Touhou UPick 2 - [Game Over]

[GuyInFreezer]

Yes, and in my question to FG, I formatted my example using one of my own untargeted day-card in exactly the format you used in 230, with unbolded sakura hana in the subsequent line.

Then it was probably the decision he made after what I did to avoid the same thing from happening.

[borkjerfkin]

@mod - do targeted spellcards have to have the target be bolded?
would an untargeted spellcard be invalidated if it were formatted in an ambiguous way to make it look targeted?

This fuzzy mechanics speculation stuff is bullshit.

[zMuffinMan]

i don't see this line of questioning going anywhere. if it targeted sakura, it was incorrectly formatted. if it was untargeted, it was incorrectly formatted. either way, fakegod didn't do anything about it publicly

[Kagami]

FG told me the format was fine if it were targeted, though he'd rather the target be bolded, so no.

[borkjerfkin]

If that's true then FG made a bad ruling and needs to fix it. It's unfair to have less information because gif is allowed to skirt by with a formatting error.

Pedit: and I am verifying it publicly.

[borkjerfkin]

Because Kahana and gif can't both be telling the truth

[zMuffinMan]

FG told me the format was fine if it were targeted

o. then carry on

[Kagami]

Anyway, we'll see how FG responds, but my point here is that what I was told is only consistent with 230 if the card in question was in fact targeted.

I knew this yesterday, but didn't want to say anything on the assumption that it was in fact protective, and GIF was gambitting in his retraction. Now that the night is over and sakura lives, I want it cleared up.

[Sakura Hana]

Pedit: and I am verifying it publicly.

Then why didnt u ask about the specific post and asked questions whether it was correctly formatted for an un-targeted spellcard.
If it was targeted i don't see it as bad from GiF, i can tell you that at least nothing bad happened to me during yesterday nor the night.

[borkjerfkin]

I DID ask about the post. Yesterday. FG said no comment, so I'm trying to actually ask a question he won't say that to.

I mean it should be pretty obvious that his answer will allow me to figure out what happened

[Kagami]

Pedit: and I am verifying it publicly.

Then why didnt u ask about the specific post and asked questions whether it was correctly formatted for an un-targeted spellcard.
If it was targeted i don't see it as bad from GiF, i can tell you that at least nothing bad happened to me during yesterday nor the night.

I'm worried that it influenced your ability. That your ability seems to have gone through just fine doesn't sit well with me.

[Kagami]

Also, we have to believe that GIF considered the card in 891 so useless that he'd waste it for no reason, but he used a card that was

actually

useful in his "protect sakura" gambit. They were both untargeted, so why waste a commute over a "force people to unvote?"

[GuyInFreezer]

Because the latter one's effect shows what it does publicly.

[Kagami]

unless your vote isn't on the leading wagon, apparently.

[GuyInFreezer]

Also using that card as a gambit won't give me the "failproof" gambit I wanted.

[Kagami]

Eh, we'll see how FG replies. From what I was told, that spellcard must have been a targeted spellcard.

[vezokpiraka]

Fuck this shit.
This makes no sense.

I don't like GIF. If I die look at GIF please.

I say we lynch gaiden. I think he's bullshiting with the spellcards going away.

unvote
vote gaiden

[zMuffinMan]

Eh, we'll see how FG replies. From what I was told, that spellcard must have been a targeted spellcard.

i'm clarifying something with fakegod now but i can think of a couple other possibilities here that i may explain after i get a response

[SXTLHGaiden]

It seems our IC wants me dead.
Woe is me.

[FakeGod]

@mod - do targeted spellcards have to have the target be bolded?
would an untargeted spellcard be invalidated if it were formatted in an ambiguous way to make it look targeted?

As I've said in post 628, please bold your target if you have any.

Please do not format untargeted spellcards in an ambiguous way to mislead. I will ask you to reformat.

[borkjerfkin]

As I've said in post 628, please bold your target if you have any.

Please do not format untargeted spellcards in an ambiguous way to mislead. I will ask you to reformat.

This is totally at odds with your not asking GIF to resubmit.

[FakeGod]

I should have asked GIF to reformat.

[borkjerfkin]

And due to this I think we are entitled, unambiguously, to know whether or not that action was processed against a target or against no target (or if it was not processed?)

I don't understand the purpose of being ambiguous about this since it's an entirely unnecessary source of confusion and I'm not trying to break the game I just want clarity on exactly one thing that should have been clear to begin with.

[FakeGod]

Look. GIF attempted to mislead by formatting his spellcard declaration in such way. His card doesn't require a target.

I never meant spellcard declarations to be ambiguous in such way, so I changed the rules in 628 to stop it from happening further.

GIF would have been asked to reformat had he attempted to do such a thing after post 628.

Everyone's on the same page now?

[borkjerfkin]

Look. GIF attempted to mislead by formatting his spellcard declaration in such way. His card doesn't require a target.

Thank you.

That's all I ever wanted (and it's pretty clear that at least half the playerlist was still confused about it)