Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on May 09, 2012, 01:45:37 PM
-
Do weapons follow when a character is set aside?
What about returned to hand or deck?
When do weapons follow?
-
They follow anywhere except when the weapon's holder is captured.
-
Do weapons follow when a character is set aside?
What about returned to hand or deck?
When do weapons follow?
All placed cards follow the cards that they are placed on wherever they go unless an ability specifies otherwise, with the exception of equipped Weapons when the character is captured; those are discarded.
-
Hey,
Weapons follow bearers to battle, set aside area, and when returned to territory as a Hero or Evil Character. Otherwise they are regular enhancements.
If a warrior is discarded or captured, or returned to hand, all weapon cards on the character are discarded. If a warrior is converted, weapons remain on the character. The special ability on the weapon continues to function provided it does not conflict with the nature of a Hero or Evil Character.
All placed cards follow the cards that they are placed on wherever they go unless an ability specifies otherwise, with the exception of equipped Weapons when the character is captured; those are discarded.
Weapons function similar to placed enhancements, but they are not placed enhancements. They are where they are because of the rules for weapons, not the rules for place abilities, so rules specific to place abilities do not apply.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
...unless the weapon is Mjolnir.
-
I would conclude from SirNobody's first two quotes that if a character holding a weapon is returned to deck, the weapon would be discarded.
-
I would conclude from SirNobody's first two quotes that if a character holding a weapon is returned to deck, the weapon would be discarded.
Interesting, had not noticed that before. However, the rules don't specify what actually happens, and while it may make sense based on the 'return to hand' part, I don't think we can conclude that with certainty.
What does happen if a character holding a weapon is shuffled (or returned to deck)? I always thought it was shuffled with the character, and had it ruled that way, but the rules don't say either way.
-
i think thats right weapons get discarded but other cards follow but not completely sure why.
-
WC enhs used to be discarded when a character was shuffled. But I'm pretty sure that was changed so that they now follow the character anywhere it goes (except capture). It simplified the game, and it's been ruled that way for quite some time now I think.
-
WC enhs used to be discarded when a character was shuffled. But I'm pretty sure that was changed so that they now follow the character anywhere it goes (except capture). It simplified the game, and it's been ruled that way for quite some time now I think.
So you're overruling the REG, rulebook, and SirNobody? :o
Is the "new" rule listed somewhere? (FYI, I haven't checked yet.)
-
WC enhs used to be discarded when a character was shuffled. But I'm pretty sure that was changed so that they now follow the character anywhere it goes (except capture). It simplified the game, and it's been ruled that way for quite some time now I think.
I agree that this was my understanding, but it would have to be updated if that's the case *points up at REG quote that has a discard clause for 'return to hand'*.
I'm not sure of anything anymore :P
-
WC enhs used to be discarded when a character was shuffled. But I'm pretty sure that was changed so that they now follow the character anywhere it goes (except capture). It simplified the game, and it's been ruled that way for quite some time now I think.
So you're overruling the REG, rulebook, and SirNobody? :o
Is the "new" rule listed somewhere? (FYI, I haven't checked yet.)
I'm pretty sure (not 100%, but pretty sure) that I remember this ruling being made earlier this year when multiple elders agreed to overturn the previous rule.
-
I'm pretty sure (not 100%, but pretty sure) that I remember this ruling being made earlier this year when multiple elders agreed to overturn the previous rule.
Any major rule change needs to be in the Official Rules Section under New Rulings. Otherwise, some hosts will miss the thread where it was ruled, or hosts (like me) will forget what the ruling was because we're old.
-
Any major rule change needs to be in the Official Rules Section under New Rulings.
I always thought this was listed somewhere already. However, I couldn't find it, so I added it here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-new-rulings-announcement-thread/msg480027/#msg480027)
-
Thank you. That thread is the easiest to find on short notice during a tournament. I would like to see Gabe's post about 2011 changes added to that thread, too, if possible.
-
Any major rule change needs to be in the Official Rules Section under New Rulings.
I always thought this was listed somewhere already. However, I couldn't find it, so I added it here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-new-rulings-announcement-thread/msg480027/#msg480027)
Woah. Hold up.
Okay, I'm completely confused, because I have personally posted in 3 separate threads in the last four months, and many others have been made, where it has been said that placed cards (not weapons) are not discarded when the character they are placed on is captured. I say this, because no one countered it, and no Elders ruled otherwise.
From Prof's post in the Ruling Thread:
All cards held by or placed on a captured character are discarded (ex: Magic Charms held by my Magician would be discarded if that Magician was captured).
Where did this come from, and why was it not corrected in any of those threads?
-
At least it makes it simpler.
-
Just to clarify...
1) If Michael is holding Michael's Sword, ends up in Chamber of Angels and then back on draw pile, does Michael's Sword follow him all the way?
2) If I place an enhancement on my opponent's Hero that doesn't allow him to enter battle until it is removed, and then my opponent captures his own Hero, is my enhancement discarded?
3) If I place an enhancement on my opponent's Hero and my opponent returns the Hero to their hand, does my enhancement go to his hand, as well?
-
1st Question: Yep. They confirmed that Place and Weapons follow.
2nd Question: Again, yes they would be D/C'd.
3rd Question: I'm not sure, I think they'd go to your hand...
This is the understanding from the post Prof posted on the New Rulings section.
-
Hey,
WC enhs used to be discarded when a character was shuffled. But I'm pretty sure that was changed so that they now follow the character anywhere it goes (except capture). It simplified the game, and it's been ruled that way for quite some time now I think.
I'd REALLY like to see that discussion.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I concur with Prof U -
This was changed shortly after California nationals.
-
I concur with RDT's concurrence. ;)
-
Wait, so what's the rule here? Nobody just posted in the new rules thread that everything falls of when captured, but all the other elders posting here seem to disagree with that.
-
Wait, so what's the rule here? Nobody just posted in the new rules thread that everything falls of when captured, but all the other elders posting here seem to disagree with that.
Prof U posted that, and I believe the idea came from a discussion wherein we determined that would be the case, but I wasn't sure if the change had yet been implemented. As I recall, all Elders agreed with it, and I think that that's the way it should be, but I couldn't remember if it had been officially announced or not.
-
I see that we are following God's Word carefully:
"...do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..."
;)
-
What about Return to Hand? Do they still follow?
-
I see that we are following God's Word carefully:
"...do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..."
;)
What about Return to Hand? Do they still follow?
Character goes to your left hand and weapon to the right...unless it's Ehud. ;)
-
I was playing a game today where my opponent was useing high places. He placed an enhancement on my hero that I didn't like, so I returned him to my hand. I had no idea what to do with his enhancement, I let my opponent take the card back into his hand.
-
I was playing a game today where my opponent was useing high places. He placed an enhancement on my hero that I didn't like, so I returned him to my hand. I had no idea what to do with his enhancement, I let my opponent take the card back into his hand.
The enhancement would actually go to your hand. A card that another person owns can never go to your deck or d/c pile, but it can go to your hand, so it would follow the Hero.
-
Lol... What if he drops it while retreating to my hand?
Idk either....
-
The enhancement would actually go to your hand. A card that another person owns can never go to your deck or d/c pile, but it can go to your hand, so it would follow the Hero.
I would dispute this based on precedent established in other rulings that cards you do not own can only be added to your hand when a card explicitly states it can. This is a deviation from what I've seen in the past.
Is that something that was actually discussed for this ruling (and, btw, is this ruling final now that it has been finally announced?), or is this something that 'follows' the rule? Because if it is the latter, I would challenge that this flies in the face of precedent without an explicit change in the rules.
-
Hey,
The enhancement would actually go to your hand. A card that another person owns can never go to your deck or d/c pile, but it can go to your hand, so it would follow the Hero.
I would dispute this based on precedent established in other rulings that cards you do not own can only be added to your hand when a card explicitly states it can.
Redoubter is correct. When a card is returned to your hand it resets to face value. Face value includes the ownership of the card, so when a card goes to a players hand it goes to the owner's hand by default (even if it is "following" a card that goes to someone else's hand). There is an established exception to this for cards that specifically put an opponent's card in your hand (i.e. Taking Egypt's Wealth).
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I like the professor's explanation better. Any rule that works all the time is better than something with exceptions.
-
Hey,
I like the professor's explanation better. Any rule that works all the time is better than something with exceptions.
The rules that cards reset to face value when they go to a players hand and the rule that control reverts to the owner when a card resets to face value are established rules. Either explanation requires an exception to one rule or the other.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Resetting to face value doesn't affect control.
-
I'm inclined to agree w/ Pol. If I make a card that states 'Return all cards to face value' that wouldn't change the control of any cards.
-
Hey,
If cards didn't revert to their owner when they reset to face value, then if your lost soul is in my land of bondage when the shuffler is rescued it would get shuffled into my draw pile.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
That's not resetting to face-value, that is returning it to the owner, via what the card says.
-
If cards didn't revert to their owner when they reset to face value, then if your lost soul is in my land of bondage when the shuffler is rescued it would get shuffled into my draw pile.
That is a situation of cards returning to decks (which everyone agrees always go to owner's decks). This is a question of whether going to other players hands is allowed, or whether it works like decks and discard piles. I do see a separation here that could be significant.
If Prof A thinks that they should go to opponent's hands (following the precedent of cards like Abe's Descendants), and Nobody thinks that they should go to owner's hands (following the precedent of the rule about decks and discard piles), then both sides have a valid viewpoint. We should discuss this on the other side and return with a conclusive answer.
-
If Prof A thinks that they should go to opponent's hands (following the precedent of cards like Abe's Descendants), and Nobody thinks that they should go to owner's hands (following the precedent of the rule about decks and discard piles), then both sides have a valid viewpoint. We should discuss this on the other side and return with a conclusive answer.
If Sir Nobody is correct, then you cannot take this discussion to the "other side." ;)
-
Then clearly he's incorrect :)
Just to lay it out, the question is to whether have going to had default to owner's and then add an exception for cards that specifically allow for it, or to just have no default and let all cards work as worded. Most cards that return things to had say "owner's hand" anyway, so there's no risk of anything being broken. You've already been able to do this for years since at least one elder thought that was always the rule, and no problems have come up.
-
Most cards that return things to had say "owner's hand" anyway, so there's no risk of anything being broken.
Actually, the way the other side of this argument is being presented, it does result in a lot of broken, because those cards target one card, and then anything placed on those cards go to that player's hand.
If I were to return a Hero to my hand that had a placed card on it, by your reading of the rules that placed card would go to my hand as well, and there are no cards that say "return X to owner's hand, and everything placed to owner's hand". This does leave the door open for broken situations.
If a card says that it returns to "owner's hand", then all placed cards should follow the same rule and return to "owner's hand". They should not follow based on player, but owner. They still go to hand, just the correct one.
-
The Arguement we are making is that owner's hand means each card goes to the card Owner's hand. (ex. I play a card that returns my Hero w/ Destructive Sin on it. Our understanding is My Hero goes to my hand and Destructive Sin goes to the hand of the player that played it. But if I play a card that says, Return a Hero to Hand' it would take both to your hand)
-
I support Sir Nobody's interpretation. It is more consistent and simple.
"return to hand" - return to owner's hand
"return to your hand" - overrides destination, a la "instead" (e.g. Abraham's Descendant and Gleaning the Fields)
-
If I were to return a Hero to my hand that had a placed card on it, by your reading of the rules that placed card would go to my hand as well, and there are no cards that say "return X to owner's hand, and everything placed to owner's hand". This does leave the door open for broken situations.
I don't see how that's a problem. How would you force your opponent to play placed cards he doesn't want to play? The power of placed cards is very high and there's currently little-to-no risk in playing them. I don't see how making a slight downside (mostly involving cards that don't see play at all) is so horrible.
-
I'd have to agree w/ Pol here, what's the 'big' problem? It seems like it would be a bigger problem the other way.
-
I'd have to agree w/ Pol here, what's the 'big' problem? It seems like it would be a bigger problem the other way.
It's not about a 'big problem' being caused, it's about the consistency of the rule.
It is actually is more consistent to have all 'return' abilities follow the same rule. I don't see why there should be a different rule for hand as opposed to other locations, given both precedent and consistency.
Aren't we trying to keep the rules simple and consistent? Or was that just in other threads and I missed where we did an about-face? ;)
-
The problem is it's not consistent. Because it's not following the 'follow' rule and it makes Place Enhancements 100x worse then they are now.
-
it makes Place Enhancements 100x worse then they are now.
That's probably a good thing, because place cards aren't really bad at all.
-
How's that good? It's bad enough if I have to deal w/ something like Destructive Sin, but now I have to worry that I may give my opponent a chance to take it back and play it again?
I say if it's on a person, it follows to that players hand, like a blessing or Curse.
-
Redoubter, I'm not advocating different rules for different situations, I'm opposing them. Rather than have a rule that says cards return to owners' hands unless a card says otherwise, I am advocating simply having no rule like that. Cards play as written.
-
Redoubter, I'm not advocating different rules for different situations, I'm opposing them. Rather than have a rule that says cards return to owners' hands unless a card says otherwise, I am advocating simply having no rule like that. Cards play as written.
Okay, so if I were to shuffle a card I owned and you placed a card on it earlier, that gets shuffled into my deck too? Or are you saying different rules for different situations, as I stated before?
-
Redoubter, I'm not advocating different rules for different situations, I'm opposing them. Rather than have a rule that says cards return to owners' hands unless a card says otherwise, I am advocating simply having no rule like that. Cards play as written.
Okay, so if I were to shuffle a card I owned and you placed a card on it earlier, that gets shuffled into my deck too? Or are you saying different rules for different situations, as I stated before?
There's a rule that a card cannot enter a draw or discard pile other than its owner's (for obvious reasons like losing cards, card sleeves letting you know what you would draw), but there is no rule against a card going to a hand other than its owners.
Now I don't care either way on how this ruling goes, but I'd just like a clear, definitive ruling to go by for tournaments.
-
There's a rule that a card cannot enter a draw or discard pile other than its owner's (for obvious reasons like losing cards, card sleeves letting you know what you would draw), but there is no rule against a card going to a hand other than its owners.
However, the rule is (and always has been) that unless an ability says otherwise, you can't add cards you don't own to your hand.
I was pointing out that Pol wants to have different rules for follow depending on the destination, while he is insisting that he doesn't advocate different rules for each situation.
-
Yes, there is a current rule on the books. I want to strike the rule, not add a new one.
-
Yes, there is a current rule on the books. I want to strike the rule, not add a new one.
My point is that right now, the rule is consistent with every other rule regarding what happens to place cards (when the destination is deck or discard), but you want to make this one different.
If you strike this rule, you actually create different rules for different situations of the same ability. If you strike this rule to have "cards play as they read", then what's the difference in striking the deck or discard rules?
You are suggesting that we add inconsistency to the rule of placed cards and have different results based on the destination.
EDIT: Unless you're suggesting that we also eliminate the restriction on cards going in deck or discard that the player doesn't own...in which case I will strongly disagree for obvious reasons (as Drrek pointed out) and for the consistency of the game.
-
There is a rule for what happens to cards returned to decks. There is a rule for what happens when a placed card's host goes somewhere else. There is currently also a rule in the REG (that was apparently not made by elder consensus) about what happens when a card is returned to hand. Removing that rule does nothing to the others.
-
There is a rule for what happens to cards returned to decks. There is a rule for what happens when a placed card's host goes somewhere else. There is currently also a rule in the REG (that was apparently not made by elder consensus) about what happens when a card is returned to hand. Removing that rule does nothing to the others.
However, then (as I said), you would be introducing a situation where you would have different rules for the same situation that would change based on the destination. You said you weren't arguing for that, and I was pointing out that this is false. Changing the rule actually leads to inconsistency.
-
Decks and hands are two different things, why should they behave the same? Does banding a character from hand have a built-in search ability like it does for deck? Must a hand be shuffled after a card leaves it? The rule for placed cards is that they follow their hosts. The rule for decks is that there can never be a card you don't own in your deck. The rule for hand? Why have one?
-
Deck, discard, and hand may be different, but they all share that they are where one player's cards are. Unless you specifically override the rule (like with Taking Egypt's Wealth, Gleaning the Fields, and none target deck ATM), cards cannot be put in any of those locations unless they belong to the owner of the card.
If something discards a card when another card is placed on it, why not have the card go to that discard pile?
If something shuffles a card when another card is placed on it, why not have the card follow to that deck?
These two have the same considerations as hand. If a placed card doesn't go to them, why should it go to hand?
You are trying to make the place rules too complicated by adding a condition on where the cards end up based on each circumstance. I thought we were trying to make the rules less complicated and with less caveats, but maybe that was just other threads.
-
Your Arguement is flawed just as Pol pointed out, Hand, Deck and Discard Piles are very different. It's not consitancy by any stretch of the imagination, and most new players that I talked too, thought that if they follow, they should follow to the hand that the Character goes, not making it worse and more confusing for players.
-
Just to clarify the current situation, here's some facts -
Status Quo: Placed cards follow their host everywhere (except when the character is captured). If a placed card would follow to a control-restricted zone (hand, deck, discard pile) it instead goes to its owner's zone of the same type.
What Pol is suggesting: Remove hand as a control-restricted zone.
-
Yep.
-
most new players that I talked too, thought that if they follow, they should follow to the hand that the Character goes
I'd love to meet them, since that is most certainly not intuitive (especially considering the other rules for placed cards) and has not been the conclusion jumped to with any player I have ever met.
What Pol is suggesting: Remove hand as a control-restricted zone.
I understand exactly what he's saying. I'm suggesting that to change the way placed cards interact with return/shuffle abilities based on their destination with these three zones makes for another 'except when...' rule, another inconsistency, and another situation that is more difficult to address with new players.
If your goal is less exceptions, more consistency, and easier access to the rules for new players (which everyone here has argued for in every thread except this one), then this rule shouldn't be overhauled.
-
Redoubter - Oh, I know. I was actually trying to support your argument by showing the exception-free current status (when it comes to the location) as opposed to what Pol is proposing. Sorry for the confusion. :P
-
Redoubter - Oh, I know. I was actually trying to support your argument by showing the exception-free current status (when it comes to the location) as opposed to what Pol is proposing. Sorry for the confusion. :P
Well then, I'm sorry for lumping you in about the whole making the rules more cumbersome ;) It's late. I really don't know why I post at this hour, I get cranky and misread things sometimes I guess :P
-
I fail to see how removing a rule makes more rules.
-
Same here.
-
I fail to see how removing a rule makes more rules.
It makes the rule different for placed cards based on where they end up instead of having consistent rules throughout. So it actually does create a new rule: an exception. That makes it more complicated, more convoluted, and less cohesive.
And we've been trying to avoid that.
-
Not really, since more of the rules are more confusing then not.
-
That makes it more complicated, more convoluted, and less cohesive.
That's, like, your opinion, man. You see it as a blanket rule with exceptions. I see it as a rule for returning to deck and no rule for returning to hand. You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong, but at least I can see both sides as valid.