Cactus Web Site special offer: Orders over $75 will receive a free Angel of God 2023 National Promo card while supplies last.
QuoteAnd with the set-aside lost soul, the heroes set aside will be unavailable for one rescue regardless of it we count turns for the owner or the set-asider-er.On my turn, I draw three cards, including the set-aside LS. I set your Hero aside for one turn. I complete my turn.On your turn, you draw three cards, upkeep phase adds counter, your Hero comes back.Please explain to me where is the one rescue for which your Hero is not available.
And with the set-aside lost soul, the heroes set aside will be unavailable for one rescue regardless of it we count turns for the owner or the set-asider-er.
Or we can go the other direction and you can figure out how to explain to them how they have three different characters in their set-aside area and they all get counters added at three different times because they were targeted by three different players, and they need to keep track of that.
You add your counters during your Upkeep Phase and your opponent adds their counter during their Upkeep Phase.
Um, Schaef, re-read the line from my post that you quoted. I was not saying that one turn rather than two turns would make no difference, I was saying two turns of the owner of the card vs. two turns of the player that used the set-aside would make no difference.
Hum, good point. What if cards were all set-aside to the set-aside area of the player that set them aside (but were still controled by their owner)? That would address that issue. And it would eliminate one set-aside ability setting characters aside to multiple set-aside areas.
Quote from: SirNobody on September 14, 2008, 11:28:10 PMUm, Schaef, re-read the line from my post that you quoted. I was not saying that one turn rather than two turns would make no difference, I was saying two turns of the owner of the card vs. two turns of the player that used the set-aside would make no difference.Um, yes it does. If I count it on my own turn, I lose one turn with the Hero. If you count my Hero on your turn, I lose two turns with the Hero. I have no idea why you would say it makes no difference, because the number of turns is different no matter which portion of the hypothetical you were changing.
Example 2 (count on my turn)Your turn.You draw the set aside lost soul and set my hero aside.My turn.My upkeep I remove a counter from my hero.I cannot make a rescue attempt with that hero this turn because he is set aside.Your turn.My turn.I remove the second counter from my hero and return him to play.I can then make a rescue attempt.
No, you lose one rescue attempt with that hero either way.Example 1 (count on your turn)Your turn.You draw the lost soul and set aside my hero.You then do your upkeep and take a counter off my hero.
Since the draw phase happens before the upkeep phase, why wouldn't the Shame LS add counters for the player who drew the soul that turn? The first-round soul is different, since it does not deal with counters or the set aside area (it deals with an entire round).
But then you run into the issue of keeping track of whose characters are being kept where and dealing with cards that target set-aside areas. For example, with the new anti-angel soul in RoA, I could play Moses Kills Egyptian on your guy, put him in my set-aside and gain access, a complete change from the way it works now. People could set aside a High Priest with Two Possessed and use U&T with him for potentially the rest of the game. Pretty much every card that "discards a [character] from opponent's set-aside area" would be fundamentally changed, including (especially?) Ambush the City combos.
creating new scenarios where players "control" characters that are not on their side of the table for the first time in the history of the game
Then suddenly, it became an issue of monumental importance because anything that's not explicitly stated in the REG is wide open to interpretation and represents a colossal failure on the part of the players assisting Rob and/or Mike. There's about 8000 things in the REG that are "not that big of an issue"
In this case I believe that setting cards aside to the set-aside area of the player that used the set-aside ability will be a significant improvement to the systematicness of the game while being an insignificant change on the way the game is played.
This is not the case. Cards that are placed in an opponent's territory are still controlled by the player that placed them. The Pale Green Panic Demon is a prime example.
Wow, "monumental importance," "colossal failure," and "8000 things" all in the span of two sentences. I haven't seen an example of Hyperbole that good in a long time. But I can't find any other mention of importance or failure anywhere in this thread, so I'm not sure what it is you're trying to exaggerate.
And I consider myself to be one of the players that assists Mike, so if I'm accusing anyone of failure (which I'm not), I would be accusing myself.
