what order are they resolved in?
  14. You can't introduce new game functions, which have a tangible effect on the way the game is played, without explicitly defining them and addressing how they interact with other aspects of the game. The whole "I can understand it now, so it clearly doesn't need to be more complex" mentality is exactly what landed us in this hot mess in the first place. Do you think the developers and play testers felt the same way at launch, that the rules were good and the mechanics intuitive enough that nobody could have possibly misunderstood how to play the game? Because if they had thought otherwise, there might not be so much red text. To paraphrase @Rabbitball: fix it now or fix it later, but it's going to have to be fixed. Sooner is better.
  15. "I'm angry, where can I go on the internet to complain?"
  16. Looks like we now need a section and definition for "lasting effects."
  17. Timing rules (a stack would be nice) and triggered/replacement effects. The "active player chooses" thing is lazy design and an obvious cop out. "Do as much as you can" has to be the most nebulous wording I've read in a rules document, and desperately needs attention. Targeting rules. "Can I heal card [X] if it doesn't have any damage?" is a function of poor card templating; in this case the target should be explicitly legal or illegal. Nearly all of these are spelled out in section 608 of the Magic Comprehensive Rulebook. While KeyForge isn't Magic (and doesn't need to be), it would be helpful to see how other franchises manage these gaming conventions. Before people jump down my throat, FFG already emulates the stack in other games, albeit awkwardly and FIFO instead of LIFO. The lack of a RRG here is utterly perplexing. Oh, and objects. Silly of them to open that door without properly addressing it in written form. -- Consider that in just one type of interaction already in the game - Bad Penny / Yxilo Bolter - we need to manage 1) triggers (replacement effects), 2) targeting, 3) objects, and 4) zones. The rule set, as currently presented, is woefully inadequate at managing any single one of those, if it describes them at all. How confident are we that the next set will be any more intuitive if FFG doesn't make some attempt to address these now?
  18. I've only been informative on this topic, insofar as I'm aware. You asked questions in this other thread that I answered in some considerable detail, since I assumed you were being earnest. I'm not making a connection between being well-versed in Magic and only "peripherally aware" of other games, unless you mistakenly believed my call for evidence was made out of complete ignorance. In which case, what have I been doing on these forums all this time? The two sets of knowledge are not mutually exclusive, I assure you. I'm not judging you for your post count; rather, I'm highlighting just how contentious FFG's rules writing must be to warrant so much deliberation. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding (probably a better aphorism than anything attributed to Stalin).
  19. I played X-Wing up through Wave 5, 40k: Conquest, Destiny, Imperial Assault, and briefly dabbled with L5R. I've had very few interactions with FFG's rules writing that left me feeling they were anything other than suspect or incomplete, but at least some of them had reference guides at launch. Suffice it to say, I didn't get to 6,000+ posts here over the past 5 some-odd years because FFG writes good rules. If you have other examples I'd love to hear them, but I prefer you spare me any further condescension. Thanks.
  20. My point was that what is and isn’t elegant is a matter of opinion. The M;tG rules are exactly as short as they need to be to cover 25+ years of game development and evolution, and many of those are concepts that can be applied to other games as a matter of gaming logic. Is future proofing not a thing in programming?
  21. I would say no more so than the OED is inelegant, but then it's purely subjective on both accounts.
×
×
  • Create New...