Cactus Game Design Message Boards

This is what confused me:

I do not RA with Benjamin, but I battle challenge with Benjamin. I have no lost soul access, therefore do NOT make a RA, or "choose" a lost soul I do not have access to. You do not choose a lost soul when declaring a BC when you have no access..

Quote

Is it not true that in T1, when a player initiates a battle challenge that if, during the course of battle, a rescue-able soul enters the opponent's LoB, the battle now continues as a rescue attempt?  Meaning, there is no choice, there is no "may;" the battle is now a RA. (See Definition of Rescue Attempt below)

Correct.
I said what Hobbit said...
Like I said, you attack with Benjamin having no lost soul access, you still choose, just it's a battle challenge.

So then, an "additional" modification to Rescuer's Choice could be the option to Declare a Battle Challenge (Whether there are souls or not) and once that decision has been made, you cannot change it? i.e. Not choosing a soul.

It seems the easiest solution for all situations would be to errata Burial Shroud to say: "Restrict players from making Rescue Attempts or Battle Challenges this round. May be used Twice." I read this thread all the while thinking of all the various situations that could come up, and I came to the conclusion that it was too confusing. I know that historically you have never been able to make a battle challenge if a Hero that you attack with has access to a Lost Soul, but that rule was put into place long before cards like Woman at the Well, Hopper, The Generous Widow, etc. made it very likely that a Lost Soul would become available mid-BC (I guess Hur was one of the first in that regard). I just don't see a better solution that fits all the various issues that come up. My second solution would be to get rid of the rule that you cannot battle challenge if an initial Hero, either the first attacker or a Hero who was banded in as a result of the first attacker's ability, has access to a Lost Soul, but that rule has been around for quite some time.

If I had to make a decision with no errata, here's how I would answer the issues that I see:

1) You can begin a Battle Challenge with Heroes that have no access, even if those Heroes may cause an LS to become available. So you can BC with Woman at the Well and fetch an LS with Shroud up.

2) If an LS becomes available, Shroud's SA will override the game rule of a BC becoming an RA with an available LS; the battle will remain a BC. Thus, no LS can be rescued. The precedent for this is seen in both Primary Objective and Ambush the City, where Heroes can be involved in Battle Challenges even though they may have access to a Lost Soul.

3) Shroud doesn't do anything else in that situation except override the usual rule. It doesn't kick people out of battle, nor does it stop things like Hopper/HT/etc. from functioning as normal.

4) You cannot begin a Battle Challenge with any Hero that has access to a Lost Soul as the initial attacker, or any character brought in by the initial attacker via a banding ability, with Shroud up. This is where the most confusing situations can arise. For example, the only LS my opponent has is the Fem. only. I can BC with Oak and exchange for Deborah, but I can't BC with Adam banded to Eve. Banding has always been a unique ability anyway, so I think the exception could be passable, though it is really only based on the way things have been in the past and is probably not the best way. An easier solution would be you can begin a BC as long as the initial attacker has no access, and anyone else brought in could have access with no effect. However, either of the two solutions I proposed above would be even easier, IMO.

As for the T2 situation, I would argue that the only time that you cannot select a Lost Soul for RC is when your opponent has no Lost Souls in his territory. Otherwise, you can always select any Lost Soul regardless of access, and the battle is a BC until the LS is available. This is however my opinion so take it FWIW, but that is always how I've understood it. As for Burial Shroud in T2, I think the same idea as 4 would apply, regardless of which LS you picked. I.e, if your opponent has the Female only and NT only out, you cannot pick the NT only then BC with Rachel, similarly you cannot pick the NT only and BC with Adam banded to Eve. However, again, I think that the complexity of the situation merits a more concrete approach, i.e. one of the two suggestions I made above.

Perhaps an errata to Shroud would be complained about and would make it considerably weaker, but it would solve pretty much every issue that I can think of regarding it. I will likely repost this in the Elder's side of the board to see if that's a solution we can use, or alternatively, if we can institute a rule that Battle Challenges can be made at any time regardless of access, but I can already think of some problems that could cause.

I don't like your proposed errata, because it takes away part of what the card was supposed to do for no reason. Surely there's a way to errata it to answer all further questions without nerfing it?

Actually, it takes away part of what the card ended up doing but was probably not intended to do. I'm fairly certain Burial Shroud was meant to allow no battles, but like many other Apostles' cards, had bad wording that turned out to mean something different. If you can think of a better errata, feel free to propose it, but I can't think of one that isn't paragraphs long that could cover all the bases.

"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 17, 2012, 01:14:10 AM

"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."

The strike-through phrase has to be modified or eliminated because it still leaves room for questioning what happens when a BC becomes a RA.

(Unless you wish to follow the Prof's steps for non-errata...)

No it doesn't. It clearly says "starting a rescue attempt," which doesn't leave much margin there. The middle part "or rescuing a soul with a hero" helps clarify that a soul still cannot be rescued.

Clearly the best way to solve this issue is to just ban Mayhem. 

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 17, 2012, 01:33:49 AM

Clearly the best way to solve this issue is to just ban Mayhem. 

I highly Doubt that would happen!

Woah now, we're libel to Split an Altar with that kind of talk 


I'll post this AGAIN for consideration (hasn't changed in 4 pages...) Remember, not Errata, just interpretation:

Opponent is restricted from initiating a battle. Holder is restricted from initiating a rescue attempt. If holder's hero gains access to a lost soul, holder is restricted from rescuing a lost soul during battle resolution. Battle is considered a battle challenge regardless of access. Limit Twice.

Rulebook language "initiate" is used to clarify this is not a mid-battle change, but the act of beginning a battle. The "if holder gains" clause covers Lawman's "margin" (noted, good thoughts). And, again, the "considered" phrase keeps ANB, Primary Objective, etc. from working because battle is not considered "a rescue attempt".

"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul with a hero. Restrict opponent's from attacking holder. May be used twice."

This is the best solution I've seen so far.  It'd also lead to the fun situation where I BC, it turns into a RA, so I DoN my own Burial Shroud.

"Restrict holder from starting a rescue attempt or rescuing a soul as a result of battle. Restrict opponents from attacking holder. May be used twice."

If there's any more argument about this they can just be pointed to this thread, or we can just note that it's been established how it works.

If the Lost Soul is active that says no Lost Souls may be rescued by a player with more than 10 cards in their hand, you could start a battle challenge with any hero that can band (while you have 11 cards in hand), then band to a hero in your hand to bring you down to 10.

Whatever the decision is, that's fine, but it should be decided since this has been brought up a few times (as noted by Gabe) and has yet to be finalized.

Well, since you asked so nicely, I'll see what I can do...see what progress you can make when you're not ornery?   

I got a PM asking for elder input on this topic so I've only read the original question. I apologize that I don't have time to read through 100+ posts.

The question is answered in this thread by SomeKittens and Pol with elder confirmation from Justin.

The question is also answered again here by Bryon, Schaef and myself.

Hopefully that is enough to answer the question, or simply confirm the answer(s) you've already received.

Blessings,

Gabe

As a newer player I can see how these threads have answered the basic questions of how BS works, however I don't feel there is a complete clarification of the issues discussed in the 6 pages prior to this post nor the 3 pages following it.  The "what if's" have not been answered.  I understand the desire to get the full potential out of a card and use it to your best benefit, thus interpretation of terms and wording style becomes important.... that being said, I believe the true nature of the card was to protect the holder from attack for a round and in turn for that protection the holder gives up his right to rescue a lost soul for said round as well. I understand why the holder may wish to Battle challenge and use that battle to do certain strategic things but barring negating BS during the battle challenge, I don't believe the initial purpose of the card should be able to be manipulated just to benefit the holder.