Cactus Game Design Message Boards

That makes no sense. Either it's a Character or not, 'captured' notes it's status, this ruling makes about as much sense as a guy that wants to exterminate Humanity.

Ok, first off: That is not acceptable hyperbole.

Second, they are separate terms with separate definitions.  It has been that way for years.  "Captured" is not a description in this case.  "Character" is a term and "Captured Character" is a term.  They are defined differently.

First off, that's not completely correct because the Rulebook I read gave that as an example of a status of a Character.

Not sure what rulebook you're reading.  From the REG:

A capture ability transforms a character into a “captured character” and moves it to a different location where it is held captive.  When a captured character is held captive in a Land of Bondage it is treated as a Lost Soul.

Only Heroes and Evil Characters can be captured.  When a character is captured, all cards held by that character are discarded. It ceases to be a character and becomes a captured character instead (that is, Heroes become captured Heroes and Evil Characters become captured Evil Characters).

It's all in there, and been that way for years.

The E/F & G/H ones. And besides, just think about what you are saying, it's logically inconsistent. It's like saying the statement: 'This statement is false' which makes no sense no matter how u put it.

Ok, your hyperbole is getting old, please stick to the discussion at hand.  Your statement added nothing and in fact is completely erroneous.

I don't know why it's hard to understand, as everyone else has been agreeing with it and it has been the rule for years.  You need to not think of "captured" in "captured character" as a state.  "Captured character" is its own card type.  It is as simple as that, and it's the rule, and it will continue to be based on the recent ruling.

It is actually completely logical.  I don't know why you continue to fight the rules on these things...

By calling it a "Captured Character" we are letting you know that it WAS a "Character" and is not just a plain lost soul. The reason they call it a "captured character" is because then the language is more consistent... rather than "captured guy". They use "character" because no other word makes sense to use. It is not there to signify that it is currently a character.

I understand why you're complaining but you need to be quite and accept the fact that a Character and a Captured Character just are not the same. They are entirely separate terms.

well honestly a card game will never have perfect logic so we just deal and move on. btw im autistic i understand why it bugs you.

By calling it a Captured Character shows that you are aknowledging it as a Character,

And by calling it a road apple, you are acknowledging it is an apple?

Any by calling it a cow pie, you are acknowledging it is a pie?

You logic teacher would be proud! 

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 29, 2012, 08:11:17 PM

I know that it was meant to be a method of soul-genning,

Actually, it wasn't.  The second sentence was meant to capture a hero in a territory (such as Thad) who is difficult to defeat in battle.  The cost (give an opponent a black Canaanite) was designed to work well with Ehud, who could then choose the black Canaanite and make your opponent block with it.  It actually works decently well, as long as you have enough black Canaanites in your deck.  Having that many in your deck isn't super easy ... yet. 

The problem with using Canaan with Ehud is that most of the best Canaanites (and thus the ones you are most likely to have in a type I deck, or have multiple of in a type II deck) are either female (Lot's Wife, Woman at Thebez) or Genderless (Delegates).