On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:35 PM juan via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote: > > So here goes a draft. > > So, I came upon a problem. Suppose I had the following rule (excerpt) > > --- RULE DRAFT --- > The Gamemastor is an Office. > > Cards are assets tracked by the Gamemastor. Cards have the following > attributes > > * Type; a string > * Rarity; a natural number > * Action; text > * Condition; text > > plus other attributes, depending on its Type, as defined by the rules. > > A Player CAN, by announcement, play a card e owns, whereupon e performs > the action specified in the card's Action, and if successful discards > that card. > --- END --- > > How could such a rule allow for cards (rare, one would assume) that > allow actions at greater power levels? > > One way to do it is to defer to rules that create card types to explicitly > say a player can perform the actions, but that is clunky. Another, and > this is the one I don't know if it will work, is to just say something > to the effect that “for a Rule to define a card type means, besides, > to make it so players CAN perform […]”, but I don't think it will > work. What do you think?
Pretty sure you need (as we've done before) different powered rules containing card descriptions. I think one way to get around having "CAN" in every description, is to change "action" to "effect" (that is, the only action is "playing the card", and the effect is what happens after that). This sort of text might work: "A player CAN, by announcement, play a card e owns, specifying the necessary information for playing that card type. Unless blocked by other rules, this causes the effects defined for that card to be applied, and if they are applied successfully the card is discarded." Then the power=2 cards can be in a Power=2 rule that says: The following Cards are defined: Type: Vote Card Effect: The voting strength of a specified player is increased by X. (rarity, condition omitted)
