I think that the current descriptions are more in keeping with the theme/story of this game. So whilst having text that is readily understood is important I do wonder if 'santising' the text, even if it made it easier to understand, might take away from the overall look and feel of the game.

And if you will, here's an easy solution to everything:

From a game play mechanics point of view, your idea is a slam dunk.

But, game designers have to think about more than that. An example is manufacturability and graphics artists cost.

To have space for a sub-type under "treachery" a different card template might be required, which means paying for more graphics time and more time at the printer since there would no longer be a 'generic' treachery template. In addition, there are ergonomic considerations. Maybe during early play-testing some folks were confused by the sub-text. This also gets into the look and feel that chuckles speaks of.

My "solution" is for card text readability, stop dragging rules into this.

And if you will, here's an easy solution to everything:

In the card type box, add a sub-type "attachment". So, simple treacheries are treacheries and treacheries with attachment effect are "Attachment Treacheries" by type.

And a simple rule: While Attachment Treachery card is being revealed it's treated as trechery, when it get's attached, it stops being treated as trechery and is treated as attachment from now on. As simple as that.

How do you not drag rules into this. You can't make a card that doesn't follow the rules. If making a card more readable breaks the rules, then it doesn't work. I do, however, sorta like this additional bit of solution. Another solution would just be to say "Counts as an attachment" at the end of the When Revealed effect. It's still more readable and doesn't require any sub-types or extra rules.

From a game play mechanics point of view, your idea is a slam dunk.

And if you will, here's an easy solution to everything:

But, game designers have to think about more than that. An example is manufacturability and graphics artists cost.

To have space for a sub-type under "treachery" a different card template might be required, which means paying for more graphics time and more time at the printer since there would no longer be a 'generic' treachery template. In addition, there are ergonomic considerations. Maybe during early play-testing some folks were confused by the sub-text. This also gets into the look and feel that chuckles speaks of.

I understand the need to find a way to include the sub-type in the card design, though I would consider that a minor concern really. The box where the type is contained can just be widened and add " - Attachment" to the end of the card type or something similar. I also wouldn't think that the sub-type would be too confusing during play-testing.

It follows the rules, it just looks better and easier to come by.

It follows the rules, it just looks better and easier to come by.

That is your opinion, and the only one that matters!

I support OP 100%, game texts could have been much simpler on many cards.

Boom, there you go.

1) Has when revealed text for interaction purposes?(Test of Will, Eleanor) -Check.

2) Has attachment type for interaction purposes?(Miner of Iron Hills) -Check

3) Has treachery type for interaction purposes?(Palantir) -Check

4) Has a condition trait interaction purposes?(Miner of Iron Hills again) -Check

Simple rule: While it's being revealed - it's a treachery. After it's "When revealed" effect triggers successfully - it stops being treachery and becomes attachment.

Thats great but why are you still having an argument about this, the game has existed the way it does for years, rather than complain about it enjoy it or stop playing

I see and agree with the appointed problem, but it's complex. For example, A Test of Will cancels "When Revealed" effects, but it doesn't say what to do with the card after that. In this case we would have a card that should be doing something, but it does nothing because it wasn't attached to anything. And it won't be discarded because is an Attachment. But there may be other problems: Will Eleanor work with this new type of card? How will it work with Palantir? Rules must be solid, and the way these Treachery-Attachments are currently written is solid.

Sub-types and co-types' problem is as old as the expandable card games. When Magic the Gathering tried to fix it, they changed the core rules, and the text of hundreds of cards printed before the change.

Thats great but why are you still having an argument about this, the game has existed the way it does for years, rather than complain about it enjoy it or stop playing

Thats great but why are you still posting in this thread?

I see and agree with the appointed problem, but it's complex. For example, A Test of Will cancels "When Revealed" effects, but it doesn't say what to do with the card after that. In this case we would have a card that should be doing something, but it does nothing because it wasn't attached to anything. And it won't be discarded because is an Attachment. But there may be other problems: Will Eleanor work with this new type of card? How will it work with Palantir? Rules must be solid, and the way these Treachery-Attachments are currently written is solid.

Sub-types and co-types' problem is as old as the expandable card games. When Magic the Gathering tried to fix it, they changed the core rules, and the text of hundreds of cards printed before the change.

As I mentioned above - as soon as When Revealed effects triggers(meaning that card attaches to the target), treachery stops being treachery and becomes attachment. IF when revealed effect is prevented from resolving, treachery remains treachery and enters discard pile without being attached. As simple as that.

To put it more simple: Treachery Attachment card is considered a Treachery all times except while it's attached to something. As soon as it stops beaing attached(like discarded by Miner of the Iron Hills), it stops being attachment, becomes treachery again and enters discard pile.

deleted

From FAQ

(1.23) Attachments

Any objective card that attaches to another card is

treated as an attachment in addition to its other card

types.

Any non-objective card that attaches to another card

loses its original card type and gains the attachment

card type.

The “Attach to...” rules text on an attachment is only a

play restriction, and is not taken into account after the

card is already attached.

Well, that works into my favor here, doesn't it?

From FAQ

(1.23) Attachments

Any objective card that attaches to another card is

treated as an attachment in addition to its other card

types.

Any non-objective card that attaches to another card

loses its original card type and gains the attachment

card type.

The “Attach to...” rules text on an attachment is only a

play restriction, and is not taken into account after the

card is already attached.

Well, that works into my favor here, doesn't it?

That's why a Treachery doesn't need the Attachment type.

Well, what's all the fluff of "omg this is against the rules" about then?

The only thing that my original concept needed is removal of Attachment trait, which was trivial.

Well, what's all the fluff of "omg this is against the rules" about then?

The only thing that my original concept needed is removal of Attachment trait, which was trivial.

The whole discussion is trivial. It has been addressed and there isn´t anything gained from playing Captain Hindsight: "what they should have done from the beginning..." is too easy when you don´t know how the game is evolving and no matter how covered you think you are rules-wise there will always be holes that needs to be addressed as new things are being added and interact in unforeseen ways.

Dude. Those encounter attachments are there from the very core set. There are no foresight involved in here.

There is also no reason for it. Just read the cards.

Well, why don't they made enemies as treacheries which read:

"When Revealed: Put this card into staging area. Counts as enemy with 34 engagement cost, 3 threat, 2 attack, 3 defense, 4 hit points, Spider trait and text: When Revealed: Each player exhausts everything he has".

There IS a reason for it. It's called usability.

Well, why don't they made enemies as treacheries which read:

"When Revealed: Put this card into staging area. Counts as enemy with 34 engagement cost, 3 threat, 2 attack, 3 defense, 4 hit points, Spider trait and text: When Revealed: Each player exhausts everything he has".

There IS a reason for it. It's called usability.

Because then enemies could be cancelled with "A Test of Will"?

Ok. Throw in the cannot be canceled wording. Doesn't changes my point and lack of yours at all.

That is the whole issue. My only point is that I don´t believe you have a point.

Try to specify it in a full and concise sentence please. No extra talk-sauce please.

You're free to believe whatever you wish. What I believe is that I said(and provided) enough in this thread to present and prove my point.

All cards that are attached gain the attachment type as per the FAQ 1,23.

Therefore adding attachment as a keyword is irrelevant as it is always implied once a card is attached.

Therefore this discussion has no merit.

God, you didn't even bothered to read this thread...