Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: LordZardeck on February 29, 2012, 12:03:08 AM
-
Can someone explain how exactly this site works? I'm mostly confused on the "give an opponent a black cannite" part. Is that to the opponent's territory, or to their land of bondage?
-
Territory.
I'm not sure if we have 'Give' defined in the REG or not - But, similar to 'Take' it simply changes control of the character. It doesn't change the state.
-
Wherever the character was when you gave it to them. Canaanites have one of the most roundabout ways of soulgenning.
-
You can't give them a captured Canaanite in your LoB because afaik lost souls don't have brigades (so it wouldn't meet the "black Canaanite" requirement).
-
You can't give them a captured Canaanite in your LoB because afaik lost souls don't have brigades (so it wouldn't meet the "black Canaanite" requirement).
I wasn't referring to that. I was simply asking where do I put the canaanite.
-
I was correcting Pol, not you; sorry. The Canaanite goes to their territory, and you can only target black Canaanites in play for the give ability.
-
I didn't realize it said black. I know that it was meant to be a method of soul-genning, and nobody ever plays those cards so I hadn't been exposed to it much, but if it does indeed specify a black Canaanite it doesn't work as intended.
-
@Minister Polarius: What makes you think it was meant as a soul generator?
@Everyone: when can I use this ability? Any time whatsoever as long as the site is in play?
-
I didn't realize it said black. I know that it was meant to be a method of soul-genning, and nobody ever plays those cards so I hadn't been exposed to it much, but if it does indeed specify a black Canaanite it doesn't work as intended.
Where are you getting the information that it was meant as a soul gen? Because I've never heard that nor thought that, I thought it was just meant to capture a hero. (Although you can do a sort of roundabout soul-gen by capturing a hero then sending them over with Shechem).
-
Idk how that was for Soul-gen...
-
I didn't realize it said black. I know that it was meant to be a method of soul-genning, and nobody ever plays those cards so I hadn't been exposed to it much, but if it does indeed specify a black Canaanite it doesn't work as intended.
Where are you getting the information that it was meant as a soul gen? Because I've never heard that nor thought that, I thought it was just meant to capture a hero. (Although you can do a sort of roundabout soul-gen by capturing a hero then sending them over with Shechem).
Pol had missed the part where it said "Black Canaanite", and thought you could give them one that you had captured in your LoB (thus, putting it in their LoB). However, since it must be still in play as an Evil Character, this does not work. If you read his last post, he realized this and said it did not work as Soul Gen. However, that is where the confusion came from.
As for your @Everyone: Yes, you can use this ability at any time as far as I know. HOWEVER: Note that it does not interrupt, so you could do it during battle but NOT while another ability is completing. Also, it cannot capture heroes in battle (ability copied below for reference, it is specifically territory), so it still cannot win a battle, but you could do it if you so desire. And there are definitely reasons to do it ;)
Canaan (RA2)
Type: Site • Brigade: Purple • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect Canaanites in territory from conversion. You may discard this Site and give an opponent a black Canaanite to capture a Hero in that territory.
-
Hey,
For the record:
An ability that requires an opponent to "give" a card to a different player is a take ability.
Also, you cannot target a captured character based on an identifier. So even if Canaan did not require it to be black, it still couldn't give a captured Canaanite.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Where's the lack of common sense icon?
-
Hey,
Where's the lack of common sense icon?
Arioch: If opponent does not have a prophet in play, you may discard a male human from your territory to place a Lost Soul beneath owner’s deck.
Although I'm not personally a big fan of the rule, that's the reason why it exists.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I'm well aware of this, and it's stupid. There is no reason to have an arbitrary rule like this that creates an exception and isn't intuitive to stop one specific situation that's not only nowhere near broken, but not even that good.
-
This rule is news to me, since I've done that in a tournament
-
Example of how unintuitive the rule is. I know there are bigger fish to fry atm, but this bad rule has been on the books for far too long. Can't we just fix it now?
-
Plz do! Make Arioch more useful, especially since its easier to get a D/C'd Hero then a Captured Hero.
-
Example of how unintuitive the rule is. I know there are bigger fish to fry atm, but this bad rule has been on the books for far too long. Can't we just fix it now?
Actually, I think the rule did get simpler recently. They ruled that captured characters are no longer characters, so that means that identifiers no longer matter. They are just captured heroes/ECs and captured characters, not characters. And not-characters have no identifiers.
-
Hey,
Actually, I think the rule did get simpler recently. They ruled that captured characters are no longer characters, so that means that identifiers no longer matter. They are just captured heroes/ECs and captured characters, not characters. And not-characters have no identifiers.
Non-characters do still have identifiers.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Actually, I think the rule did get simpler recently. They ruled that captured characters are no longer characters, so that means that identifiers no longer matter. They are just captured heroes/ECs and captured characters, not characters. And not-characters have no identifiers.
Non-characters do still have identifiers.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Now you're confusing me. Are you trying to say that they still have identifiers, but everything in the game just ignores that fact? It seems more logical to lump this in with the ruling that captured characters are no longer characters, and thus have no identifiers.
-
Um, if a Captured Character is no longer a Character, then how can any effect that mentions Captured Heroes or Captured Characters do anything since they are not Captured Characters?
-
Um, if a Captured Character is no longer a Character, then how can any effect that mentions Captured Heroes or Captured Characters do anything since they are not Captured Characters?
They are captured characters. They are captured heroes/ECs and captured characters, but they are not just characters. There is a difference (that has actually been in the rules for years, it just got expanded/clarified during the Sam ruling).
-
Um, if a Captured Character is no longer a Character, then how can any effect that mentions Captured Heroes or Captured Characters do anything since they are not Captured Characters?
"Captured Character" is a different designation than "Character." If something targets a "Character," then it cannot target a "Captured Character." If something targets a "Captured Character," then it cannot target a "Character."
-
That makes no sense. Either it's a Character or not, 'captured' notes it's status, this ruling makes about as much sense as a guy that wants to exterminate Humanity.
-
this ruling makes about as much sense as a guy that wants to exterminate Humanity.
How did you find out about that, and how did you know it was me?
-
That makes no sense. Either it's a Character or not, 'captured' notes it's status, this ruling makes about as much sense as a guy that wants to exterminate Humanity.
Ok, first off: That is not acceptable hyperbole.
Second, they are separate terms with separate definitions. It has been that way for years. "Captured" is not a description in this case. "Character" is a term and "Captured Character" is a term. They are defined differently.
-
First off, that's not completely correct because the Rulebook I read gave that as an example of a status of a Character.
this ruling makes about as much sense as a guy that wants to exterminate Humanity.
How did you find out about that, and how did you know it was me?
Lol... It's because I'm an alien and I read ur mind!
-
First off, that's not completely correct because the Rulebook I read gave that as an example of a status of a Character.
Not sure what rulebook you're reading. From the REG:
A capture ability transforms a character into a “captured character” and moves it to a different location where it is held captive. When a captured character is held captive in a Land of Bondage it is treated as a Lost Soul.
Only Heroes and Evil Characters can be captured. When a character is captured, all cards held by that character are discarded. It ceases to be a character and becomes a captured character instead (that is, Heroes become captured Heroes and Evil Characters become captured Evil Characters).
It's all in there, and been that way for years.
-
The E/F & G/H ones. And besides, just think about what you are saying, it's logically inconsistent. It's like saying the statement: 'This statement is false' which makes no sense no matter how u put it.
-
The E/F & G/H ones. And besides, just think about what you are saying, it's logically inconsistent. It's like saying the statement: 'This statement is false' which makes no sense no matter how u put it.
Ok, your hyperbole is getting old, please stick to the discussion at hand. Your statement added nothing and in fact is completely erroneous.
I don't know why it's hard to understand, as everyone else has been agreeing with it and it has been the rule for years. You need to not think of "captured" in "captured character" as a state. "Captured character" is its own card type. It is as simple as that, and it's the rule, and it will continue to be based on the recent ruling.
It is actually completely logical. I don't know why you continue to fight the rules on these things...
-
The reason why is because of the lack of logical consistency. If its not a character, then don't call it one. By calling it a Captured Character shows that you are aknowledging it as a Character, but then you say it is not a Character, which is logically inconsistant. My problem isn't so much w/ the ruling, it's with the non-logical statement.
It's just something I can't stand, partly is because I took a logic class a while back.
-
By calling it a "Captured Character" we are letting you know that it WAS a "Character" and is not just a plain lost soul. The reason they call it a "captured character" is because then the language is more consistent... rather than "captured guy". They use "character" because no other word makes sense to use. It is not there to signify that it is currently a character.
I understand why you're complaining but you need to be quite and accept the fact that a Character and a Captured Character just are not the same. They are entirely separate terms.
-
You can understand that it was a Character by looking at the card. My problem is the logical fallacy.
-
well honestly a card game will never have perfect logic so we just deal and move on. btw im autistic i understand why it bugs you.
-
You can understand that it was a Character by looking at the card. My problem is the logical fallacy.
Bolded the important word in your statement, it was a character, past tense. Things can change and become different, as do characters when they become captured characters.
-
By calling it a Captured Character shows that you are aknowledging it as a Character,
And by calling it a road apple, you are acknowledging it is an apple?
Any by calling it a cow pie, you are acknowledging it is a pie?
You logic teacher would be proud! :)
-
I know that it was meant to be a method of soul-genning,
Actually, it wasn't. The second sentence was meant to capture a hero in a territory (such as Thad) who is difficult to defeat in battle. The cost (give an opponent a black Canaanite) was designed to work well with Ehud, who could then choose the black Canaanite and make your opponent block with it. It actually works decently well, as long as you have enough black Canaanites in your deck. Having that many in your deck isn't super easy ... yet. :)
-
I know that it was meant to be a method of soul-genning,
Actually, it wasn't. The second sentence was meant to capture a hero in a territory (such as Thad) who is difficult to defeat in battle. The cost (give an opponent a black Canaanite) was designed to work well with Ehud, who could then choose the black Canaanite and make your opponent block with it. It actually works decently well, as long as you have enough black Canaanites in your deck. Having that many in your deck isn't super easy ... yet. :)
The problem with using Canaan with Ehud is that most of the best Canaanites (and thus the ones you are most likely to have in a type I deck, or have multiple of in a type II deck) are either female (Lot's Wife, Woman at Thebez) or Genderless (Delegates).