Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Aug 18, 2019.
xDDD troll, i mean season 11
No trolling on my part... we are not yet on ITS11... if you say now that no answer to FAT2 will come in Season 11, then we'll have to wait for N4. Or I'm misunderstanding something here? (sincere confusion) :S
A bit late to this particular party, but I wanted to offer my 2 cents.
As we were talking about another game, I wanted to offer some context. Magic's rules were completely formalised by 1999, and it was the work of one guy. Yes, he himself said he got a lot of feedback from internal playtesters and the community, but I would argue CB has those same options.
Now, this is separate from maintenance (ensuring older cards still work with each new environment) and playtesting. Now that is a monumental task for Magic, although we're still talking only 10-15 people for an individual set. But it's a game with more than 18,000 individual cards and more than 200 keywords abilities, and I think everyone can agree Infinity is still very, very far from those numbers.
So I think the clarity in the rules of Magic, rather than being an unattainable standard, are a rather good example of something CB should and could strive for.
I also wanted to address your opinion concerning the use of common sense. Having a reputation for lax, poorly written rules - and it seems for some, poor playtesting - will detrimentally affect how people react when they hit a snag. First and foremost, players will not simply trust the written rules, even when and if those rules are actually correct. This lead to the second issue: people will be more willing to argue a rule must be written wrong when they feel balance is out of whack. This is not conducive to fun, and I strongly disagree this is the fault of players being rule-lawyers. It's the direct consequence of a lack of trust in the rules as written.
To exemplify through this current thread, jammers and fireteams: either the rules are at fault and the written word should be disregarded; or the rules are tight and the interaction is overpowered - and hence, has been poorly tested, I guess. These are the 2 options most commonly argued, and because of CB's reputation, both are reasonable, because both are expected outcomes. Common sense can't sort this. But worst, the third option, the rules are written properly AND the interaction has been properly tested and is not overpowered, is the least common one mentioned on the forum! This is also a direct result of lack of trust.
Even with imperfect rules, a general reputation for clarity and precision leads to players finding themselves more often in agreement on whether a case is a true outlier that needs house ruling. Only then can common sense be used to resolve the situation.
Anyway, I look forward to the upcoming FAQ.