Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: sepjazzwarrior on February 06, 2010, 10:42:50 AM
-
I apologize if this has been asked before. Whenever you set a character aside the enhancement follows them correct? So would the same go for the Shame LS, would it follow the hero to the set-aside?
Shame LS=when you draw this card, you may set aside a Hero from each territory for two turns
-
Only Enhancements go to the set-aside area with the character(s) they target. The Shame LS would not be set aside. The same applies to Haman (promo).
-
wouldn't it be easier if all set-asides either went with the characters they sent aside or none of them did? It seems unecessarly confusing to have enhancements do one thing and characters/LS do another for no reason
-
It seems more confusing to me to have a Lost Soul in set-aside when no other Lost Soul ever goes to set-aside.
-
wouldn't it be easier if all set-asides either went with the characters they sent aside or none of them did? It seems unecessarly confusing to have enhancements do one thing and characters/LS do another for no reason
... Seriously? You mean like lost souls have no brigade, no numbers, and are in your land of bondage, while enhancements are played on characters to help in territory or battle? I see no reason why lost souls and enhancements do the same thing... In fact that'd be SO confusing.
I think you just want to get rid of a ls. ;)
-
no its jsut when set-aside is done by some things what causes the set-aside follows it and sometimes it doesn't and I would like to know the reasoning behind it. Basically why do set-aside enhancements follow to set-aside. Freedom doesn't follow the character it removes from the game, captures don't follow a character to LoB, so why do set-asides follow?
-
I think it is because of idiots like me that see a character set aside in territory and wonder what he's doing there, when he was put there, how long he's been there, and why I didn't notice him earlier. According to Murphy's Law, that character would have won the game for me three turns ago.
-
I'm not really sure the reasoning... I think it's just that if ls or characters followed they'd be broken.
-
I just want set-asides to be discarded after use so i can recur them faster, and that i cant see a reason why they should follow
-
Hey,
wouldn't it be easier if all set-asides either went with the characters they sent aside or none of them did? It seems unecessarly confusing to have enhancements do one thing and characters/LS do another for no reason
This was discussed when we were playtesting RoA which introduced the first two non-enhancements that set cards aside (the Shame Lost Soul and High Priests Maid). Set aside enhancements going to the set-area had been the rule for 10+ years, is a helpful visual aid, and wasn't causing any problems. We didn't want to change that rule. But at the same time setting aside an evil character or Lost Soul with the cards it set aside didn't sit well with us (particularly when you consider the rule that the set aside card - i.e. the shame lost soul - is discarded when the heroes return). So we decided to do what we did with healing abilities and have the ability function differently when it appears on a non-enhancement than when it appears on an enhancement.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
...the shame lost soul - is discarded when the heroes return...
I am so going to mention this official ruling the next time I use the Shame lost soul. To make it easier for everyone else to use it I excised the portions of the post that hid the beauty of this OFFICIAL RULING. :D :D :D
Ta Ta For Now,
EmJayBee83
-
Shame LS=when you draw this card, you may set aside a Hero from each territory for two turns
When one draws this lost soul does the "you may" mean that you don't have to set aside a hero from each territory; you can pick and choose which territory's to set aside a hero from?
-
No. It's all or nothing. You may set aside one from each territory or you may not set aside any.
-
No. It's all or nothing. You may set aside one from each territory or you may not set aside any.
What if there isn't one from each territory? None?
-
No. It's all or nothing. You may set aside one from each territory or you may not set aside any.
What if there isn't one from each territory? None?
I believe this is an "as much as possible" SA. If a territory is lacking a hero, oh well, you tried.
-
Correct. You just can't pick and choose which territories to set aside from. Every territory that has a hero would be targeted if you chose to use the ability.
-
That's a rule change from the last ruling. The official ruling (unless it has been changed) is that you may from territory A, you may from territory B, you may from territory C, etc. I believe the rationale was to keep it consistent with the way "may" functions on most other cards.
-
That's a rule change from the last ruling. The official ruling (unless it has been changed) is that you may from territory A, you may from territory B, you may from territory C, etc. I believe the rationale was to keep it consistent with the way "may" functions on most other cards.
No, that's consistent with the last ruling, it's a change from the last ruling you were aware of. Each ability on a may card can be done, but if an ability is done, then all of it has to be done. So if I play Reach, I may ItB, may d3, may play next, since those are three separate abilities. However, I may not d1 or 2 if my deck has more than 2 cards in it.
-
Because it says you may D3, not that you may draw each of the top three cards. Shame LS says you may (do something) from each. It does not say you may (do something) from all.
-
Because it says you may D3, not that you may draw each of the top three cards. Shame LS says you may (do something) from each. It does not say you may (do something) from all.
Each = all
See: Political Bribes
-
To be fair, he's not really changing anything, rather, the ruling changed. If I was more motivated, I'd find the thread, but my 8AM class tomorrow is in a small classroom where falling asleep is a bad idea. So yeah...
-
I remember the thread because I posed the same Reach argurment you did. Here it is here: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18934.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18934.0)
-
Haha, I totally forgot it was my thread :P
Yeah, SirNobody posted with finality that the ruling is all or nothing.
-
Haha, I totally forgot it was my thread :P
Yeah, SirNobody posted with finality that the ruling is all or nothing.
Just to go back to the original question, is everyone agreed that ruling is "as much as possible" or nothing?
-
Yes. If someone's heroes are protected from set-aside (I think Miraculous Hankies would do that since LS's are neutral and thus of a different alignment) then you can still do everyone else's heroes.
-
If I'm not mistaken though, this means that you have to set a hero aside from your own territory if you can, right?
-
Correct.
-
I knew it all along!
-
I'm verging on leaving the game because of all the power invested in Maly. He seems to be on the opposite side of most of the players most of the time, wrong fairly frequently, and yet he's one of the arbiters of rulings?
-
I'm verging on leaving the game because of all the power invested in Maly. He seems to be on the opposite side of most of the players most of the time, wrong fairly frequently, and yet he's one of the arbiters of rulings?
I think this is a rather unfair assessment of the situation. This is especially true in this case where--if you actually read the thread in question--Tim is merely announcing the final decision of the PTB.
-
We're entitled to our opinions. Not all of our opinions get registered as official.
-
Tim's positions do not get registered as official. Neither do mine. Neither do Schaef's, nor Mike's, nor Chris's, Kevin's, Justin's, John's, Eric's, ... you get the idea.
Tim posted what was the consensus decision.
There is one special ability on the card (set aside). That single special ability has to be applied either (a) as-much-as-possible or (b) not at all.