Author Topic: several questions from Natz (Read 2620 times)

sepjazzwarrior · « **on:** August 14, 2012, 10:40:51 AM »

1) What is the definition of "your"? Does it mean ownership and control or just ownership?

2) If "your" does just mean ownership, then would you cupbearer in opponent's land of bondage count as a Genesis Egyptian for you, since you own it, for baker's ability?

3) When you reveal cards from the top/bottom of deck and then are forced to put them back on top/bottom of deck, do you get to put them back in any order you want?

4) What happens to placed cards when a character is shuffled? Captured?

5) What happens to weapons when the character holding the weapon is killed and there is another warrior-class character of the same brigade that can hold the weapon? What if the other character in battle isn't warrior-class?

Gabe · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:45:22 AM »

Your = own and control

Reveal abilities by themself do not allow you to choose a new order for the cards.
Reveal + new location, like place on top/bottom (soon to be called topdeck and underdeck) do allow you to choose an order because of the place ability.

Redoubter · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2012, 10:40:55 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 14, 2012, 10:45:22 AM

(soon to be called topdeck and underdeck)

"Soon to be" as in an updated rulebook with terms that are easily understood and consistent?!

...I'm a happy clam in that case

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on August 14, 2012, 10:40:51 AM

4) What happens to placed cards when a character is shuffled? Captured?

5) What happens to weapons when the character holding the weapon is killed and there is another warrior-class character of the same brigade that can hold the weapon? What if the other character in battle isn't warrior-class?

Since Gabe didn't answer these, here are your answers:

4. See HERE, as it is a newer ruling. Placed cards (including weapons) all follow everywhere...EXCEPT capture. They are discarded when the character is captured.

5. The Weapon will stay in battle as long as a character of that brigade is still in battle, and it can be held by a WC character of that brigade after battle.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #3 on:** August 15, 2012, 12:46:26 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 10:40:55 PM

5. The Weapon will stay in battle as long as a character of that brigade is still in battle, and it can be held by a WC character of that brigade after battle.

I agree with Gabe on 1-3, and I agree with Redoubter on 4, but I'm not sure about #5. In the past, the ruling has been what Redoubter says. However with the newer ruling about cards always following their hosts, I'm not sure if that is still the case. I think that some people have been ruling that if you discard a hero in battle who came into it already bearing a WC-GE, that the WC-GE would follow the hero to the discard pile (even if there were other heroes in battle of the same brigade).

I think that for consistency with the "card following" rule that this might be a better ruling than the traditional one from years back. Discussion?

adotson85 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 15, 2012, 01:04:31 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 15, 2012, 12:46:26 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on August 14, 2012, 10:40:55 PM
5. The Weapon will stay in battle as long as a character of that brigade is still in battle, and it can be held by a WC character of that brigade after battle.
I agree with Gabe on 1-3, and I agree with Redoubter on 4, but I'm not sure about #5. In the past, the ruling has been what Redoubter says. However with the newer ruling about cards always following their hosts, I'm not sure if that is still the case. I think that some people have been ruling that if you discard a hero in battle who came into it already bearing a WC-GE, that the WC-GE would follow the hero to the discard pile (even if there were other heroes in battle of the same brigade).

I think that for consistency with the "card following" rule that this might be a better ruling than the traditional one from years back. Discussion?

Can't remember where I read it, but I know I read a post that came to the conclusion that the weapon would remain on any wc hero with a matching brigade after battle. That was the most recent ruling I can recall seeing, but things could have changed with the new rulings on weapons and placed cards I suppose.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #5 on:** August 15, 2012, 01:08:51 AM »

I like the traditional rules for weapons in battle (not following the character) so during battle they are treated like any other enhancement, but I'm not strongly opinionated either way.

adotson85 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 15, 2012, 01:23:45 AM »

From the REG:

Quote

Weapons may not be exchanged between characters and may only be moved to another character in battle if the holder of the weapon is defeated and another warrior-class character is in battle and able to hold the weapon.[quote/]

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #7 on:** August 15, 2012, 02:36:39 AM »

Yes, I know that is the ruling in the REG. I'm just wondering if that should be updated to reflect the newer ruling that cards follow the cards that they are on.

Besides the main reason of consistency, I also like the element of strategy that it adds to the game. Putting a WC enh on a character in territory has the benefit of it automatically activating when entering battle regardless of initiative. But it would also have the drawback of disappearing if the character holding it was captured/discarded/etc.

Waiting to play it in battle with initiative would be riskier, but then if one character is removed from battle, a different character could return with it following the battle.

Redoubter · « **Reply #8 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:09:48 AM »

Interesting point Prof U...

My first reaction was that we should stay with the current rule as quoted in the REG, but consistency with the new ruling may require an update. Then in all cases (except capture), weapons would follow.

The only problem I see is that it is indeed game-rule for enhancements to stay in battle if another character has the same brigade and remains. Would we change that part, but only for WC enhancements? Then they wouldn't be consistent with normal enhancements.

I could see both sides of it, but for ease of the rules and consistency with other enhancements, I would likely argue to keep the rule the same as it is.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #9 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:54:43 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 15, 2012, 07:09:48 AM

I could see both sides of it, but for ease of the rules and consistency with other enhancements, I would likely argue to keep the rule the same as it is.

I also see both sides of it, but for the ease of the rules and consistency with other cards that are "on" other cards, I would likely argue to update the rule.

Currently:
All cards "on" other cards follow the bottom card with 2 exceptions (capture, WC w/ banding)
All enhs in battle stay when played with 3 exceptions (when cards place themselves elsewhere, when all the characters of that brigade are removed from battle, when enhs discard themselves)

My Proposal:
All cards "on" other cards follow the bottom card with 1 exception (capture)
All enhs in battle stay when played with 4 exceptions (above + WC going away with a character)

It seems like to me that since there are already more exceptions to the enhs in battle rule, that it makes more sense to just add another there, and leave the "follow" rule as close to absolute as possible.

Gabe · « **Reply #10 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:42:58 AM »

The rule about cards following thier host does not supersede enhancements remaining in battle if there is a character of matching brigade.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #11 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:48:04 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 15, 2012, 08:42:58 AM

The rule about cards following thier host does not supersede enhancements remaining in battle if there is a character of matching brigade.

Yes, we all agree that is the current ruling. We are talking about whether it is better for that to change or stay the same.

Gabe · « **Reply #12 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:50:46 AM »

We dont change rules without good reason. I see no reason we even need to consider changing this.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #13 on:** August 15, 2012, 04:51:57 PM »

The good reason in my mind is to eliminate exceptions to the new "cards always follow their hosts" ruling. Obviously Gabe does not consider this a good enough reason to consider changing this.

Does anyone else also think that it's worth considering? If not, then I'll simply concede that we should just stick with the status quo. But I hate to just drop it without at least giving the idea a chance. Anyone else out there care about this?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #14 on:** August 15, 2012, 05:50:59 PM »

I think the status quo should stay. It is not confusing, even to new players. One guy drops his weapon, so his friend picks it up. Would a good warrior really just leave Excalibur lying there?

STAMP · « **Reply #15 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:49:50 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 15, 2012, 05:50:59 PM

Would a good warrior really just leave Excalibur lying there?

According to John Boorman, Perceval throws it in to the Lady of the Lake. I think we need a lake in the field of battle where weapons are thrown when WC characters are defeated or captured.

Other than that, what does the insert say?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #16 on:** August 15, 2012, 11:51:24 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on August 15, 2012, 07:49:50 PM

Other than that, what does the insert say?

Once and future king.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #17 on:** August 17, 2012, 01:21:44 PM »

I totally agree with the concept of removing exceptions and simplifying rules (and hate it when this concept is ignored), but that doesn't always apply when you're merely moving exceptions from one side of the table to the other. I'd be more likely to propose something like dropping the "class Enhancements" from "weapon" and just have weapons be weapons with their own set of rules so that all rule exceptions are eliminated for that particular category.

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** August 17, 2012, 06:48:53 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 17, 2012, 01:21:44 PM

I totally agree with the concept of removing exceptions and simplifying rules (and hate it when this concept is ignored), but that doesn't always apply when you're merely moving exceptions from one side of the table to the other. I'd be more likely to propose something like dropping the "class Enhancements" from "weapon" and just have weapons be weapons with their own set of rules so that all rule exceptions are eliminated for that particular category.

I could get behind this for sure. The only concern I'd have is that weapons can still be used as enhancements (Foreign Sword still negates in-battle, for instance, and non-WC Canaanites can get the full effect), and that may lead to confusion. Also, if they are not 'enhancements' then searches would function differently. However, if it's done in a manner similar to Covenants/Curses (while figuring out the two problems I mentioned), this could definitely work.

...wait a minute, Pol and I agree on a change to the rules pretty much completely

Hopefully no pigs grew wings

Red · « **Reply #19 on:** August 17, 2012, 06:51:01 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 17, 2012, 06:48:53 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 17, 2012, 01:21:44 PM
I totally agree with the concept of removing exceptions and simplifying rules (and hate it when this concept is ignored), but that doesn't always apply when you're merely moving exceptions from one side of the table to the other. I'd be more likely to propose something like dropping the "class Enhancements" from "weapon" and just have weapons be weapons with their own set of rules so that all rule exceptions are eliminated for that particular category.

I could get behind this for sure. The only concern I'd have is that weapons can still be used as enhancements (Foreign Sword still negates in-battle, for instance, and non-WC Canaanites can get the full effect), and that may lead to confusion. Also, if they are not 'enhancements' then searches would function differently. However, if it's done in a manner similar to Covenants/Curses (while figuring out the two problems I mentioned), this could definitely work.

...wait a minute, Pol and I agree on a change to the rules pretty much completely Hopefully no pigs grew wings

Too late... My pig flew away this morning.

News:

Author Topic: several questions from Natz (Read 2620 times)