Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I disagree, and therefore I don't consider my example "horrible" (thank you for that).

And it doesn't change the fact that we have an existing example of how to define most that can give us direction on how to treat other cards using the exact same phrase.

I have to say that Schaef's is the only logic I can understand and thus agree with.

But it doesn't have the same phrase.

It doesn't say "the most"? 

A precedent was set by Jethro with a similar wording, and Schaef says "most" means "more than anyone else," so I'm going with that for now.

then if it's a tie you would get to make another rescue because you don't have the 'most' rescued.

C'mon Cactus, get it together

That's what we call an escalator. Insulting Cactus will only make people mad at each other, so try using "I" messages instead, as in, "I'm annoyed that this card was worded the way it was." This will prevent angry outbreaks.

(Huh, maybe Issues & Wellness wasn't such a worthless class. )

Hey, it worked! Maybe I'll start trying to be that guy from now on; I seem to be pretty good at it.

In all seriousness though, while I do agree that the card could have been worded less suspiciously, it seemed relatively obvious to me from the beginning what the intent was.

I just am baffled that no playtesters had this same question.

You assume too much.

C'mon Cactus, get it together:
Two possible wordings here would have eliminated this whole discussion, depending on how it was intended:

If ties still allow a rescue:
"if no player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

If ties do not allow a rescue:
"unless the rescuing player has the most redeemed souls, or is tied for most, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

How did all you playtesters play this? Did this never come up as a question?

Or you could be like me, and ignore this card completly because eventually no one will think its worth the card slot

It did come up among the playtesters--I had forgotten about it though. The idea behind the wording was to keep a player in the lead from getting an extra shot but also not requiring that a player have the fewest LS rescued in a MP game--we wanted to give a 2nd or 3rd place player an extra rescue.

Personally I would much rather not give this extra power to Grapes, but it seems that is the way it's going to be.

"if any player has more redeemed souls than rescuing player, that player may begin another rescue attempt"

Previous post edited. But read the above. Wouldn't that wording have eliminated this whole question? I just think we should keep our eyes open for alternate wordings that answer questions before they are asked. I'm glad at least it came up as a question in playtesting, but given that, I'm not sure why the wording wasn't changed. It's not that big of a deal.

I don't want to come across as overly critical or anything. The way it is written on the card is how it is and there's no use crying over spilled milk. I'm just trying to be proactive with new cards that may come out. On that note, pointing out how awesome this set is (which I agree with) and how much work went into it (clearly a lot) doesn't really have much to do with the subject at hand. Unless you mean to imply that because this new set is so good (which it is) I have no right to level any complaint, however minor, against it. Don't mistake my push for clearer wordings for dissatisfaction with an awesome new set.