Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: BubbleBoy on August 19, 2008, 07:22:28 PM
-
Is there any way to protect from/prevent shuffle or set-aside cards? I mean, Nergalsharezer w/ Swift Horses + Nebuchadnezzar's Pride seems like a completely undefeatable combo (although you do lose Swift Horses).
-
Is there any way to protect from/prevent shuffle or set-aside cards? I mean, Nergalsharezer w/ Swift Horses + Nebuchadnezzar's Pride seems like a completely undefeatable combo (although you do lose Swift Horses).
In territory with Kingdoms or Goshen.
-
Is there any way to protect from/prevent shuffle or set-aside cards? I mean, Nergalsharezer w/ Swift Horses + Nebuchadnezzar's Pride seems like a completely undefeatable combo (although you do lose Swift Horses).
And Nergal.
-
Well, you don't lose Nerg.
-
Is there any way to protect from/prevent shuffle or set-aside cards? I mean, Nergalsharezer w/ Swift Horses + Nebuchadnezzar's Pride seems like a completely undefeatable combo (although you do lose Swift Horses).
Why would you lose swift horses?
-
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Crimson • Ability: 0 / 6 • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and set aside all characters and Sites in battle for four turns.
It sets aside characters only. :'(
-
cards like Swift Horses follow the character their on I thought...
-
Hey,
Yes weapons follow the character if the character is set aside.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Hey,
Yes weapons follow the character if the character is set aside.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
Is set aside in territory?
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv102%2Fw0rf47%2Fin-play.jpg&hash=df0fc7ed3f9979650eaed57b0a56e02970c050a7) (https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv102%2Fw0rf47%2Fout-of-play.jpg&hash=098f7f702dd8e7b5a9e7bcb47e5b274ba1b48aa8)
-
Yes weapons follow the character if the character is set aside.
But NP interrupts the battle to set the characters aside.
-
Interrupting the battle is not relevant. Weapons stick by game rule, not because of a special ability.
-
Interrupting the battle is not relevant. Weapons stick by game rule, not because of a special ability.
Adding on to this, How can a weapon stay on a character outside of battle... thats like, MEGA interrupting the battle.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv102%2Fw0rf47%2Fin-play.jpg&hash=df0fc7ed3f9979650eaed57b0a56e02970c050a7) (https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv102%2Fw0rf47%2Fout-of-play.jpg&hash=098f7f702dd8e7b5a9e7bcb47e5b274ba1b48aa8)
In that case the weapon is discarded.
-
Weapons stick by game rule, not because of a special ability.
-
Weapons stick by game rule, not because of a special ability.
Shaef has told me that weapons stick only in territory.
-
quote, please?
-
quote, please?
. It was on that weapons thread i created lemme fetch it.
-
quote, please?
. It was on that weapons thread i created lemme fetch it.
If it helps, it was the one where you wanted to leave a weapon on a Lost Soul. You can search for "knife fights in the Land O'Bondage." I think I used that phrase a time or two in the thread. ;)
[Late Update] I just checked Hobbit's thread linked to down below, and I did use that phrase! At least I can remember pointless things.
-
I searched all six pages of that thread and found no statement whatsoever regarding setting aside characters with weapons attached.
-
This what you said:
"The Warrior continues to hold the weapon when he's in territory. That covers conversion.
The Weapon follows all other rules regarding Enhancements. That covers capture, shuffle, and etc.
"
http://cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=10508.60
-
Where's the part where I said he does not hold the weapon if set aside?
-
Where's the part where I said he does not hold the weapon if set aside?
"The Weapon follows all other rules regarding Enhancements."
-
Weapons stick because they don't follow ALL rules of enhancements.
-
"The Weapon follows all other rules regarding Enhancements."
I think you would be well-advised to remember the context of the discussion. You were trying to say the game was inconsistent and/or broken because weapons did not follow this rule or that rule which is supposed to apply to placed cards. The entire discussion was centered around the distinction between weapons as a special type of card, and placed cards as a special ability. The question of set-aside never entered the discussion because it never came to that. The entire focus was on issues like shuffling, conversion, and so forth.
-
But the title is "Shuffle and Set-Aside". Isn't the set aside question assumed?
-
the other thread, janissary, not this one.
-
Oh. Oops, my fault. Continue discussions.
-
Here is an interesting way to remember, Weapons stick if you remain in control of the character at the end of the turn. (i.e. conversion and set-aside) If you lose control of the character at the end of the turn, the weapon is either discarded or shuffled approprately.
-
Mr. Cubed, the weapon is never shuffled, even if the character is.
-
That also fails in the case of Dungeon of Malchiah/Joseph before Pharaoh - cards that capture the character and put it in your LOB.
-
Thats true, but i don't consider myself 'in control' of my lost souls other than which one i give to my opponent when he makes a successful RA.
How about when the character loses his good/evil status?
-
"The Weapon follows all other rules regarding Enhancements."
I think you would be well-advised to remember the context of the discussion.
You made a General statement.
Why doesn't the card get discarded when Nergal is set aside?
-
Because weapons stick.
-
Because weapons stick.
Then when a hero is shuffled the weapon sticks.
-
No, there is a game rule which specifies "Weapons do not shuffle with ther bearer of the weapon." I don't know where your trying to go with this.
-
No, there is a game rule which specifies "Weapons do not shuffle with ther bearer of the weapon." I don't know where your trying to go with this.
Weapons stick in territory. The hero can carry them into battle then back to terrirtory that is how Shaef explained it.
-
Then when a hero is shuffled the weapon sticks.
There is no justification for this statement whatsoever. The function of weapons has been explained to you and the rule regarding this is clearly spelled out.
-
Then when a hero is shuffled the weapon sticks.
There is no justification for this statement whatsoever. The function of weapons has been explained to you and the rule regarding this is clearly spelled out.
But the 2 rules don't make sense with each other. I dislike these arbitrary rules that don't make sense. You cant have it both ways. The weapon should be discarded when the character is set aside. I don't like that but that is the right ruling.
-
But the 2 rules don't make sense with each other.
That's like saying the rules for conversion and the rules for discard don't make sense with each other. Of course they're not going to make sense with each other if they do different things. Weapons are not placed Enhancements.
-
But the 2 rules don't make sense with each other.
That's like saying the rules for conversion and the rules for discard don't make sense with each other. Of course they're not going to make sense with each other if they do different things. Weapons are not placed Enhancements.
I know that. If you shuffle in a character bearing a weapon the weapon is discarded. If you set aside a character bearing a weapon that weapon should be discarded because a normal enhancement in battle would not be set aside. Can you help understand the logic behind that abitrary rule. You cant just make rules for the sake of making rules you have to now why that rule was made and that is ultimatley my question for Rob. The shuffle rule should be changed, that rule is at least printed the set aside rule is not.
-
Weapons are their own brand of Enhancement with special rules governing their use. There is nothing arbitrary about a set of rules that apply to a special brand of card. That's the whole point of them being special.
If you actually go around thinking that rules are made up just to make them up, it's not at all surprising that it's so difficult to come to an understanding.
-
Weapons are their own brand of Enhancement with special rules governing their use. There is nothing arbitrary about a set of rules that apply to a special brand of card. That's the whole point of them being special.
Were in the Reg or the rulebook does it say that the weapon is not discarded when the character is set aside?
You gave me a set of rules for weapons according to that set of rules the weapon is discarded when set aside. It was my understanding that you were talking in general about the weapons rules when you made that statement.
-
What I gave you was an attempt to explain the difference between placed Enhancements and weapons (said this already). I did not address set-aside at that time because it was not the issue, the difference between the card types was the issue (said this already).
-
Weapons are their own brand of Enhancement with special rules governing their use. There is nothing arbitrary about a set of rules that apply to a special brand of card. That's the whole point of them being special.
Were in the Reg or the rulebook does it say that the weapon is not discarded when the character is set aside?
Where in the REG does it say they are discarded? Weapons follow the characters they are on... IDK why this is so difficult.
-
Weapons are their own brand of Enhancement with special rules governing their use. There is nothing arbitrary about a set of rules that apply to a special brand of card. That's the whole point of them being special.
Were in the Reg or the rulebook does it say that the weapon is not discarded when the character is set aside?
Weapons follow the characters they are on... IDK why this is so difficult.
lol
-
Weapons are their own brand of Enhancement with special rules governing their use. There is nothing arbitrary about a set of rules that apply to a special brand of card. That's the whole point of them being special.
If you actually go around thinking that rules are made up just to make them up, it's not at all surprising that it's so difficult to come to an understanding.
Okay understood.
Were in the REG or rulebook does it say weapons aren't discarded when the hero is set aside?
-
Rulebook: "If a warrior is discarded or captured, or returned to hand, all weapon cards on the character are discarded."
REG: "Weapon-class enhancements are discarded if the warrior-class character holding the weapon is discarded, captured, returned to hand, or returned to draw pile. They stay on a character that is converted or returned to territory."
It is understood that it stays in other situations.
-
"It is understood that it stays in other situations."
All I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to have the weapon stay on the character when set aside, when the weapon is discarded when the character is shuffled.
-
Why?
-
Becuase in battle if you shuffled the character the weapon is discarded becaus it follows the rules of other enhancements in battle, but if a set aside is played in battle the weapon should be discarded beucase weapons follow normal enhancement rules in battle. Now I would argue that the weapon only is discarded when the set aside is played in battle.
-
beucase weapons follow normal enhancement rules in battle.
Except for the fact that they dont. If they did, they would be discarded after battle.
-
Becuase in battle if you shuffled the character the weapon is discarded becaus it follows the rules of other enhancements in battle, but if a set aside is played in battle the weapon should be discarded beucase weapons follow normal enhancement rules in battle.
Do you think that a Hero should reset to face value when set-aside, since he resets to face value when shuffled?
-
Becuase in battle if you shuffled the character the weapon is discarded becaus it follows the rules of other enhancements in battle, but if a set aside is played in battle the weapon should be discarded beucase weapons follow normal enhancement rules in battle.
Do you think that a Hero should reset to face value when set-aside, since he resets to face value when shuffled?
No.
-
Do you think that a Hero should reset to face value when set-aside, since he resets to face value when shuffled?
No.
So why does it make sense to you that a Hero would keep gained abilities when set-aside but lose them when shuffled, but to keep a weapon when set-aside but lose it when shuffled is "silly" and "needs fixed"?
-
Do you think that a Hero should reset to face value when set-aside, since he resets to face value when shuffled?
No.
So why does it make sense to you that a Hero would keep gained abilities when set-aside but lose them when shuffled, but to keep a weapon when set-aside but lose it when shuffled is "silly" and "needs fixed"?
That isn't what we are talking about I was reffering to your post about weapon class enhancements behaving like regular enhancements in battle. So basically what you saying is that they do behave like regular enhancements sometimes but other times they do not?
I really don't want my weapon to be discarded when it is shuffled it doesn't make sense with all the other rules for weapons. And I don't like the idea of making rules that don't benifit or hurt the game that is basically making rules for the sake of making rules. Every time a person makes a rule they have to be able to explain it. This seems to be "it is shuffled becuase that's the rule" that isn't enough for me I want the game of redemption to go above and beyond that point I want people to fully understand why it does that.
And why make ANB more powerful then it is? HT was a mistake to make IMO when you have a card like ANB just begging to be played on a prophets.
So I am going to ask why are weapons discarded when the character is shuffled?
-
That isn't what we are talking about I was reffering to your post about weapon class enhancements behaving like regular enhancements in battle.
Well, since we're talking about what happens to weapons when they are set-aside (and not "in battle" as you keep referring to), and since I already told you my previous post was not addressing that issue, I don't see what the problem is.
I really don't want my weapon to be discarded when it is shuffled it doesn't make sense with all the other rules for weapons.
Sure it does. The rules for weapons give several other instances where the weapon is discarded when something or another happens to the Hero. The rules for weapons are also consistent with the rules for the way characters keep and lose changes from face value in various situations. I see no reason why that doesn't make sense; it works with other rules for weapons, it works for rules regarding other Enhancements apart from the special things that weapons do, and it works with rules regarding other changes from face value.
And I don't like the idea of making rules that don't benifit or hurt the game that is basically making rules for the sake of making rules.
Well, since that's not what's happening, and that's been explained to you multiple times, then I guess you should be feeling better about this whole matter by now. So why aren't you?
Every time a person makes a rule they have to be able to explain it. This seems to be "it is shuffled becuase that's the rule" that isn't enough for me I want the game of redemption to go above and beyond that point I want people to fully understand why it does that.
When a character is sent to the draw pile from the Field of Battle, Enhancements that were on him are discarded by game rule. Weapons act like regular Enhancements under these circumstances. So if you can understand why a regular Enhancement would be discarded, but you can't understand why a weapon would be discarded, what else am I supposed to say to you?
And why make ANB more powerful then it is? HT was a mistake to make IMO when you have a card like ANB just begging to be played on a prophets.
Since A New Beginning shuffles ALL cards in the Field of Play, weapons are shuffled in just like everything else. So can you explain to me why the rule for weapons makes this card more powerful?
-
"When a character is sent to the draw pile from the Field of Battle, Enhancements that were on him are discarded by game rule. Weapons act like regular Enhancements under these circumstances. So if you can understand why a regular Enhancement would be discarded, but you can't understand why a weapon would be discarded, what else am I supposed to say to you?"
When a character is sent from battle to set aside what happens to the enhancements in battle?
"Since A New Beginning shuffles ALL cards in the Field of Play, weapons are shuffled in just like everything else. So can you explain to me why the rule for weapons makes this card more powerful?"
Good point.
-
When a character is sent from battle to set aside what happens to the enhancements in battle?
Did we not already have the discussion about how weapons do not behave exactly like regular Enhancements all the time?
When a character with gained abilities is sent from battle to set aside, what happens to the gained abilities?
-
When a character is sent from battle to set aside what happens to the enhancements in battle?
When a character with gained abilities is sent from battle to set aside, what happens to the gained abilities?
They are set aside? A weapon isn't a gained ability though.
-
They are set aside? A weapon isn't a gained ability though.
Right but I explained to you earlier that they share some commonalities. In particular, you said it made sense that a character would hold on to an ability that he gained if set aside, but that he should lose it if shuffled. So why shouldn't a character hold on to a weapon that he "gained", or more accurately, is retaining, if set aside, and then lose it when shuffled?
-
They are set aside? A weapon isn't a gained ability though.
Right but I explained to you earlier that they share some commonalities. In particular, you said it made sense that a character would hold on to an ability that he gained if set aside, but that he should lose it if shuffled. So why shouldn't a character hold on to a weapon that he "gained", or more accurately, is retaining, if set aside, and then lose it when shuffled?
Imo he should but the weapon should shuffle in because it was gained as you see and the gained ability resets... He doesn't have the weapon attached when you draw him for example so he loses the gained ability. Why does there need to be a rule that when a character is shuffled the weapon he is holding is discarded.
-
Imo he should but the weapon should shuffle in because it was gained as you see and the gained ability resets.
It goes away. Gained ability goes away, weapon goes away. You do not get to shuffle Gathering back into your deck when a gathered Hero is shuffled.
Why does there need to be a rule that when a character is shuffled the weapon he is holding is discarded.
There doesn't. It just folds in with the general rule that when a character is shuffled, ANY Enhancement that is on them gets discarded.
-
"It goes away. Gained ability goes away, weapon goes away. You do not get to shuffle Gathering back into your deck when a gathered Hero is shuffled."
I thought you do shuffle it in with the set aside character.
One question.
If I played Reach of desperation then a play a set aside to set aside my character in battle what happens to reach?
-
I thought you do shuffle it in with the set aside character.
So if a gathered Captain gets shuffled, you actually fish Gathering out of your discard pile and put it back in your draw pile? Really?
If I played Reach of desperation then a play a set aside to set aside my character in battle what happens to reach?
Do you have any other characters in battle to move the card to?
-
I thought you do shuffle it in with the set aside character.
So if a gathered Captain gets shuffled, you actually fish Gathering out of your discard pile and put it back in your draw pile? Really?
If I played Reach of desperation then a play a set aside to set aside my character in battle what happens to reach?
Do you have any other characters in battle to move the card to?
1. No I ment if it was shuffled while set aside.
2. No
I am basically reversing the argument. If the weapon is not discarded when it is set aside why is it discarded when the character is shuffled? What makes the weapon go along with the character when it is set aside but not when it is shuffled? Besides the rule. The rules should make sense with each other.
In Him, :)
H13
-
I am basically reversing the argument. If the weapon is not discarded when it is set aside why is it discarded when the character is shuffled?
For the same reason all other Enhancements are discarded when the character is shuffled, and for the same reason that gained abilities are lost when the character is shuffled.
The rules should make sense with each other.
The rules DO make sense with each other, you will see that if you read above what I have written multiple times now. What you are asking is to create an ADDITIONAL rule that weapons get shuffled with a character that conflicts with all the other standard rules for cards. If you want the rules to make sense with each other, why do you want to make weapons EVEN MORE different than before, for no particular reason that I can see?
-
"The rules DO make sense with each other, you will see that if you read above what I have written multiple times now. What you are asking is to create an ADDITIONAL rule that weapons get shuffled with a character that conflicts with all the other standard rules for cards. If you want the rules to make sense with each other, why do you want to make weapons EVEN MORE different than before, for no particular reason that I can see?"
So weapons are treated as Gained abilities in all situations??
-
No because if you capture paul when he is gathered and I use iaredemption he is still gathered. Weapons stay in battle and tada die. (one situation)
-
So weapons are treated as Gained abilities in all situations??
No. You're missing the point here. I said they had things in common. The rules about discarding the Weapon are not the exceptional rules, they correlate with the rules for regular Enhancements. It is the rules that let the Weapon STAY that make it different. What you are asking is why don't we have a rule for Weapons that lets it do ANOTHER thing different from normal in order to make it LESS different. Do you see what I'm saying?
Example: Bob is in battle, Gathered, with a regular Enhancement, and Enhancement placed on him, and a Weapon he is holding.
If he is discarded, the regular Enhancement is discarded, the placed Enhancement is discarded, the Weapon is discarded, and the Gathered-ness goes away. Do you see how everything dies in the discard pile?
If he returns to territory, the regular Enhancement is discarded, but the placed Enhancement and the Weapon stay because they have special rules, and the Gathered-ness stays. Do you see how he has retained the things he has picked up?
If he is shuffled, the regular Enhancement is discarded, the placed Enhancement is discarded, the Weapon is discarded, and the Gathered-ness goes away. Do you see how everything dies when you return him to deck?
If he is set aside, the regular Enhancement is discarded, the placed Enhancement I believe depends on what the ability is that placed it there, the Weapon stays and the Gathered-ness stays. Do you see how he retains the things he has picked up?
-
Thank you for explaining that to me :) ( You are very patient) One last question why does the gathering stay if the character is captured and put into raiders camp but the weapon is discarded?
-
Lost Souls can't hold weapons, it's not part of their card type.
-
Lost Souls can't hold weapons, it's not part of their card type.
It isn't a lost soul its a captured hero.
-
Captured characters also are not characters. Being in Raider's Camp doesn't change the answer, because still, only characters can hold weapons.
-
Captured characters also are not characters. Being in Raider's Camp doesn't change the answer, because still, only characters can hold weapons.
So the Hero in raiders camp would lose his gatheredness?
-
Is being Gathered a weapon?
-
Is being Gathered a weapon?
No but captured hero that is treated a lost does lose the gatheredness I thought.
-
The rules for losing gained abilities are discarded, removed from game, returned to hand, returned to deck. Essentially, whenever you reset to face value.
Characters hold weapons. When a card is no longer a character, it can no longer hold a weapon. Any kind of card can have a special ability, therefore, a special ability gained by a character can remain even if he is a different kind of card, say a Lost Soul or "only" a captured character.
-
Hey,
I think The Hobbit has a point here.
If a character in a territory has an enhancement placed on them (by an ability like Agur is the only way I can think of that this would happen) and that character is shuffled into a draw pile, I would rule that the enhancement on the character is shuffled too because of the "placed cards follow the cards they are placed on" rule. Similarly if that character was returned to hand I would rule that the enhancement is returned to hand as well because of the same rule.
I realize that weapons are not exactly like placed enhancements, but they are similar. And if a "regular" enhancement on a character in a territory follows it to the draw pile or back to its owner's hand, why wouldn't a weapon?
After all the REG does say, "Weapons follow bearers to battle, set aside area, and when returned to territory as a Hero or Evil Character. Otherwise they are regular enhancements."
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
You bolded the area of the REG that says weapons act like regular Enhancements other than following the character to those specific areas. Therefore, I am going to go by that, and treat them like regular Enhancements, not placed Enhancements.
-
Hey,
You bolded the area of the REG that says weapons act like regular Enhancements other than following the character to those specific areas. Therefore, I am going to go by that, and treat them like regular Enhancements, not placed Enhancements.
Isn't a "regular" enhancement on a character in a territory the same thing as a "placed" enhancement on a character in a territory? That's what I was thinking when I chose to bold that statement. I was thinkiing "regular" as opposed to "weapon-class."
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Isn't a "regular" enhancement on a character in a territory the same thing as a "placed" enhancement on a character in a territory? That's what I was thinking when I chose to bold that statement. I was thinkiing "regular" as opposed to "weapon-class."
So if I have a "regular" Enhancement on a character in battle, and I have to shuffle the character, do I get to shuffle in all the regular Enhancements that are on it at that point in time?
-
Hey,
If a character enters battle holding a weapon, and during the battle another weapon is played on the character, if the character survives battle, can it choose to discard the weapon it entered battle with and take the new weapon with it when it leaves battle?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
So you're just responding with your own questions instead of answering mine? Thanks.
If a character enters battle holding a weapon, and during the battle another weapon is played on the character, if the character survives battle, can it choose to discard the weapon it entered battle with and take the new weapon with it when it leaves battle?
I don't remember the last ruling on this, but I believe that it can.
I really don't understand the point of this question, it doesn't do anything to explain why a weapon should be treated like an Enhancement that is being treated under the rules of a specific special ability rather than general rules regarding Enhancements.
-
Hey,
So you're just responding with your own questions instead of answering mine? Thanks.
Wasn't your question basically rhetorical? You know the answer, I know the answer, it really didn't need to be posted. Additionally I don't think that line of qestioning is going to get us anywhere. It seemed to me like we were just starting to run in circles, so I tried to change the direction of things a little.
I really don't understand the point of this question, it doesn't do anything to explain why a weapon should be treated like an Enhancement that is being treated under the rules of a specific special ability rather than general rules regarding Enhancements.
The point of the question was to see if a weapon when brought into battle is "demoted" to a regular enhancement while it's in battle or if it is still "attached" to the hero in a way that other enhancements played on the character are not. I guess the question does not exactly answer that question, but when it came to mind it was a quesiton I didn't know the answer to so I asked it.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
The weapon is not "detatched" in battle, or no hero in battle could be bearing/holding a weapon, which is a state that is checked by some cards. ;)
I think of it like this: a hero in battle bears a weapon. Another is played in battle with him. He doesn't bear that one while he still bears the first. (though if the first is removed/discarded, the second is immediately attached). At the end of battle, you can switch the carried weapon like you switch an active artifact. The non-carried one becomes a "regular" enhancement, and is thus discarded.
Does that make sense?
-
Wasn't your question basically rhetorical? You know the answer, I know the answer, it really didn't need to be posted. Additionally I don't think that line of qestioning is going to get us anywhere.
It wasn't rhetorical, it was leading, and as a leading question, it was in fact going to get us somewhere. A placed Enhancement in battle follows its container to the draw pile. Under normal circumstances, an Enhancement would be discarded if the character was sent to the draw pile. From that we can observe that Enhancements that are placed by a special ability have their own set of rules governing their behavior. If they place themselves, they do not re-activate anew each time they enter battle. If their container is sent elsewhere, they follow the container. Brigade and even type matching are no longer relevant. There are several unique things about the placement special ability.
Regular Enhancements get none of those benefits. Weapons, as you have pointed out, have only the advantages of being placed outside of battle and following the character to the specific areas mentioned in the REG. In no other way do they behave like a placed Enhancement; they get to reactivate, they have to match brigade. And they do not follow their containers to places not listed in the REG. The rules for "regular" Enhancements are considerably different than those of placed Enhancements, and I see no compelling reason to take that one rule for placed Enhancements and apply it to the exclusion of the others. If weapons are not placed Enhancements, none of those unique rules should apply.
-
The weapon is not "detatched" in battle, or no hero in battle could be bearing/holding a weapon, which is a state that is checked by some cards. ;)
If the hero is holding a hand weapon then it should follow him to the draw pile if he is truly holding it.
If the enhancement is not attached then when set aside the weapon is discarded.
-
If the hero is holding a hand weapon then it should follow him to the draw pile if he is truly holding it.
If the enhancement is not attached then when set aside the weapon is discarded.
Holding =/= placed
-
Weapons...have only the advantages of being placed outside of battle and following the character to the specific areas mentioned in the REG...
emphasis added :) I think it is interesting that even you use the word "placed" to describe how WC enhs get put on characters in territory.
My thinking here in agreement with Tim and Hobbit is once again about a conversation I don't want to have with a student.
Me: I'm playing Holy Unto the Lord so you have to shuffle all your ECs into your deck.
Student: OK, so I shuffle in all these ECs down here and the enhancements on them.
Me: What do you have down there?
Student: This EE that I placed on my EC, and this WC EE that I placed on my WC EC.
Me: Well actually you can shuffle the EE, but not the WC EE.
Student: But you taught me that cards follow what they are placed on.
Me: Well true, but actually WC EE aren't technically "placed" on the EC, the EC is "holding" it.
Student: But I "placed" the card down there, and how can the EC "hold" something unless I "place" it there first?
Me: I don't really know, but that's the rules.
Student: But you taught me that WC EE are better because they stick to my guys better than regular EE.
Me: Well true, but in this case the regular EE sticks better than the WC EE.
I hate these kind of conversations.
-
emphasis added :) I think it is interesting that even you use the word "placed" to describe how WC enhs get put on characters in territory.
We also "place" characters in the Field of Battle, Enhancements into the Field of Battle to play them on a character, I hope you're not going to use this logic to treat ALL cards like "placed" cards because we use the word "place" when talking about putting it on a particular area of a table.
I hate these kind of conversations.
Because you're having the wrong conversation. If you're teaching that the "follow" rule applies to anything other than Forts and the "place" special ability, you get what you deserve from that conversation.
By contrast, if you teach that weapons are Enhancements that the Warrior can take with him to battle, territory, or set-aside, but then loses it like a regular Enhancement in other circumstances, then it is simple and consistent with the (other) rules for Enhancements, the way the rules for retaining gained abilities and/or returning to face-value are treated, and the way the rules for duplicate unique characters are treated.
If people continue to draw parallels that do not exist between weapon class (which is only a supercharged Enhancement) and a special brand of cards (placed) with their own function, they are going to continue to see contradictions that crop up from the very nature of trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. If they realize that "placed cards" as a category are their own thing, with a completely different set of rules and behaviors from everything else, it will make sense.
-
Hey,
It seems to me that weapon class enhancements function more like placed enhancements than they do like "regular" enhancements. Namely in their primary characteristic: they can be present on a character in a territory (i.e. outside of battle). Especially considering Bryon's comment that weapons are still "held" while they are in battle.
If you had a place ability that said, "Place an enhancement from your hand on a character of matching brigade in your territory. Each time that character enters battle the placed enhancement activates." Wouldn't that function basically the same as a weapon?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
It seems to me that weapon class enhancements function more like placed enhancements than they do like "regular" enhancements. Namely in their primary characteristic: they can be present on a character in a territory (i.e. outside of battle).
That is the ONLY characteristic they have in common. In virtually every other respect they behave like regular Enhancements. The question about shuffling a character with a placed Enhancement that is in battle, was a direct demonstration of that difference. And now the recent arguments are that weapons should follow the same rules as placed Enhancements because one person or another chooses to use a particular term when trying to describe something briefly and clearly? Should we change the rules of interrupt or prevent to function exactly the same as negate because we have a tendency to use "negate" as a catch-all term to refer to the cancellation of special abilities?
If you had a place ability that said, "Place an enhancement from your hand on a character of matching brigade in your territory. Each time that character enters battle the placed enhancement activates." Wouldn't that function basically the same as a weapon?
We have one-shot cards that work like that now. They are placed Enhancements. They follow the rules governing the "place" special ability. Weapons are not the exception, their rules flow elegantly with the other rules regarding a change in status from the norm. Placement as a special function is the exception, due to the way Forts need to be handled. There is no need to change weapons away from the regular flow of the game to accommodate a shuffled Fortress.
-
Hey,
That is the ONLY characteristic they have in common. In virtually every other respect they behave like regular Enhancements.
If a character is converted a placed enhancement would stay on the character. A regular enhancement would get discarded.
If a character is set-aside a placed enhancement would stay on the character. A regular enhancement would get discarded.
At the end of battle, a placed enhancement would stay on the character. A regular enhancement would get discarded.
And really, lots of place abilities don't have much more than that in common either.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
If a character is converted...set-aside...At the end of battle
You just listed the rules that apply specifically to weapons. The same rules which I pointed out bring weapons into line with gained abilities and duplicate uniques rules.
I also pointed out to you several rules which are unique to placed Enhancements and do not apply to weapons or any other form of Enhancement. Non-reactivation. Non-brigade-matching. Following their container to areas that are not in the Field of Play or Set-Aside area.
Weapons have a few specific VARIATIONS from the STANDARD RULES governing Enhancements. Placed cards are substantially different in nearly every way. This is like saying because Mexico is a different country than the United States, it's closer to China than the US, even though the US and Mexico are on the same continent and China is half a world away.
-
Hey,
I believe that weapons are more like placed enhancements than they are like regular enhancements and I believe it would be beneficial for the rules to reflect that more strongly than they currently do.
Why do the rules currently state that a weapon class enhancement on a character in a territory gets discarded if the character is returned to a draw pile?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
I believe that weapons are more like placed enhancements than they are like regular enhancements and I believe it would be beneficial for the rules to reflect that more strongly than they currently do.
The facts above say otherwise. Unless you're going to allow me to put 2K Horses on King David.
Why do the rules currently state that a weapon class enhancement on a character in a territory gets discarded if the character is returned to a draw pile?
Because regular Enhancements are discarded if the character is returned to a draw pile. In this way, weapons behave like regular Enhancements, just as the rules state and just as I have been stating, and in contradiction to your claim that they act like placed Enhancements.
-
Weapons are PLAYED (not placed) on a character, the same as any other enhancement is played on a character. The only two differences are:
1) it can be played during prep or discard phase (similar to healing and set-aside enhancements), and
2) it stays on the character, with a choice to discard it at the end of each battle it is in.
Otherwise, they behave very similarly to regular enhancements.
-
No one denies that this is how they currently work. Schaef and you are both correct about the current ruling of course.
The question is whether this should remain the ruling, or whether it would be more intuitive to change one aspect of WC enhs.
Personally, I think that it seems intuitive if you are looking at your territory and see 2 characters that have enhs on them (one "placed" on them, and the other a WC "played" on them), and you shuffle both characters then the same thing should happen to those enhs.
I know this isn't the current rule. Tim, Hobbit, and I (and perhaps others) are just suggesting that it should become the rule.
Is there any chance? Or is this a rule that really can't change and we should just drop it?
-
I am just wondering why an inconsistency should be arbitrarily added in the midst of so many questions about consistency and purpose within the rules.
-
I don't want them to be treated liked placed enhancements really but if the charcter holds them in battle and the character holds them when set aside. The weapon should follow the hero. Why? Because he is holding it, it makes sense, to say a character is holding a weapon in battle but then to say it is not shuffled in when the character is shuffled in it is contradictary to that rule. It seems to me that a weapon is treated like a regular in Enhancement when it is convenient for it to be treated like one.
I will never understand why reach or any other enhancement isn't set aside with the caracter when played in battle but the weapon is. If it's treated like a regular enhancement in battle fine, follow through with that to other ruling question though.
Is the character holding the weapon in territory?
Also could I suggest something new? Weapon transfer, during the prep/discard phase you my transfer a weapon from one character to another. Just like in LOTR.
-
Because he is holding it, it makes sense, to say a character is holding a weapon in battle but then to say it is not shuffled in when the character is shuffled in it is contradictary to that rule.
How is it that you can have a rule that a character retains a weapon while in play or set-aside, and say it's contradictory to lose it when he is no longer in one of those two areas?
It seems to me that a weapon is treated like a regular in Enhancement when it is convenient for it to be treated like one.
It is treated like a regular Enhancement when you're not putting it on a character in territory, or holding it while in play or set-aside. What deviation do you see from those principles? What is arbitrary?
-
I say it makes more sense that an EC would drop his weapons and run if being faced down by a plague of frogs that penetrate his immunity without Negating it.
-
Hey,
Why do the rules currently state that a weapon class enhancement on a character in a territory gets discarded if the character is returned to a draw pile?
Because regular Enhancements are discarded if the character is returned to a draw pile. In this way, weapons behave like regular Enhancements, just as the rules state and just as I have been stating, and in contradiction to your claim that they act like placed Enhancements.
Care to explain how exactly a "regular" enhancement managed to get on a character in a territory in the first place?
Weapons are PLAYED (not placed) on a character, the same as any other enhancement is played on a character.
In the rulebook and REG weapons are only refered to as being "played" if it is in battle like a normal enhancement before being retained at the end of battle. Whenever the rulebook or REG refers to weapons being put on characters in a territory durng the preparation phase or discard phase it always uses the word place.
I am just wondering why an inconsistency should be arbitrarily added in the midst of so many questions about consistency and purpose within the rules.
If that's what I thought, then the next thing that would come to mind would be, these people that I'm arguing with are too smart to intentionally try to make the rules more inconsistent, so they must think that this change isn't adding inconsistency...what is the difference between how I see this and how they see this that makes me think of it as an inconsistency while they don't?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Hey,
If a weapon class enhancement follows a warrior class character when it is set aside then there must be some connection between the two cards that causes the weapon to follow the character (that makes it different from regular enhancements that don't follow the character they are on to the set-aside area).
If there is some connection between the two cards that causes the weapon to follow the character, then shouldn't that connection cause the weapon to follow the character to the draw pile or to its owner's hand?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Care to explain how exactly a "regular" enhancement managed to get on a character in a territory in the first place?
No, because the rules for weapons allow this. There is no need to fold a specific rule into the rule that in every OTHER way they behave like regular Enhancements.
If that's what I thought, then the next thing that would come to mind would be, these people that I'm arguing with are too smart to intentionally try to make the rules more inconsistent, so they must think that this change isn't adding inconsistency...what is the difference between how I see this and how they see this that makes me think of it as an inconsistency while they don't?
Well, I've told you guys about 50 times that looking at weapons and placed cards under the same microscope is the wrong way to approach the problem. I also think you're too smart to continue barking up the wrong tree, but you're obviously doing one of those two things wrong.
I don't know what's supposed to give me pause to "realize" that someone is smart enough to think they are right. That doesn't really take a lot, and you guys surpass that effortlessly. However, I've been arguing from the rules, and the rules say that a weapon is just a regular Enhancement that you can also stick on a guy in territory, and which follows him around while in play or set-aside.
This is consistent with other concepts in Redemption as well: gained abilities remain while in play or set-aside, but go away in other instances. The rule for unique duplicates apply to your cards that you have in play or set-aside, but don't apply in other areas. To say that a weapon should be shuffled is to depart from that consistency. That is adding inconsistency by creating another exceptional rule for weapons, one that does not line up with how we monitor a character's status in all these various aspects. It is also a rule that would be added for only one reason, because some other card with some other special ability that has its own set of rules governing it, does that thing.
Those two concepts fit my definition of inconsistent and arbitrary. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm too dense to grasp what you're saying, or to understand that you think you're right.
If there is some connection between the two cards that causes the weapon to follow the character, then shouldn't that connection cause the weapon to follow the character to the draw pile or to its owner's hand?
If there is some connection between a character and the ability he gains from Gathering, that causes him to retain that special ability in set-aside, shouldn't that cause the Gatheredness to follow the character to the draw pile or to its owner's hand?
In the meantime, I have proposed an alternative to TPTB, but it's something considerably different from what we've seen here so far.
-
Well, I've told you guys about 50 times that looking at weapons and placed cards under the same microscope is the wrong way to approach the problem.
If I'm looking to understand the current rules set on the issue then you have a valid point. But I am not looking to understand the current rules set in this thread, I'm looking to improve it (if I have not made that adequitely clear I appologize). And when looking to improve the rules, there is no inherently wrong way to approach a problem.
However, I've been arguing from the rules, and the rules say that a weapon is just a regular Enhancement that you can also stick on a guy in territory, and which follows him around while in play or set-aside.
Well, that makes it very obvious why we disagree. I'm arguing to change the rules, you're arguing based on what the rules are. If we didn't disagree I'd be concerned. On a side note, an argument from the rules is pointless against an argument to change the rules, which is probably my fault for not being clear on my intentions.
This is consistent with other concepts in Redemption as well: gained abilities remain while in play or set-aside, but go away in other instances. To say that a weapon should be shuffled is to depart from that consistency.
I don't believe that it is. A gained ability isn't lost when the card is sent to the draw pile, it is lost when it reaches the draw pile and resets to face value. Treating weapons the same way, to me, would mean that the character carries the weapon with him to the draw pile, and when he reaches the draw pile he loses the connection to the weapon. When the character is drawn again it is not connected to the weapon, but it was connected to the weapon long enough to get the weapon to the draw pile.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
And when looking to improve the rules, there is no inherently wrong way to approach a problem.
Even when I've pointed out the added inconsistency and the arbitrary nature of the recommended change? I was hoping that you were picking up on the fact that I was demonstrating specific reasons why the rule makes sense as is.
I'm arguing to change the rules, you're arguing based on what the rules are.
No, the rules are the springboard, the reasoning stems from those. There is a difference between that and just saying "that's just the rules".
A gained ability isn't lost when the card is sent to the draw pile, it is lost when it reaches the draw pile and resets to face value.
This is a distinction without a difference. A card that reaches the draw pile is a card that was sent to the draw pile. Of all people, you should know that abilities, particularly instant ones, do not have stages of progression. Besides, if you proceed on this logic, that going to the draw pile is different from "reaching" the draw pile, then I see no reason why cards played on characters in battle would not also follow the character to the draw pile before losing their "connection" of being on the character in battle.
-
Personally, I think that it seems intuitive if you are looking at your territory and see 2 characters that have enhs on them (one "placed" on them, and the other a WC "played" on them), and you shuffle both characters then the same thing should happen to those enhs.
I know this isn't the current rule. Tim, Hobbit, and I (and perhaps others) are just suggesting that it should become the rule.
Is there any chance? Or is this a rule that really can't change and we should just drop it?
I will repeat this question again since no one has answered it. I hate to keep arguing for something if there is no chance. However, I am still convinced that our proposal is more intuitive than the current ruling.
-
And I asked you why that is the case in light of the way weapons line up with other aspects of gameplay.
-
And I asked you why that is the case in light of the way weapons line up with other aspects of gameplay.
I don't see how this answers the question of whether the current rule can change.
-
You say it's not relevant whether or not the rule needs changed if the rule cannot be changed.
I say it's not relevant whether or not the rule can be changed if it is not necessary in the first place.
-
I say it's not relevant whether or not the rule can be changed if it is not necessary in the first place.
Of course you don't think it is relevant whether it can be changed since you think the current rule is best. But that doesn't answer my question. Please let me know if this rule is immutable so I can know whether I should continue investing time in it. A simple yes or no would be fine.
P.S. ...not that I ever got one from you the last time I asked :)
-
Hey,
You say it's not relevant whether or not the rule needs changed if the rule cannot be changed.
I say it's not relevant whether or not the rule can be changed if it is not necessary in the first place.
It's not a matter of it being necessary, it's a matter of it being beneficial.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Of course you don't think it is relevant whether it can be changed since you think the current rule is best. But that doesn't answer my question. Please let me know if this rule is immutable so I can know whether I should continue investing time in it. A simple yes or no would be fine.
Unless and until Rob says a rule will never ever be changed, I don't know that can be said of ANY rule. That does not mean I agree with the idea of arguing to change any rule just because it's not cemented.
It's not a matter of it being necessary, it's a matter of it being beneficial.
Does that not still beg the question of consistency and purpose as I have been asking? Necessity or benefit, both still face that obstacle.
-
I think I have to agree with Schaef on this one.
It seems like Tim's side acknowledges that the ruling currently is what Schaef has said it is but is arguing that changing it to their version would be worthwhile. It seems like Schaef has acknowledged that the rule could be changed but argues that it is not desirable.
Personally, I think it is 50/50 on which version of the rules would be better. We all want consistency but if we keep changing the rules that works against that goal. Since there is inherently a large con to changing the rules, the burden of proof is on Tim's group to show that it would be worth it. I think this rule change merely exchanges one set of definitions and rules for another. So unless there is some other large reason to support it then I would say let this one go.
P.S. I'm all for changing the rule if there is a REALLY good reason to do so i.e. Never under any circumstances being able to redeem Satan or the demons. I just think God was pretty clear on that one.
-
After seeking feedback from TPTB, here is my proposal for the rule regarding cards which are placed or held or what have you.
If a support card (by which I mean a Fortress, Site or Artifact) is shuffled or discarded or what have you, the contents held by those cards follow them to their destination. The continuing exception being that Lost Souls are returned to territory instead of being discarded or removed.
Cards that are placed on characters follow those characters as long as they remain in the Field of Play or set-aside area, but are discarded at any time that the character leaves those areas (discard, shuffle, return to hand). This includes weapons and cards placed by a special ability.
What are your thoughts on this?
-
Works for me.
-
That is the opposite direction that I was hoping for, however it does seem to be consistent.
Now if my student gets 2 ECs shuffled from their territory which each have an EE on them (1 placed, and 1 WC), then the same thing will happen to both of them. That is easy to explain.
-
Well, the more thought I gave it, the more that going the other direction would seem to make paralysis decks and orange defenses basically infinitely recyclable given the right use of one's cards.
-
Well, the more thought I gave it, the more that going the other direction would seem to make paralysis decks and orange defenses basically infinitely recyclable given the right use of one's cards.
Which wouldn't break the game.
Thanks for talking to the Pb to get things settled I like the new suggestions. :)
-
I haven't had enough experience with paralysis or orange decks to have thought of that, and appreciate your perspective on that. And in the end, it is much more important to me that things be consistent than for them to all be exactly how I would like them to be.
Keep up the good work!
-
Which wouldn't break the game.
I never said it would break the game. Not every rule is based only on whether one particular combo breaks the game or not. Paralysis decks were just a common example; I'm sure there are other ways to exploit the game if everything was shuffled all the time, in ways more damaging than the quick-and-dirty example I gave.
-
Which wouldn't break the game.
I never said it would break the game. Not every rule is based only on whether one particular combo breaks the game or not. Paralysis decks were just a common example; I'm sure there are other ways to exploit the game if everything was shuffled all the time, in ways more damaging than the quick-and-dirty example I gave.
Come on scheaf. :D you know you wanna let me abuse this.
-
Wait... we were going to keep the rule that all captured characters always lose their weapons, right?
It just doesn't make sense to me otherwise.
-
I would say the rule for captured Characters is explained the same way it was explained that Arioch could not target a captured human for discard. They are no longer characters, but characters being treated as Lost Souls, and Lost Souls cannot hold weapons.
So, Yeah. I say that rule is just as it has been Bryon. ;)
-
Lambo is right. Only characters can hold weapons, so the conversion to a Lost Soul would cause them to lose their weapon in that case.
This was more about removal, shuffling and returning to hand.
-
very good. Thanks. :)
-
After seeking feedback from TPTB, here is my proposal for the rule regarding cards which are placed or held or what have you.
If a support card (by which I mean a Fortress, Site or Artifact) is shuffled or discarded or what have you, the contents held by those cards follow them to their destination. The continuing exception being that Lost Souls are returned to territory instead of being discarded or removed.
Cards that are placed on characters follow those characters as long as they remain in the Field of Play or set-aside area, but are discarded at any time that the character leaves those areas (discard, shuffle, return to hand). This includes weapons and cards placed by a special ability.
What are your thoughts on this?
So a hero in Raiders camp retains it's weapon now?
-
Did you read the posts directly above yours?
-
Did you read the posts directly above yours?
Yes I did characters in Raiders camp are not treated as lost souls. Capturing and treating as a lost soul is totally different than capturing and putting it in Raiders camp. If that were to be incoporated 'Characters can hold weapons' it makes sense for gameplay and the rules that a character put in Raiders camp retains his/her weapon. Remeber it is still a character.
-
I was wondering this today... can you SoG/NJ/Bury a hero in RC?
-
If that were to be incoporated 'Characters can hold weapons' it makes sense for gameplay and the rules that a character put in Raiders camp retains his/her weapon. Remeber it is still a character.
Really? So I can discard a Hero in Raider's Camp with Christian Martyr? Are you sure?
-
Yeah... what exactly ARE people in RC considered? Since when you make a successful rescue, they return to your territory and are not redeemed...
Are they considered lost souls still? If so would this situation work?
I capture two heros with a card like Syrian Victory, they go to my Raiders Camp.
My opponent RA's again. One of the two heroes I captured was Gabriel, who drives me nuts. I play Son of God on Gabe so he cant come back, NJ on a different soul thats not important. I then proceed to give them the second hero thats in RC back and the RA is over.
*Edit* also, Raiders camp says "When opponent makes a sucessful rescue attempt OR BATTLE CHALLENGE... Is raiders camp essensially a site that no heroes can access?
-
All characters that are captured are considered "Captured Characters". Those that are also in the Land of Bondage are also considered "Lost Souls". None of them count as regular characters any longer.
Raider's Camp is not a Site at all. It is a Fort that holds captured Heroes, which releases them upon a successful battle challenge, and upon a successful rescue, "insteads" the rescue. It releases the Heroes instead of relinquishing the Lost Soul.
-
Ahh, so you can neither SoG or CM someone in RC?
-
No. Never could.
-
Ahh, that makes sense.
*Is Raiders Camp noob*
-
Ahh, that makes sense.
*Is Raiders Camp noob*
-
Ahh, so you can neither SoG or CM someone in RC?
No. Never could.
I understand that but I still think a character in raideres camp should retain his weapon. You cant Christian Martyr a hero because you cant target it as a hero, you cant place a weapon on a hero because you cant target it as a hero. It should keep it's weapon because it was already played and it makes sense especially with the new rule.
-
First of all, it's not a new rule yet, I've just been throwing it out there.
Second of all, if weapons stay on characters, how do you justify a weapon being on a non-character?
-
Second of all, if weapons stay on characters, how do you justify a weapon being on a non-character?
It is a character. But that is besides the point, the weapon should stay because of the new suggestion and because it was already played (the character does have a small factor in it.)
First of all, it's not a new rule yet, I've just been throwing it out there.
Then I suggest you add an exception for raiders camp.
-
It is a character.
Captured Character =/= Character. You cant band to a captured character can you? You cant CM a captured character can you? Then why should a placed enhancement remain on them?
-
It is a character.
Captured Character =/= Character. You cant band to a captured character can you? You cant CM a captured character can you? Then why should a placed enhancement remain on them?
Thats like saying: The elephant is fat. why should I put my cat on a diet? Besides what cards say may band to a male cahracter? (I thing I know what you are trying to say though) I cant band to a hero in raiders camp because it cannot be targeted as a hero. I played the weapon before when it was a hero, I see no reason why the weapon should be discarded, Shaefs suggestion supports this.
-
It is a character.
Captured Character =/= Character. You cant band to a captured character can you? You cant CM a captured character can you? Then why should a placed enhancement remain on them?
Thats like saying: The elephant is fat. why should I put my cat on a diet? Besides what cards say may band to a male cahracter? (I thing I know what you are trying to say though) I cant band to a hero in raiders camp because it cannot be targeted as a hero. I played the weapon before when it was a hero, I see no reason why the weapon should be discarded, Shaefs suggestion supports this.
what kinda captors would allow someone to carry a spear around?
-
Hey,
what kinda captors would allow someone to carry a spear around?
An over confident one.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
what kinda captors would allow someone to carry a spear around?
Ding! We can has a winner.
-
Hey,
what kinda captors would allow someone to carry a spear around?
An over confident one.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
The germans were overconfident I didn't see anyone in prison camps packing heat.
-
Second of all, if weapons stay on characters, how do you justify a weapon being on a non-character?
It is a character.
Oh, really? So I can discard a Hero from Raider's Camp with Haman's Plot? I can band Maharai to a blue Hero in Raider's Camp?
-
Second of all, if weapons stay on characters, how do you justify a weapon being on a non-character?
It is a character.
Oh, really? So I can discard a Hero from Raider's Camp with Haman's Plot? I can band Maharai to a blue Hero in Raider's Camp?
PLEASE SAY YES!!!
-
"Captured characters" are not characters. Don't treat them as such.
Also, road apples are not apples, cow pies are not pies, and peanuts are not nuts (botanically, anyway).
"captured character" is a subgroup of Lost Soul, not a subgroup of character.
-
Hey,
"Captured characters" are not characters. Don't treat them as such.
"captured character" is a subgroup of Lost Soul, not a subgroup of character.
I completely agree on the captured characters are not characters part. But as far as captured characters and lost souls, I believe it would be more accurate to say they they are two distinct groups that have a significant portion of overlap.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Agreed. A Captured Character is a Captured Character which, when in the Land of Bondage, is also a Lost Soul.
-
Yes, you are both right. I forgot about captured characters in RC.
-
and Tartarsauce.
-
Though, STAMP would argue that a captured demon is ONLY a captured demon, and not a redeemable soul.
-
I am Scott Stamp, and I approve this message.
-
"Captured characters" are not characters. Don't treat them as such.
Also, road apples are not apples, cow pies are not pies, and peanuts are not nuts (botanically, anyway).
"captured character" is a subgroup of Lost Soul, not a subgroup of character.
Okay so captured characters cant "hold" there weapons in raiders camp correct? Is that the only reason why the weapon is discarded?
-
I don't understand what you mean by "only reason". Characters hold weapons. Non-characters do not hold weapons. A captured character cannot hold a weapon any more than a Lost Soul or a Curse or a Dominant could hold it.
-
I don't understand what you mean by "only reason". Characters hold weapons. Non-characters do not hold weapons. A captured character cannot hold a weapon any more than a Lost Soul or a Curse or a Dominant could hold it.
aww does that mean no warrior class doubt? ;)
-
I don't understand what you mean by "only reason". Characters hold weapons. Non-characters do not hold weapons. A captured character cannot hold a weapon any more than a Lost Soul or a Curse or a Dominant could hold it.
Can Heroes hold evil weapons?
-
Obviously not.
-
Can Heroes hold evil weapons?
No, due to the rule that evil enhancements may not be played on heroes, and visa-versa.
-
Can Heroes hold evil weapons?
No, due to the rule that evil enhancements may not be played on heroes, and visa-versa.
What if the weapon is played when the character was a evil character, and now the character is a hero what happens to the weapon?
-
Weapons placed on Characters convert with the character, provided its ONLY from Hero <-> EC conversion.
Thats another game rule.
-
... which is specifically written out in the rulebook.
-
I was just making the point that in one situation the weapon is discarded because of the bearer not being eligible, and in conversion the weapon by follows the character even though the bearer isn't eligible only by game rule why make a game rule for one and not the other?
Besides all that, my thinking is when a character is in the LOB it is a subset of a captured character because it is being treated as a lost soul, why isn't the captured character in raiders camp a subset of a hero? Raiders camp changes the destination of the hero, canceling out treat as lost soul. Raiders camp should be an exception because there is a hero in there and it isn't being treated as a lost soul. And if it is a subset of a hero than the hero can hold a weapon in raiders camp.
-
I was just making the point that in one situation the weapon is discarded because of the bearer not being eligible, and in conversion the weapon by follows the character even though the bearer isn't eligible only by game rule why make a game rule for one and not the other?
um... why do you say the bearer isn't eligible? A character can hold a weapon. That is the rule.
A Hero is a character. A Hero holding a weapon follows the rule properly.
An Evil Character is a character. An Evil Character holding a weapon follows the rule properly.
A Lost Soul is not a character. A Lost Soul NOT holding a weapon follows the rule properly.
So where is the problem?
why isn't the captured character in raiders camp a subset of a hero? Raiders camp changes the destination of the hero
So I can band to one of your Heroes in Raider's Camp?
-
Also, from a logic perspective, would you allow a captured enemy to continue holding his weapon?
-
Also, from a logic perspective, would you allow a captured enemy to continue holding his weapon?
I've heard this somewhere before... hmm
It is a character.
Captured Character =/= Character. You cant band to a captured character can you? You cant CM a captured character can you? Then why should a placed enhancement remain on them?
Thats like saying: The elephant is fat. why should I put my cat on a diet? Besides what cards say may band to a male cahracter? (I thing I know what you are trying to say though) I cant band to a hero in raiders camp because it cannot be targeted as a hero. I played the weapon before when it was a hero, I see no reason why the weapon should be discarded, Shaefs suggestion supports this.
what kinda captors would allow someone to carry a spear around?
-
Hey,
A Lost Soul is not a character.
As long as you don't ask the second edition rulebook.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Also, from a logic perspective, would you allow a captured enemy to continue holding his weapon?
No I wouldn't.
"So I can band to one of your Heroes in Raider's Camp?"
You cant because captured heroes arn't characters(game rule), I think it is more intuituve to say the captured character in raiders camp is still a character but it cant hold weapons for obvious reasons. In this case you still cant band to my character because the hero is a captured hero (cant be targeted as just a hero).
-
You cant because captured heroes arn't characters(game rule)
-
You cant because captured heroes arn't characters(game rule)
I know that already. I was asking you to think through all the implications of saying a captured Hero in Raider's Camp is still a "Hero".
I think it is more intuituve to say the captured character in raiders camp is still a character but it cant hold weapons for obvious reasons.
I do not know what those obvious reasons are, that's why I need you to explain them to me. As far as I can tell, you want the captured-but-still-a-character to have a rule saying he can't hold weapons just because he shouldn't be able to hold weapons, and all I've been hearing lately is that having rules (supposedly) just for the sake of having rules is a dumb idea and bad for the game. So I don't understand why we should change captured characters to regular characters and then make new rules about how they are treated in RC or Spiritual Realm or Tartaros.
In this case you still cant band to my character because the hero is a captured hero (cant be targeted as just a hero).
Again, I don't understand why you want the captured guy to be called a Hero but not allow him to be targeted by things which target a Hero. That being the case, there's no real reason to bother calling him a Hero in the first place.
Referring to them as characters makes these cards targetable just like any other character, and creating new exceptions to the in-play targeting rule creates a needless extra layer of complexity.
Referring to them only as "captured characters" as a special type means you cannot use cards that target characters (which is what we want) but you can still apply container/holder rules (which is what we want) and target "captured characters" as written on the special ability (which is what we want). The natural consequence of that is, not being a character, they cannot hold a weapon.
This is no different than Lost Souls being "converted" into Redeemed Souls, a special type of card which only appears in-game when a certain event takes place (i.e. it being rescued), which does not allow them to be hit by cards that target Lost Souls, but allows references to "Redeemed Souls" on the special ability (Falling Away, Garden Tomb).
-
"and all I've been hearing lately is that having rules (supposedly) just for the sake of having rules is a dumb idea and bad for the game"
I thought before entering this discussion that the only reason the weapon is discarded is because if you put a person in jail they cant keep a weapon. I guess that isn't the case . I want the captured character to keep there weapons, but I see that is an argument I cannot win. So I will settle for this. "Captured heroes cant be targeted as Hero's but they are still heroes". What's wrong with that? That's more intuitive then saying when the hero is captured it is no longer a hero,because that rule is a shallow definition that is hard to completely grasp (My suggestion explains more withought changing anything). that way of saying it is actually more confusing then my proposal(although that is a matter of oppinion). Do you understand why a "captured hero in raiders camp isn't a hero or character" rule can be confusing? :) When I go to the zoo and look at an elephant your telling me it's not an elephant? ;) See what I mean?
Byron has told me to play go fish if I wanted to play a simple game. So why is it an issue to make this minor change in the game? It doesn't effect anything it is just a different understanding of what a captured hero is.
-
I thought before entering this discussion that the only reason the weapon is discarded is because if you put a person in jail they cant keep a weapon.
Can you tell me where that is printed in the REG?
"Captured heroes cant be targeted as Hero's but they are still heroes". What's wrong with that?
For what reason would they still need to be called Heroes? That is the question I asked before, and I do not see an answer here.
Do you understand why a "captured hero in raiders camp isn't a hero or character" rule can be confusing? :) When I go to the zoo and look at an elephant your telling me it's not an elephant? ;) See what I mean?
No, I don't see why that would be confusing because we're not talking about elephants. We are talking about cards. And cards in Raider's Camp are not treated the same as cards outside of Raider's Camp. Now we can make that because of an arbitrary rule about targeting, or we can make it because they are not treated as the same type of card any longer. The first is what I was told in many other threads is bad and confusing and counter-intuitive. The second allows cards to be played by the regular rules that govern them.
If you want to make an analogy, make it about soldiers since the game is a metaphor for spiritual warfare. Captured soldiers are not on the field of battle, you cannot issue orders to them, you cannot add them to the battle, you cannot kill them in the same manner that you can kill soldiers on a battlefield or even in an encampment. There is no reason to continue referring to them as soldiers in the tactical sense.
-
Hey,
When I go to the zoo and look at an elephant your telling me it's not an elephant? ;) See what I mean?
I like this analogy, or at least I like it as the start of an analogy. If you take me to a zoo to look at an elephant I can tell you it is not a wild elephant and I would be telling the truth. There are captured elephants and there are wild elephants. Usually the term "elephant" would be used to refer to a member of either group.
It's similar in Redemption. We have captured heroes and we have uncaptured heroes. Which if you really want to you could make up a supercategory of "all heroes" that the two both fall into. When we use the word "hero" in redemption we are not refering to the "All heroes" group like is common for words like "elephant" we are instead refering to the "uncaptured heroes" group. While this may not be the most common meaning for the term "hero" it is a valid one and it is the most practical one for Redemption since the "uncaptured heroes" get referenced a lot and the "all heroes" groups gets mentioned...I can't think of any time where it is referenced. So using "hero" to refer to "uncaptured hero" and thus shortening what must be said significantly is the best way to go.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Except all of our cards say "Hero" and creating a supercategory of Hero would mean that either all of those cards could target into Raider's Camp or two weeks from now we'll have ten more threads talking about how confusing it is to say "Hero" and expect people to know you actually meant only the uncaptured variety.
-
Except all of our cards say "Hero" and creating a supercategory of Hero would mean that either all of those cards could target into Raider's Camp or two weeks from now we'll have ten more threads talking about how confusing it is to say "Hero" and expect people to know you actually meant only the uncaptured variety.
No it won't because we would still refer to them as captured heroes if we want to talk about them. Nothing would change just the thought process behind it would change. Even though the hero is captured there is still a hero under there beneath everything, you cant target it as a hero but it still is a hero.
-
No it won't because we would still refer to them as captured heroes if we want to talk about them.
I'm referring to saying "Hero" when you mean "uncaptured Hero"
Even though the hero is captured there is still a hero under there beneath everything, you cant target it as a hero but it still is a hero.
If it's a Hero, why could you not target it as a Hero? Why does it have to be called a Hero at all just for the sake of naming it? That makes no sense. I keep asking you this and I don't understand why you refuse to answer this very fundamental question.
-
No it won't because we would still refer to them as captured heroes if we want to talk about them.
I'm referring to saying "Hero" when you mean "uncaptured Hero"
Even though the hero is captured there is still a hero under there beneath everything, you cant target it as a hero but it still is a hero.
If it's a Hero, why could you not target it as a Hero? Why does it have to be called a Hero at all just for the sake of naming it? That makes no sense. I keep asking you this and I don't understand why you refuse to answer this very fundamental question.
You cant target it as a "hero" because it is a "captured hero". If you understand that the captured hero is a still a hero than everyones good to go. :) That's better than saying it's not a character any more. It isn't a subgroup of lost soul it is a subgroup of hero.
If if the hero in raiders camp isn't a hero how can raiders camp release "all Heroes to owners territory"?
-
You cant target it as a "hero" because it is a "captured hero".
That's what I've been telling you for pages now, but you still want to call it a "Hero". If a "captured Hero" is a "Hero" then you can target it with cards that say "Hero". What you have not told me yet, so now I'm asking you for the fourth time, why these cards HAVE TO STILL BE HEROES. Please please please answer that question for me. Please.
If you understand that the captured hero is a still a hero than everyones good to go.
If I understand that the captured Hero is still a Hero, then I'm going to target that Hero with my Great Image or my Fruitless Tree, and when you try to tell me I can't, I'm going to complain that your rule is arbitrary and inconsistent. And I would be right, because you have not yet given me one single reason that I should think anything else.
If if the hero in raiders camp isn't a hero how can raiders camp release "all Heroes to owners territory"?
Please read the REG before asking questions that are already addressed.
-
You cant target it as a "hero" because it is a "captured hero".
That's what I've been telling you for pages now, but you still want to call it a "Hero". If a "captured Hero" is a "Hero" then you can target it with cards that say "Hero". What you have not told me yet, so now I'm asking you for the fourth time, why these cards HAVE TO STILL BE HEROES. Please please please answer that question for me. Please.
These have to still be Heroes because it makes sense to call John Mcain not a hero when he was captured in Veitnam seems strange. If a prisonar is capture in war he is still human, he is what every he is. Why does losing the priveledges of a hero make someone not a hero anymore? A captured hero is a hero AND a captured hero, you cant target it because the target cant get through the first barrier ,captured hero. The fact that a "captured hero" has the word hero in it's name is proof that it is still a hero, it is just captured.
-
These have to still be Heroes because it makes sense to call John Mcain not a hero when he was captured in Veitnam seems strange.
John McCain is not a Redemption card. He is also not counted among the soldiers for either side when issuing orders to troops or battling against other troops. I already made this analogy before, did you read it?
If a prisonar is capture in war he is still human, he is what every he is.
Again I have to ask you to please read my posts when responding.
Why does losing the priveledges of a hero make someone not a hero anymore?
Because those privileges are part of the way we define our card types. I say a captured Hero is no longer the card type "Hero" for gameplay purposes. You say that it IS a Hero, but then there should be another rule that says you can't do any of the things to them that you do to regular Heroes. That makes it 110% pointless to assign the card type Hero to that card.
A captured hero is a hero AND a captured hero, you cant target it because the target cant get through the first barrier ,captured hero.
There is no such "barrier" that you speak of. If it is a Hero, I can target a Hero. Your logic would allow me to have a Curse that cannot be discarded by Destruction, because it is a Curse AND an Artifact, but I can't target it because I can't get through the first barrier, Curse. Do you see how that doesn't make any sense? How you just construct this imaginary barrier that doesn't appear anywhere on the card and makes no sense within the rules?
The fact that a "captured hero" has the word hero in it's name is proof that it is still a hero, it is just captured.
The only thing that proves is that TPTB assigned the card type a name that directly coincides with the language on cards designed to release them. Which again is something that I already told you earlier in this thread. That's like saying Temple of Nisroch is a Temple because it says "Temple" in the name, without bothering to just look at the card and see that it's a pale green Enhancement.
-
I just wanted to applaud Stephen for mentioning Spiritual Realm, Fruitless Tree, and Temple of Nisroch in his recent posts. This message is brought to you by the Foundation of Cards Everyone Forgot About.
I guess while I'm posting, I could say it'd be nice if the term were something like "prisoner" rather than "captured character", but we're too far down the road for that. As long as we can remember that "captured character" is a solid unit of a term that does not encompass "character" in any way other than describing some past action that happened to get it into its current state, there shouldn't be an issue. I urge you, Mr. Bit13, to defer to Stephen's wisdom.
-
"Because those privileges are part of the way we define our card types. I say a captured Hero is no longer the card type "Hero" for gameplay purposes. You say that it IS a Hero, but then there should be another rule that says you can't do any of the things to them that you do to regular Heroes. That makes it 110% pointless to assign the card type Hero to that card."
There is no rule added we just have different conclusions taken from the phrase "captured hero".
-
Not to interject where I shouldn't, but do you honestly think there's "no rule" about whether captured characters are still characters?
Captured characters placed in a fortress (e.g., Raiders’ Camp or Tartaros). are not treated as Lost Souls because they are not in the Land of Bondage nor are they treated as regular characters. Rather, they are treated as captured characters. Captured heroes in a fortress are not subject to any effects that specify Heroes, Evil Characters, or Lost Souls (e.g., Band, Discard or Remove, or rescue). Cards that target all cards (e.g., A New Beginning), captured Heroes (e.g., Military Escort or Lamb’s Righteousness), or captured Evil Characters (e.g., Satan Released) can effect captured characters in a fortress.
-
There is no rule added we just have different conclusions taken from the phrase "captured hero".
What? If the card is of the card type "Hero" and you are saying a card that "targets a Hero" cannot "target a Hero", that's an added rule. This is an incredibly simple concept to still be in dispute.
-
Not to interject where I shouldn't, but do you honestly think there's "no rule" about whether captured characters are still characters?
Captured characters placed in a fortress (e.g., Raiders’ Camp or Tartaros). are not treated as Lost Souls because they are not in the Land of Bondage nor are they treated as regular characters. Rather, they are treated as captured characters. Captured heroes in a fortress are not subject to any effects that specify Heroes, Evil Characters, or Lost Souls (e.g., Band, Discard or Remove, or rescue). Cards that target all cards (e.g., A New Beginning), captured Heroes (e.g., Military Escort or Lamb’s Righteousness), or captured Evil Characters (e.g., Satan Released) can effect captured characters in a fortress.
I wasn't aware of that wholly, they are but they arn't in aspects of the game they arn't but logically they still are, follow? I just mixed them both together in this discussion thanks for helping me figure this out. Any way I would like to get off on another tangent, what is the definition of a successful rescue? I couldn't find the definition in the REG.
-
It's under Battle Resolution in the rulebook. Win the battle and have access to a Lost Soul.
-
It's under Battle Resolution in the rulebook. Win the battle and have access to a Lost Soul.
The moment I win the battle my opponent can play burial to stop a successful RA, but according to the definition from the rule book I still made a successful RA because they played burial after I won (that cant be entirely correct because we all know that he didn't have a successful RA). So a Successful Ra has to be determened when you recieve a lost soul correct?
In type 2 you recieve experience credit for a successful ra, why don't I get experience credit when I get a hero back from raiders camp? (If the rule you stated is correct) If the rule you stated is incorrect and successful rescue is determined when you rescue a lost soul how can you ever release a hero from raiders camp? Or do you just go back in time and give the lost soul back?
Hold it! in both situations I should get experience credit for releasing the hero in Raiders Camp because I made technically made a successful ra.
-
Hey,
The rulebook has at least one error in the section you were directed to. You can not play burial (or any other dominant) one you "win the battle." Because you don't "win the battle" until battle resolution begins and once battle resolution begins you can no longer play dominants.
The success or failure of a rescue attempt is determined at the beginning of battle resolution (the first step of battle resolution).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne