Talk:Command variant

Revision as of 23:02, 7 March 2022

with the 2019 errata, can we consider changing the name of these? none of them emulate other cards anymore. My suggestions + rationale:

• Commanders based on the command type. i don't love it though, because it implies the command type, which some of these do not have, which will be confusing for new players who may as well call them Mice
• Pointers because they point to the card they play; name isn't going to be intuitive to anyone who isn't familiar with the computer science term but at this point neither is emulator.
• Cards that play other cards because uh they play other cards; don't love this because it is going to drastically increase the type of card to include stuff like ghost, golem, vassal, venture, etc

--Spineflu (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2022 (EST)

I agree that we should change the name, but I'm not a fan of any of those proposals. Maybe instead of having a general term for cards that do this, we should change the name of this page to Leaving it there, after the (now-)shared rules mechanic rather than the set of cards. Ajd (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2022 (EST)

I agree that "emulator" is an outdated term, and I like Ajd's proposal to rename these cards to reflect the rules of the game. Muenstercheese (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2022 (EST)

Can we try for something less um. tense-y, more name-y? Like, If I say, "I'll play a couple peddlers and a sifter", you all know what I'm talking about; If I say "I'll play a Leaving it there" it doesn't exactly flow or follow from the naming pattern on other cards. "Delegators"? --Spineflu (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2022 (EST)