Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Hey,

Capturing the character does not remove him from play.  Adopting this philosophy would force a change whereby Lost Souls are holding weapons.

We thought of that too, I guess I should have mentioned it in my last post.

and then we could do special rules for capture (always loose) and conversion (always keep) since those don't remove you from play

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

IMO, whenever an opponent directs the location of the character (via capture, withdraw, or set aside), the weapon should be discarded. When the player directs the location (via set aside, return to territory, etc) the weapon stays.

Many cards direct an opponent's card to territory as well.  Should you lose your weapon because I forced your withdrawal?

I thought we had a big discussion that they werent "characters" in the LoB anymore, but Captured Characters / Lost Souls?

I also thought that this was a discussion about Tim's proposal about keeping the weapon based on whether or not the character is removed from play, and not about the way the rules currently dictate the way weapons work now.

Yes, but I wasnt the one who brought up captured characters in the first place. 

Neither did I.  I was just noting that using in play/out of play as the sole criterion breaks the way the game presently works.

But then you have lost souls with weapons.

But then you have lost souls with weapons.

Why is a lost soul holding weapons a bad thing?

It makes no sense for captured characters to retain weapons.

It does with Ashpenaz.  I capture your guy  EC and then convert him to crimson with my Ashpenaz.  That makes PERFECT sense to me because he would get to keep his weapon too.

But the idea of LS holding weapons (other than hopefully convertign them) makes no sense because LS cant use weapons....Yet...

Think about all the new special ability LS's that we could have "If any LS in your LoB is holding a weapon, All Blocking EC's gain 2/2 and holder may play an enhancement" or this one, a LS that WANTS to be rescued.. "IF opponent has a LS that is holding a weapon, you may d/c the first Evil Character that enters battle"

so if thier set aside by thier opponent, do they retain thier weapon?

if thier converted by thier opponent, do they retain thier weapon?

I haven't read the whole thread so this might have been answered... but can't you do this with an archer and still use his instant to kill a hero but his ongoing of "at the end of this battle" would be interrupted? Creating the same effect as 2K horses+forgotten history?

It makes no sense for captured characters to retain weapons.

It makes no sense to say that a character is not holding on to his weapon in battle. If Redemption insists on selecting only the real life truths they want to incorporate ( respectively) the game only gets more confusing and inconsistent for it's players.

A soldier equips his weapon while in his base (territory), goes waltzing into battle with it, and fights the enemy (field of battle). If he dies, he drops his weapon (discarded). If he is captured, the opponents would have to be idiots to let a captive keep his weapon (discarded).

Discard makes sense to me. Capture I can live with ( I guess) (Raiders camp however is a different story)

Shuffle and and set asides in battle are the confusing ones to me.

How is it more confusing?
If HE decides to go wandering off somewhere else, why would he drop his weapon?

In this thread I thought the issue was whether or not  the character being set aside with Nebuchadnezzer's Pride would lose his weapon, it seem to me by other posters that the weapon would be discarded. Right?

However, if the opponent forces him to go somewhere, they'll most likely force him to drop his weapon. Once the battle is done, he will just walk back home with his weapon on his back.

It is very confusing because here in these two sentences you brought up two inconsistentcies. I don't think the rules of Redemption should soley be based on a real world "most likely "(at least not to justify an incosistency in the game).  If you cant say for sure why a rule is a rule it only further confuses the people you are teaching to play Redemption.  It doesn''t make sense to me when  I play my Grapes of Wrath to discard an evil character in battle  my other warrior class evil character's  weapon gets shuffled in, whereas when my opponent plays Grapes of Wrath to discard my evil character the other warrior class evil character' s weapon gets discarded. You have to say either the weapon is shuffled or it isn't,  to me shuffled is shuffled like discarded is discarded.  If I discard my EC the weapon that it is holding gets discarded and the same thing is true if I discard my  opponents evil character. I think that should be the same way for shuffle, because after all the discard and shuffle are relating to weapons.  If we say that the character holds on to his weapon in battle it makes sense that it follows him to the draw pile this would destroying all of the shuffling inconsistentcies and it justifies the reason why the weapon would be shuffled in with the character. It isn't wrong or illogical to presume that a character holding his weapon in battle brings  it with him when he is shuffled. It is consistent  with the other rules for weapons and it easy to understand. We can say that when ever a character is shuffled his weapon goes in with him.  It isn't bad if they don't but it would help clear up the rules for weapon.