Yes I did and that is your standard answer every time. A non-issue does not take long to dismiss.

I never added attachment as a keyword, I added it as a trait initally, but then removed and added attachment as an additional type of card. And no, you didn't, if you keep insisting on nonsense you're posting here.

Keyword or trait... both are irrelevant. A whole new type of card is even more irrelevant because, as has been pointed out earlier, that would require yet another type of counter among the player cards.

And all I am claiming is that the system is fine as it is and that your suggested alterations have no point.

If that is nonsense then, by extension, you´re claiming that the whole game, as it stands now, is nonsense.

On another note: this has dragged on for much longer than it has needed. The whole issue is answered in the FAQ (as has also been pointed out) and ought have stopped by that. Non-attachments become attachments when attached. No matter how they obtained that status. I don´t know how you can keep analyzing on that or cling to a lost cause about adding traits where not needed and/or whole new types of cards.

Keyword or trait... both are irrelevant. A whole new type of card is even more irrelevant because, as has been pointed out earlier, that would require yet another type of counter among the player cards.

And all I am claiming is that the system is fine as it is and that your suggested alterations have no point.

If that is nonsense then, by extension, you´re claiming that the whole game, as it stands now, is nonsense.

On another note: this has dragged on for much longer than it has needed. The whole issue is answered in the FAQ (as has also been pointed out) and ought have stopped by that. Non-attachments become attachments when attached. No matter how they obtained that status. I don´t know how you can keep analyzing on that or cling to a lost cause about adding traits where not needed and/or whole new types of cards.

Ok, I'll play along with you claiming that you had a read of the thread, while you clearly haven't.

First of all, it's readability. How well card text is layed out and how easy it's to read and understand. It was never about the rules until people dragged it out.

Second, when people brought up rule confusion which my layout could have brought, I made a fix, and even added a simple rule, as a result preserving current matters and all. Nothing in the game got changed, just encounter attachment would be much easier to read and understand.

Yes, all you're claiming that's system is fine and this is pointless in this thread, because no one tried to change the system. You would know this by now if you would have read the thread. But, once again, you didn't.

The rest of your text is irrelevant(oh, who am I kidding, your entire text is irrelevant) because you cleary don't get the entire point of what I have done there.

For someone who cares about readability and confusion you sure are making a hell of a mess from one thing. The wall of text arguing for shorter text is amusing.

For someone who cares about readability and confusion you sure are making a hell of a mess from one thing. The wall of text arguing for shorter text is amusing.

Are you going to play with my forum posts as some sort of cards?

The rest of your text is irrelevant(oh, who am I kidding, your entire text is irrelevant) because you cleary don't get the entire point of what I have done there.

So your whole argument cannot be boiled down to semantics?

Some would argue that if a thing isn´t broken you shouldn´t try to fix it.

Guess this means you would also prefer that this card gets the Attachment trait:

I can understand this decision on something like bats which then become attachment to someone damaged by them, but trecheries...

This is the quote from my very first post in this thread. My. Have you read anything in this thread at all?

As for "something not broken shouldn't be fixed", a dull blade is not broken, but it performs it's job better when it's sharpened.

My own rule of thumb is that I wait 1 hour before I post again. That spares others from watching a flame war drama.

Keyword or trait... both are irrelevant. A whole new type of card is even more irrelevant because, as has been pointed out earlier, that would require yet another type of counter among the player cards.

And all I am claiming is that the system is fine as it is and that your suggested alterations have no point.

If that is nonsense then, by extension, you´re claiming that the whole game, as it stands now, is nonsense.

On another note: this has dragged on for much longer than it has needed. The whole issue is answered in the FAQ (as has also been pointed out) and ought have stopped by that. Non-attachments become attachments when attached. No matter how they obtained that status. I don´t know how you can keep analyzing on that or cling to a lost cause about adding traits where not needed and/or whole new types of cards.

I don't think that the whole discussion is pointless. Sure, cards won't be changed. Sure, the system works lke it is.

Sure, there is no need to argue about something that is apparently pointless.

However, MNT isn't the only one who thinks that the card texts could have been worded better. And as I said earlier, I like that he does not only moan about that problem, but offers a suggestion how it could be done better. And I think that his suggestion has some merit, even if it's too late to implement it.

The problem is that there's no middle ground between both of your opinions. You're both right, depending from which PoV you look at the problem. Once you accept that (that and the fact that no one here is in possession of the Holy Grail of Truth), there shouldn't be a problem to respect each others opinion.

If you're answer to a someone's approach is "irrelevant" and "pointless", what kind of answer do you expect?

And if you tell everyone who is not of your opinion that they're "not able to understand your point", well, that mostly won't lead the discussion on a more productive level.

Dude, I'm not telling him his words irrelevant and pointless because he disagrees with me, I tell him this because he does not understands what's going on here.

Just look - I suggested a better wording and he brought up a FAQ entry and started bragging about keyword(which was never mentioned). And then tried to troll me by posting bats which I meantioned in my very first post of this thread.

There is two variants: he either can't understand my point(I don't mean he can't agree, to agree or disagree you must understand) or just fat trolling me by posting these stupid accusations of his. He proved many times he haven't read a word of my suggestion.

Blah blah blah.

Everyone else is dumb.

I am the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong.

Please attack him he's clearly trolling me and I am innocent of trolling.

Blah Blah Blah.

You didn't side directly with me but mildly supported both people you must be a troll in disguise!

Dude, I'm not telling him his words irrelevant and pointless because he disagrees with me, I tell him this because he does not understands what's going on here.

Just look - I suggested a better wording and he brought up a FAQ entry and started bragging about keyword(which was never mentioned). And then tried to troll me by posting bats which I meantioned in my very first post of this thread.

There is two variants: he either can't understand my point(I don't mean he can't agree, to agree or disagree you must understand) or just fat trolling me by posting these stupid accusations of his. He proved many times he haven't read a word of my suggestion.

Lol, Nerdmeister tends to have strong opinion and he isn't shy to say it, but I never saw him trolling anyone in this forum.

There's a third opiton by the way: he simply has another apporach to the problem.

Blah blah blah.

Everyone else is dumb.

I am the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong.

Please attack him he's clearly trolling me and I am innocent of trolling.

Blah Blah Blah.

You didn't side directly with me but mildly supported both people you must be a troll in disguise!

This is all I read when I see your posts at this point, this thread is useless.

This, OTOH, is trolling.

This, OTOH, is trolling.

I'm just reacting to being told multiple times that I don't know how to read and that everyone else is wrong, if you can't beat them, join them.

Dude, I'm not telling him his words irrelevant and pointless because he disagrees with me, I tell him this because he does not understands what's going on here.

Just look - I suggested a better wording and he brought up a FAQ entry and started bragging about keyword(which was never mentioned). And then tried to troll me by posting bats which I meantioned in my very first post of this thread.

There is two variants: he either can't understand my point(I don't mean he can't agree, to agree or disagree you must understand) or just fat trolling me by posting these stupid accusations of his. He proved many times he haven't read a word of my suggestion.

Lol, Nerdmeister tends to have strong opinion and he isn't shy to say it, but I never saw him trolling anyone in this forum.

There's a third opiton by the way: he simply has another apporach to the problem.

Approach to the problem? What problem? I approached the problem of encounter attachment text being a hardly readable mess. He is talking about FAQ, fixes to the rules and etc. He thinks I'm trying to re-write the rules of the game.