Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Hey,

If I use the Set Aside Lost Soul to set a character aside from each territory for two turns.  Do all of the characters set aside get set aside for two of my "turns" or do they get set aside for two of their owner's "turns"?  In other words, are counters added to a set aside during the upkeep phase of the player that set them aside or during the upkeep phase of the player that controls the cards set aside?

I believe the counters should be added during the upkeep phase of the player that set them aside.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

 REG - Set-Aside - Default Conditions
Cards are set aside in their owners’ respective set-aside areas.


REG - Set-Aside - How to Use - More: Duration
Once a character is set aside, you will add counters to the character during each subsequent Upkeep Phase of yours.


I would think these would govern when counters would be placed. Since the set-aside card defaults to your set-aside area a counter would be place during your Upkeep Phase.
But, if I set-aside one of your heroes and one of my heroes, you would still get your hero back the turn before I get mine back. Unless, I'm counting the turns wrong.

Godspeed,
Mike

That would in fact be wrong, and I'm surprised at that ruling.  There was discussion about the rules regarding this, just as Mike laid out, and this was the reason the soul works for two turns.

But nearly all the judges were on the playtest staff; they saw all the same stuff I saw.

I really don't want to have to try to figure out how to explain that one to the little kids in my playgroup.

You count your own people on your own turn.  Hope that helps.

Or we can go the other direction and you can figure out how to explain to them how they have three different characters in their set-aside area and they all get counters added at three different times because they were targeted by three different players, and they need to keep track of that.

And with the set-aside lost soul, the heroes set aside will be unavailable for one rescue regardless of it we count turns for the owner or the set-asider-er.

On my turn, I draw three cards, including the set-aside LS.  I set your Hero aside for one turn.  I complete my turn.
On your turn, you draw three cards, upkeep phase adds counter, your Hero comes back.

Please explain to me where is the one rescue for which your Hero is not available.

Please read the thread before issuing corrections that do not need to be made.  Had you done so before typing your reply, you might have noticed that there was a contextual discussion about the ability setting aside for two turns as opposed to one, and why.  The separation of the actual and the hypothetical is an important distinction that you seem to have missed.

I agree with Polarius, I came to the same conclusion he did when reading the topic.

As did I.

I think set asides should be counted on the turns of the player who USED the set-aside.

Example:

My turn: I draw the Shame lost soul, I set some heroes aside.
Their turn: 0 turns
My turn: 1 turn
Their turn: 1 turn
My turn: 2 turns, heroes return.

Your example goes counter to what you said. You set the Heroes aside and they counted them on their turn.

My turn: I draw the Shame lost soul, I set some heroes aside.
Their turn: 0 turns
My turn: 1 turn
Their turn: 1 turn
My turn: 2 turns, heroes return.


At this time, regardless of how some want it to be played or think it should be played, the REG is telling us how it is played. And it is very straight forward and uncomplicated.

REG - Set-Aside - Default Conditions
Cards are set aside in their owners’ respective set-aside areas.

REG - Set-Aside - How to Use - More: Duration
Once a character is set aside, you will add counters to the character during each subsequent Upkeep Phase of yours.


Godspeed,
Mike

My example was showing how it the increments only go UP on my turn if I used the set-aside. Any card that was set aside on MY turn gains counters on MY upkeep phase...

Is my statement clearer?

Your statement is clearer, but still contrary to the REG.


Godspeed,
Mike

He said that is how he thought set asides should be, not how he thought they were.

I understand what Lambo said and I answered Lambo here.....

At this time, regardless of how some want it to be played or think it should be played, the REG is telling us how it is played. And it is very straight forward and uncomplicated.

REG - Set-Aside - Default Conditions
Cards are set aside in their owners’ respective set-aside areas.

REG - Set-Aside - How to Use - More: Duration
Once a character is set aside, you will add counters to the character during each subsequent Upkeep Phase of yours.



And here......

Lambo
My example was showing how it the increments only go UP on my turn if I used the set-aside. Any card that was set aside on MY turn gains counters on MY upkeep phase...

Is my statement clearer?

Godspeed777
Your statement is clearer, but still contrary to the REG.


Godspeed,
Mike

btw, I haven't got the quote thingy figured out all the way yet.

I just re-read the entire thread and I don't see anything of the sort.

Really?  So you read this post:

Always on the upkeep phase of that person's turn.  That is exactly why the LS says "two turns", because if it said one turn, they would just get it back on their very next turn and it would be a pointless set-aside.

... and came to the conclusion that I thought the card said "one turn"?

You read this post:

That would in fact be wrong, and I'm surprised at that ruling.  There was discussion about the rules regarding this, just as Mike laid out, and this was the reason the soul works for two turns.

and came to the conclusion that I thought the card said "one turn"?

You read Tim's opening post with a statement about what he think SHOULD happen, and then his follow-up post with two conditional statements regarding the difference between the two ways to count upkeep, and you had zero indication that anyone was talking hypothetically?  If we were not talking in the hypothetical, can you explain to me the reason that Tim referred to "one rescue" regarding a card that, as written, sets aside for two turns?

If my grumpiness is of such concern to you, maybe you could spare me the effort of having to go back and parse all of my statements word for word to demonstrate to you that what I said is precisely what I am telling you was the content of my posts.

Hmm... I guess that makes sense...

I still see it like a timer... if two characters are set-aside for two turns... they should BOTH return at the same time. If I set two timers for two hours, they hopefully will both go off at the same time.

Thats how I feel it should work.

The Default Condition determines that for you. So once again -

REG - Set-Aside - Default Conditions
Cards are set aside in their owners’ respective set-aside areas.

Since that happens, now this happens -

REG - Set-Aside - How to Use - More: Duration
Once a character is set aside, you will add counters to the character during each subsequent Upkeep Phase of yours.


You add your counters during your Upkeep Phase and your opponent adds their counter during their Upkeep Phase.

Godspeed,
Mike

Hey,

You add your counters during your Upkeep Phase and your opponent adds their counter during their Upkeep Phase.

Do you add your counters to the cards you own or the cards you set aside?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

Um, Schaef, re-read the line from my post that you quoted.  I was not saying that one turn rather than two turns would make no difference, I was saying two turns of the owner of the card vs. two turns of the player that used the set-aside would make no difference.

Um, yes it does.  If I count it on my own turn, I lose one turn with the Hero.  If you count my Hero on your turn, I lose two turns with the Hero.  I have no idea why you would say it makes no difference, because the number of turns is different no matter which portion of the hypothetical you were changing.

Hum, good point.  What if cards were all set-aside to the set-aside area of the player that set them aside (but were still controled by their owner)?  That would address that issue.  And it would eliminate one set-aside ability setting characters aside to multiple set-aside areas.

But then you run into the issue of keeping track of whose characters are being kept where and dealing with cards that target set-aside areas.  For example, with the new anti-angel soul in RoA, I could play Moses Kills Egyptian on your guy, put him in my set-aside and gain access, a complete change from the way it works now.  People could set aside a High Priest with Two Possessed and use U&T with him for potentially the rest of the game.  Pretty much every card that "discards a [character] from opponent's set-aside area" would be fundamentally changed, including (especially?) Ambush the City combos.

I think this adds more confusion and changes more of the set-aside landscape a lot more than a simple rule that says each player sets aside their own characters in their own area and adds their own counters on their own turn.  Contrasting everything listed above and other things I'm sure I'm missing, I am having a hard time seeing why setting aside multiple characters presents any kind of significant problem.

Example 2 (count on my turn)

Your turn.
You draw the set aside lost soul and set my hero aside.
My turn.
My upkeep I remove a counter from my hero.
I cannot make a rescue attempt with that hero this turn because he is set aside.
Your turn.
My turn.
I remove the second counter from my hero and return him to play.
I can then make a rescue attempt.

This is the correct way to add counters to the set-aside heroes.

Godspeed,
Mike

Since the draw phase happens before the upkeep phase, why wouldn't the Shame LS add counters for the player who drew the soul that turn? The first-round soul is different, since it does not deal with counters or the set aside area (it deals with an entire round).

Mike, I don't see how you get the first interpretation there. I see this going phase-by-phase, like the second interpretation you give. The subsequent Upkeep Phase is the Upkeep Phase of the turn when Shame came into play.

As you say, this is the exception, not the rule, since no other set-asides can occur during the Draw Phase that I know of.

Hey,

But then you run into the issue of keeping track of whose characters are being kept where and dealing with cards that target set-aside areas.  For example, with the new anti-angel soul in RoA, I could play Moses Kills Egyptian on your guy, put him in my set-aside and gain access, a complete change from the way it works now.  People could set aside a High Priest with Two Possessed and use U&T with him for potentially the rest of the game.  Pretty much every card that "discards a [character] from opponent's set-aside area" would be fundamentally changed, including (especially?) Ambush the City combos.

The anti-angel soul in RoA says, "excpet by a player with a human Hero in play or set-aside area."  If I don't have a human, and I set-aside your human, and it goes to my territory I still don't have a human.  My opponent just has a human in my set-aside area.  Urim and Thummim also requires control, which is why I specified that they were still controlled by the owner.  As far as cards that target things in set-aside areas many of them are "a set aside area" and thus it doesn't matter which one the character is in.  The few that would be influenced are the couple "discard a character from opponent's set-aside area" which would just mean that you could discard your own character...I'm not really seeing that as breaking the game.

Not to mention there's only what about six cards in the game that can set-aside an opponent's character, and six months ago it wasn't even in the REG whose set-aside area your opponent's character is set-aside to, so I'm pretty sure it's not that big of an issue.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

Hey,

Here's a little insight into my philosophy of rule changes.  I believe rule changes should be made if they help make the game more intuitive and systematic (i.e. simplify the system of the game).  On very rare occasions rule changes can be made to address game play issues (i.e. stopping "broken combos") but I believe that should be only as a last resort.  Errata and printing counter cards are preferred solutions, or sometimes you can find a way to make the rules more systematic and address a game play issue in the process.

When making a rule change the goal should be to maximize the increase in how systematic the game is while minimizing the change in how the game is played.  Rule changes that create a significant change in how the game is played are usually not worth making; the better option in those cases is usually to accept that element as it is and work on improving the structure around it.

In this case I believe that setting cards aside to the set-aside area of the player that used the set-aside ability will be a significant improvement to the systematicness of the game while being an insignificant change on the way the game is played.  Thus I believe it would be a good rule change.  And that explains why I called the change the idea would cause to be both significant and insignificant.

creating new scenarios where players "control" characters that are not on their side of the table for the first time in the history of the game

This is not the case.  Cards that are placed in an opponent's territory are still controlled by the player that placed them.  The Pale Green Panic Demon is a prime example.

Then suddenly, it became an issue of monumental importance because anything that's not explicitly stated in the REG is wide open to interpretation and represents a colossal failure on the part of the players assisting Rob and/or Mike.  There's about 8000 things in the REG that are "not that big of an issue"

Wow, "monumental importance," "colossal failure," and "8000 things" all in the span of two sentences.  I haven't seen an example of Hyperbole that good in a long time.  But I can't find any other mention of importance or failure anywhere in this thread, so I'm not sure what it is you're trying to exaggerate.

And I consider myself to be one of the players that assists Mike, so if I'm accusing anyone of failure (which I'm not), I would be accusing myself.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

You put them on your upkeep phase. If its the person using the set aside ls, one counter is added right away as the ruling stands