Follow up on: http://forums.pineboxentertainment.com/t/larry-thunderboy-and-a-slight-modification-clarifications/3570
Thanks for the (unofficial) follow up discussion on discord - since then we had a question about how to define these sorts of interactions.
It can probably be said that Larry's last sentence maybe best fits within the first, since it's basically an additional requirement, hence the need for the original rule question. However, there are several other cards that are laid out in a similar manner:
_Silas Aims (Exp 1): _
Shootout, Boot: Send an opposing dude with less bullets than Silas's bounty home booted. If Silas is the mark, he ignores the boot cost of this ability.
I'm Your Hucklberry:
Cheatin' Resolution: Your opponent chooses a dude in their posse. That dude joins your posse under your control for the remainder of the shootout. After the shootout ends, if that dude is still in play, send that dude home booted. If your hand is legal, you choose the opposing dude.
New Force Field, since errata:
Repeat Resolution, Pay X Ghost Rock: Raise your draw hand rank by X for this round. Your hand rank cannot exceed your opponent’s hand rank. You may not use any other card’s Cheatin’ Resolutions or Resolution effects.
And probably even coachwhip.
These are all examples of cards that have what are essentially additional and/or different requirements after the first sentence. All of these cards require you to read the entire card, and apply all requirements (even if its not in the first sentence), right? That seems very clear, and intuitive to new players.
So how do we explain to new players (or in the rules) the ruling with Thunder Boy/Mario Crane exp? His additional requirement, also not in the first sentence, only get's applied if his ability has been previously successfully used. Why is he different from any of the above? All of the previous examples apply, whether the ability has been used or not (but not Thunder Boy/Mario Crane exp).
Do we do something like this when seeing if we can use an ability?
1) Has the ability been used before? If not, proceed (unless this is a repeat ability, in which case it does not matter)
2) Have the bold costs, and following first-sentence requirements been fulfilled? If so, continue.
3) Have any additional requirements been fulfilled? Larry's last sentence, etc.
Except, for Thunder Boy, it's different. We don't go to hypothetical step 3 until after it's used. Instead, his step 3 looks like:
3) Has his ability been successfully used before? Only then, will the last sentence/requirement come into play.
Does that make sense where we are coming from? Why does it seem like an edge case, specific only to a card that says 'cannot be used more than once per shootout'? To me, that makes this much more complicated than it should be. If the ruling stands with Thunder Boy, how do we explain that effect - is his last sentence a 'prevention effect' rather than a requirement, like all the other cards? If so, how is that defined?
To me it seems much easier to simply say 'read the whole card every time, sometimes additional requirements are found after the first sentence, but it will be obvious when that is the case', and while I'm moderately confident that doesn't really change the intent or mechanics of any previous cards, I know it does change the Thunder Boy ruling at the very least.
Thanks for continuing to hear us out!
(there's a few of us who have been discussing this on discord - some of these ideas/phrasing were taken from them)