Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Hmm good point: I've always been for that but it apparently it's against the games theme.

I thought we just about had a solution that had the "list of exceptions," but I guess nothing ever came of that?

I heard something drop on hte floor some time ago. I bet it was the list of exceptions. It's probably on the 67A Monroeville bus.

Mike

Can someone tell me how a Hero can ever harm a Hero?

Samson's Sacrifice (directly) and good side battle enhancements (indirectly).

A long while ago I made a post that laid out exactly what sorts of abilities I suggested were and weren't allowed by the then-current "nature of a Hero" rule of conversion. Sadly, that's since been lost. I'd like to try here to recreate that list, in hopes that it may be helpful in getting away from the current definition, "its special ability works as long as it does not harm Heroes," which has previously-mentioned problems. The options seem to be redefining "harm" or redefining conversion. I'd like to redefine conversion.

Possible redefinition of "harm"
The following abilities harm a character when that character is the target:
Discard, Remove from Game, Convert, Return to Deck, Capture, Reduce Abilities, Set-Aside, Withdraw, Fight Each Other
The alignment of the card causing the harm does not matter [contrary to the current definition].

Possible list of evil abilities that do not convert
- Immunity to or protection from good cards (Emperor Claudius: "Emperor Claudius is immune to N.T. Heroes.")
- Preventing or negating exclusively good cards (The Tartan: "Negate all protect abilities on Heroes...")
- Discarding, removing from the game, converting, returning to deck, capturing, reducing abilities of, setting aside, withdrawing, or causing side battles between exclusively good cards, other than itself (Cain: "...discard any Hero in a territory", but not Malchus: "...place [this card] in opponent's land of bondage..." or King Asnappar: "You may capture an Egyptian or a Syrian...") (Alternately, if also using the above redefinition of harm, then more concisely "Harming exclusively good cards, other than itself")
- Repelling good cards (Michal: "Character ignores David and any enhancement cards connected with him.")
- Searching for or drawing exclusively evil cards (Jannes: "You may search draw pile for Pharaoh’s Throne Room...", but not King Omri: "Search your draw pile for one Samaria Site and put in play...")
- Playing, using or holding evil cards (King Ahaz: "...may use any evil set-aside enhancement.")
- Protecting Lost Souls from rescue (Uzzah: "...protect all Lost Souls from rescue.")
- Adding more evil cards to play (Ashpenaz: "Convert a captured human Hero in your territory to a crimson Evil Character...")
- Exchanging itself with an evil card (Philistine Armor Bearer: "You may exchange this card with an evil Philistine...")
- Banding to evil characters (Gomer: "Character may band with any male Evil Character each turn.", not Absalom's Soldiers: "...May band to Absalom's Soldiers.")
- Making exclusively evil special abilities unnegatable (King Sargon II: "...evil capture abilities cannot be negated.")
- Giving abilities or special abilities to evil cards (King So: "Egyptian Evil Characters have first strike ability...")
- Abilities that specify blocking (Women as Snares: "When using this Character to block...")
- Abilities carried about by an "Evil Character" (Abimelech: "Evil Character repels all Heroes with a Judges reference.")

Still unsure about whether a new definition should include these:
Athaliah ("Character gains 1/1 for each Purple Brigade Hero discarded or captured while she is in play.")

And it's not weird to anyone that Zimri's ability is not "in the nature of a Hero" even though Samson's Sacrifice has almost the same effect?

Quote from: The Schaef on February 26, 2009, 04:05:02 PM

And it's not weird to anyone that Zimri's ability is not "in the nature of a Hero" even though Samson's Sacrifice has almost the same effect?

Not really because Heroes don't discard evil enhancements as a cost.

If im not mistaken, SS discards an evil fortress?

Not really because Heroes don't discard evil enhancements as a cost.

This was meant to be humorous, right?

Still, I was told (I think by you, but maybe not) that we shouldn't just ask, "Can a current good card do this?" because that can change with every set.

It was me who said that, it's why conversion was no longer going to hold up under that definition.

Your third definition is a little strange, I agree.  Since Zimri discards himself, that ability would convert, and therefore he would still have his full effect.  If you meant he ONLY discards himself, then he has only half a converted effect, and that seems to be counter-intuitive and more fiddly rather than simpler.

In any event, the response was more towards galadgawyn who used Zimri as his example of a card that wouldn't work.