Talk:Rules

Locking the game

There seems to be a flaw in the Rules.

Specifically, where an Action can trigger another Action, it's possible to enter an infinite loop that cannot be legally broken without banning a card from the game. For example, if an Action card reads "Draw a card and immediately play it", and all other Things are in play and all other Actions are in players' hands, it effectively stalls the game forever. There should be some rule to deal with this, such as an arbitrary "Each Action card cannot be played more than n times each turn". -Bucky 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You can legally break any infinite loop by agreeing to change the rules or the card. I don't know if it'd be useful to have a section of obscure and ultra-pedantic rules for reference in serious games of pre-existing decks - we can't catch every possible infinite loop or paradox, in a system where the card sets aren't rigorously tested. --Kevan 12:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

Look, there was nothing wrong with the old rules. Why not just revert it to the original rules and leave as is?--Nm8r 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I felt they were too stale and unfriendly - I wrote them in the very early days of Dvorak when I wasn't really sure where the emphasis should lay (and when I wasn't such a good rule-writer), and I think they come across as being far too dusty and serious, seven years later, for what should be a very casual and friendly game. My rewrite was to make them more accessible to new players.

In terms of logical rule statement there was nothing wrong with them, but in terms of general readability and friendliness, I didn't think they were doing that good a job. If you've got any specific feedback, though, it'd be good to hear it. --Kevan 09:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert this again, particularly if "there is nothing wrong with the old rules" is your only argument. I'm completely open to feedback, but this is a site that I put up for a game I invented, and I intend to have the final say over which version of the ruleset is presented to the public. --Kevan 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to provide the dusty rules on a separate page, for those who like them? I know people who are more at home with longer rules, even if they're in the minority. --Octavo 04:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Pongo 18:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but if there are any serious problems or oversights with the new ruleset, it'd be good to discuss and address them. --Kevan 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Way to Win?

I would like to suggest adding a rule (probably under the advanced rules) that states that whenever a player plays a card or makes an action that essentially "breaks the game", then the player that caused the game to "break" wins. Please comment. --Gimlear 05:25, 8 September 2008 (BST)

That seems fun as an optional special rule to use occasionally, but the instinctive default of "if the game breaks, it's a draw" is maybe healthier in general. --Kevan 11:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

CCG sets

I don't think ALL the CCG sets here can be described as 'fledgling'. Maybe mine can, but there's certainly not 'a few' of them, either.--Xahn Borealis 11:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good call; I've reworded it. --Kevan 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)