Cactus Game Design Message Boards

No, the default is in play. Idolaters would have to say "Capture Aaron in play or set-aside."

I'd ask the audience, but only Malay needs to respond. He's always right, you know

If not specified otherwise, targets for capture abilities must be "in play."

That's what I always thought.  But then it dawned on me--when I was answering a question for southpawami about fortresses and in play--that this makes a big chunk of Prince of the Air's SA completely meaningless.

Prince of the Air  SA  Return an angel in battle (except warrior class) to owner’s territory. If block is successful, place one Chamber of Angels and its contents beneath owner’s draw pile. Cannot be negated.

The portion in bold is completely meaningless because Prince of the Air cannot target Chamber of Angels.

Chamber of Angels  SA  Set this fortress aside. If holder's angel is being discarded, place it here instead. After two turns, return Hero to the top of your draw pile.

I'm sure this is common knowledge to everyone else, but the realization surprised me so I thought I would ask about it. I started with Aaron and Idolaters to practice my ninja-ruling-question-asking-skills.

Yeah that might need a "Play-as"

Since you would be revamping the targeting, wouldn't it need an errata?

This last posed just to figure out what the difference is between a play-as and an errata, which is an interesting topic in its own right.

So, under this theory Prince of the Air would require an errata, correct?

Does it really need errata, though? Chamber of Angels will never be anywhere other than set aside so, imho, it seems PotA includes an understood "Chamber of Angels in a set aside area" already. Whereas, Aaron could be any number of places, so Idolaters follows the general convention and defaults to in play.

I would think that any card that targets something that is only found out of play should have an implied target, Falling Away for instance doesn't explicitly say it targets cards in the land or redemption (which is out of play) but does allow you to target it because Redeemed Souls can only be found in the Land of Redemption.

That's basically the point that I was trying to make. Glad someone else agrees

I like that.  Good job, browarod and ChristianSoldier. 

FWIW, I really don't like special pleading of this sort. You saved the SA on one card at the cost of adding an one-off exception to a fundamental game rule. Hey kid, you can't capture my Aaron with Idolaters because Aaron is in set aside and Idolaters can't target him. You see, unless a card specifically states otherwise you can only target cards that are in play. Yeah, I know my Prince of the Air targeted your Chamber that was set aside, but see Prince has implied targeting.

If we are going to go down the path of implied targeting, can we revisit the Split Altar decision? It is fairly clear that the original intention was that all artifacts--in and out of play--were the target of Split Altar's SA.

DragonRaid could now discard face-down cards[/url] on sites as well?

Funny you should mention that.  I ran across this yesterday in the REG:

Fortify site cards placed face down cannot be targeted directly unless specified otherwise (e.g., Spy) or indirectly (e.g., Dragon Raid).

I think that this thread ultimately represents my frustration with the game lately. I understand the need for rules consistency, but frankly the "implied" targets are the more logical ones and therefore are a beginner host's first instinct. Ruling errors tend to come from all the technicalities of verbage.

I agree that browarod and ChristianSoldier's thinking is easy to understand and would be the likely first thought. Chamber of Angels will not be anywhere other than set-aside, so that clearly is where Prince of the Air's SA is targeting.

We have become so eager to scrutinize the wording of special abilities, but that is really just a knee-jerk response to "game-breaking" combos or manipulated semantics.

I am not suggesting any changes. I am just venting. I just started a new playgroup here in Florida, and having young players who have never played before brings such a fresh perspective to the game for me. I have enjoyed playing Redemption more now than I have since I started my former Connecticut playgroup six years ago.

Just for contemplation purposes, sit back and think about what a new player finding this game on his own would think if they did not know any of us or read any of this board. What would they do differently if they read the cards and had to rule on their own with just the rulebook?

Food for thought.

I am sorry that my belief is causing you frustration.

My statement was global, not targeted at you.  

A new player would think that Prince of the Air can target Chamber in set aside.
A new player would think that Idolaters could capture Aaron even if Aaron is in set aside.
A new player would think that Split Altar could get rid of the artifacts in the artifact pile.

I agree, and that is how I think they should be ruled.

Of these, I feel that the second option is the best. The first probably would break the game, and the third leads to exactly the kinds of "technicalities of verbiage" and reliance on these boards that you are decrying.

I basically feel that the first option is the best. Since other threads (like the Herod's Treachery one) seem to end up with "Do what the card says," I think the same should apply globally. There are enough legal "game-breakers" so why not even the field. With my new playgroup, I took New Jerusalem and Falling Away out of my deck because they were very frustrated by them (since I did not have enough extras for all of them).

How many cards target tartaros? I can think of at least one, and there's probably a few others