Community

I voted "no" because the question is asking about the *default* - being able to target is potentially more useful/powerful, so should go on cards that are intentionally designed to be more flexible, more complex, or rarer. In my opinion, the default should be whatever we would expect to be the starting point for an effect.

I INTIMIDATE YOU WITH MY WORDS THEY ARE EXCESSIVE IN NUMBER AND YOU ARE FRIGHTENED BY THEM!  LET YOUR TINY BRAIN QUAIL AT THE NEED TO COMPREHEND MORE THAN THE BARE MINIMUM OF NECESSARY LANGUAGE!  MWAHAHAHAHAH!!!

But on a coincidentally similar but unrelated note, "You draw two cards" is unnecessary redundancy.  The imperative "Draw two cards" looks professional and lacks nothing in terms of clarity.

Oh, and teachers who repeat a lesson five times are pointlessly insulting the students who were smart enough to comprehend it the first time, and those are more important than the ones who require repetitions.  If there must be repetition, let it happen in remedial classes after the academic winners have been allowed to move on to a more challenging and useful class.  We need to stop trying to make our society stupider; it prevents us from growing and improving in ways that will be beneficial to those who get left behind in the short term.  They might feel bad about being exceeded, but those feelings will pass, and coddling them will stifle their betters and cause the whole of society to stagnate.

And Mark fails logic by using the number of "target"s in M12 as both proof of a problem and evidence of the solution.

I voted for no, because it makes more sense for the default to be the simpler version. If anything will convince me (we'll have to see after Zac's article) it would be the multiplayer argument. Having reason to let your opponent draw cards in a duel is just too unlikely for me to consider it worth changing the default.

Mar 25, 2012 -- 9:21PM, willpell wrote:

Oh, and teachers who repeat a lesson five times are pointlessly insulting the students who were smart enough to comprehend it the first time, and those are more important than the ones who require repetitions.  If there must be repetition, let it happen in remedial classes after the academic winners have been allowed to move on to a more challenging and useful class.  We need to stop trying to make our society stupider; it prevents us from growing and improving in ways that will be beneficial to those who get left behind in the short term.  They might feel bad about being exceeded, but those feelings will pass, and coddling them will stifle their betters and cause the whole of society to stagnate.

You want us to stop making society stupider, but the way you propose to do this is to ignore those who need more help? Besides, Mark's point wasn't even that instructors should repeat something five times for the class to understand it; his point was the repetition makes it more likely that the students will remember it.