discord reply dump
That’s a big question so I had to prepare an answer. Apologies for the wall of text.
You’re right in saying that it’s the original spirit of the game (sam even said it’s a ‘core feature’ in his rules video). But, uh, no, I don’t use that mechanic. Once a game is started between two people agreeing to use my ruleset, the rules are whatever has been most recently published as the ‘rulebook’. To adopt the same wording as Sam in the vid (but changing the statement) “The ultimate arbiter of -mgbmix- is the rules as stated in the -mgbmix- rulebook.” It’s designed as a by-the-book, by-the-numbers ruleset and plays as such. Meaning the game is strategic and decision-based, not schizophrenic and autism-based.
However, that being said, nearly everthing in the ruleset is subject to the possibility of change. There’s a lot of rules I just threw onto cards as a first impression of how they work. Lots can be improved, and that’s where the ‘argue’ aspect returns to the fold. Outside of a game in play, the rules can be discussed for improvement with variations or changes. If you can argue your autistic interpretation of a card’s rules well enough to me, I’ll add those adaptations to the ruleset. It’s all a work in progress and I need the community’s help to actualize the best possible card game. Finally, this is just my own spin-off ruleset. My custom, unofficial ruleset. Anyone can make their own ruleset where the rules don’t matter (? lol) if they like. My project aims to be a ‘regular’ card game using mondos, playable online or in person.
On the topic of rules lawyering, though, my ruleset is largely based on magic the gathering and in mtg rules lawyering can occur during a game. However in mtg rules lawyering is a series of malicious knowledge checks against a player. So it’s used more to trap players in a gameplay penalty they weren’t aware of rather than changing the meaning of a card.