Wikipedia:Trading card game/Rules/Overruled

Rule proposals on this page were overruled by the rules approval committee. Please do not make changes to the discussions on this page; this is an archive.

Rule 37b

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} (Credit goes to Certes for coming up with this great fundraising idea.)

Rule: You may buy the Jimbo Wales card separately for an extra $100.

Dependencies: Card types must be established. One of the card types must lend itself to having a card called "Jimbo Wales".

Comments

I don't like it, purely because of the cost. Well, actually, I don't like the idea, either. Some people might decide to interpret it as being able to bribe Jimbo... Or some other stupid thing like that. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shold lower the price.--Raton Bat ^{Talk 2 me!!} 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the card would be included in your foil-wrapped expansion packets, if those are sold. Buying it directly would just ensure you got the card. However, this was originally intended as a joke, I think. Perhaps this is a good proposal to kill on the spot, though. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a user card

Denied Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

Rule: This is the procedure for playing a user card:

It must be the said player's turn
The player must not have played any action type cards yet (instant or edit) and must not have attempted to clean up a problem yet.
The player must have the user card he wishes to play in his hand.
The player must have enough centijimbos to play the card, as indicated on the card.

The player places the user card in his userspace and deducts the appropriate number of centijimbos.

Immediately upon playing the user card, any special text on the card takes effect.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

I think that each person should need to have a user card at the beginning; don't have it be something that you play on your turn, have it be something you start with. Then, when you upgrade your user card (have we decided that that is a good idea?), you need x number of centijimbos for that. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 22:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good thinking. This does rather look sockpuppetty. ;) I'll ditch this proposal immediately and come up with one that fits your suggestion; I like your thinking. Since you and I were the only people who helped approve the Userspace and User cards, I think it would be fair to remove that bit from the approved rules. So, rather than putting users in the userspace, perhaps rights/expertise cards would belong there. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go take a look at what I said on the talk page; it relates to this nomination. You can use that to help come up with a new proposal. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put the userspace to use

repealed by proposer Rule: The userspace will be used to manage special abilities of a player.

Cards which may be played in the userspace are called Userboxes.

Examples of possible userboxes:

Computer expert: Any time it is your turn, all articles related to computers have increased stats.
Highly Active User: Throughout the course of this game, you are permitted to play a total of three normal edit cards as though they were instants.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Seems like a good idea. However, that should also be where the "User" card is (unless we just have it separate), and where we would put whatever rights you might have gotten, like Rollback or Adminship. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "Jimbo" UAL to "Staff"

31 October 2010

Proposed by: Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)}

Rule: It might just be me, but replacing Jimbo seems to be implied here. Rather, I'm suggesting we replace the title with "staff". There are several staff members who have huge influences over Wikipedia (and the rest of Wikimedia Foundation).

Dependencies: None.

Comments

No. It just seems... right, having a Jimbo-class card. Even though there are many people, Jimbo is the most well known, and many Wikipedia users who hear about this game will no doubt find it funny, and perhaps they would then be more persuaded to buy the game. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles and Vandalism

Proposed by: ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)}

Rule: Article cards cannot be upgraded while they contain vandalism.

Dependencies: None.

Comments

Whoops. I think this already got approved; I must have forgotten to include it in the rules. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max limit on deck

Proposed by: CanvasHat 22:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule: Decks can only have 200 cards

Dependencies: ~~None~~ Dependent on action taken when the deck runs out.

Comments

I don't see the point... ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A deck with even 201 cards seems a bit excessive... and what happens if someone runs out?--CanvasHat 16:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Players could just agree on how many cards to have each before they begin. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah.--CanvasHat 19:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the games I've played, the only two restrictions on deck size have been these:

You must own the cards.
The selected deck must conform to the deck-building guidelines (usually highly restrictive guidelines).
In order to have any number of cards above 50, a certain number of some type of card must be present (usually this guideline is what keeps decks small, due to the rarity of the cards needed).

I've not played a trading card game yet where a max made sense. Actually, having a large deck increases the variety of the game quite nicely, and it could even be argued that a large deck could hurt you if your cards are shuffled just right. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, a large number of cards hurts you more often than not because the likelihood that you will draw a useful card is slim. Also, most card games I am aware of have card minimums of 40 or 60, not counting additional side-decks (such as Neopets' ten-card Basics Stack or Heresy: Kingdom Come's Archive). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hat-- if you run out of cards, do what any self-respecting man would do; turn over your discard pile, and have it shuffled. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, if you run out of cards in the deck, it's game over the next time you try to draw. Flipping the discard pile only works in games with poker cards. (IINM, the purpose of this is to prevent extremely long games, as many of them are designed with high-level play, which generally has time constraints, in mind.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 03:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've played lots of non-poker card games and have never heard of that game-ending twist. But yes, a large deck usually is detrimental; the only way to reverse the effect of a large deck is for it to be themed. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all of the TCGs I know of have deck-out as a lose condition. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you prefer? I prefer treating discarding and removing from play as separate events. As it is, the rules define both, but this can change if we all agree to do so. Personally, I don't think a deck-out makes sense in this atmosphere; there's not any race to finish editing Wikipedia before the end of the world or anything. I like long games, anyway. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, practically every TCG I am aware of treat discards and RFGs differently. (Most of them have a means to return cards from the discard to other zones, but not RFG'd cards.) However, like I said, the main driving force behind a deck-out is tournament time constraints, though fatigue in casual play could also play a part. Out of curiosity, what card games have you played? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 22:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that adding the deck-out idea as a suggestion in the rules, rather than an actual rule, would be good. Then, people who want a longer game can have one, but there is a shorter game option as well. And by the way, Jeremy, I have seen one instance in a TCG where an RFG'd card can be brought back, so there. :) That seems somewhat odd to me, as I have almost no experience with TCGs, and yet I have seen something as obscure as that. Anyhoo, those are my thoughts. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy-- I've played Magic, Redemption, and Pokemon. I don't recall ever exhausting the deck in Pokemon, and I wasn't shown the rulebook for that game, but in Redemption and Magic there is no deck-out rule.

Hi-- I'll support that proposal. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I call bullshit on that, as the Magic Comprehensive Rules, last I checked, do have a deckout rule (Rule 104.3c - if a player doesn't have any cards in his library, he loses the next time he has to draw) - as do, off the top of my head, VS System, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Pokemon, Heresy, Neopets, Harry Potter... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 04:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I stand corrected. A quick check in the Redemption rulebook confirms I'm wrong on that, as well: "If all the cards are drawn, the player is still able to play, but he is not able to draw additional cards."

Come to think of it, I've never exhausted a deck (that I can recall) in a TCG! Perhaps that's why I've never consulted the rules to find out. I tend to play with large decks (at least 100 cards to a deck), myself.

As I turn it over in my head, it actually would make sense to end the game if the either of the two draw piles run out. Hey! That provides incentive for a player to build a larger deck...I like it.

. Sorry, Hi, switching sides now. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. (I have an (M:tG) deck actually built around forcing the other player to deck out, so I am very familiar with this rule.) Like I said, though, the main reason for a deckout rule is to keep the game short (due to tournament time constraints) and to keep it from stagnating (for casual play). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 00:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss decking out in another proposal...back to the maximum number of cards...or shall we determine this once we've agreed to or not to deck out? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traitor! ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold until we decide what happens when the deck runs out 04:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, start your engines! Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]