Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Why would the following quote be in the REG if it was not allowed?

Instant Abilities > Capture > How to Use

Captured characters retain their identity, therefore must conform to the restrictions of duplicates in play.  Should a character by the same name be already in a player’s territory or set aside area, the holder of the duplicates determines which duplicate to discard.

This came up with out Tuesday night playgroup and the consensus was that a game rule (no duplicates are allowed to be controlled by the same player; if this happens then discard one) overrides the Chamber's special ability therefore one of your Michael's gets discarded. To my knowledge (as a non-elder) this is how it should be played...

Quote from: Professoralstad on July 16, 2010, 12:24:11 PM

Actually, if you have an ET in your territory, I'm not entirely sure that you can capture your opponent's ET. I don't believe you can willfully cause a situation where you control two copies of the same character.

I agree with the "other Prof" in that I'm not sure you can capture ET if you also have ET in your territory.

As for YMT's quote of the Reg, it doesn't say it is allowed, it just says what to do if it happens.  So if you played a card that said that you got to capture a character of you opponent's choosing, then they could give you ET to force you to discard one (so that they could get their ET back).

There are no captures that do that. It seems odd that the Reg would address this at all if there is no way in redemption to do this. I

This is a contradictory statement. How can it happen if it is not allowed to happen?

I'm sorry for not being more clear.  I meant to say that although you may not be allowed to purposefully create a situation where you control more than 1 unique character at a time, it still might happen that you end up in that situation.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 16, 2010, 03:11:46 PM

So if you played a card that said that you got to capture a character of you opponent's choosing, then they could give you ET to force you to discard one (so that they could get their ET back).

What card says that?

No card currently says that.  I was just pointing out a hypothetical situation that was the first to pop in my mind to illustrate how it would be possible for that rule to be used without you actually forcing it to happen.

Hey,

I disagree, the situation seems more like a situation where I capture my opponents ET (I have one in my territory) and place him in my land of bondage . Then I have to discard one of them, but to my knowledge I can still capture ET.

This is correct.  You can use a special ability and choose a target that causes you to control two copies of the same unique character (as long as that special ability does not add the character to battle).

This came up with out Tuesday night playgroup and the consensus was that a game rule (no duplicates are allowed to be controlled by the same player; if this happens then discard one) overrides the Chamber's special ability therefore one of your Michael's gets discarded. To my knowledge (as a non-elder) this is how it should be played...

While I haven't found any explanation that I'm comfortable with for why this happens, I believe uthminister has the correct end result.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

How would a Moses in battle capture a Moses in your opponent's territory?

Because the rules specifically disallow you from making duplicates via banding or just playing from hand.

This is completely hypothetical, but I convert 1 of your Moses GCs.  Then I attack with my own Moses.  You block with your Moses EC, ....

I just addressed this a few posts up. The glossary specifially says that you cannot cause duplicates to fight each other.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on July 18, 2010, 12:53:40 AM

This is completely hypothetical, but I convert 1 of your Moses GCs.  Then I attack with my own Moses.  You block with your Moses EC, ....

I just addressed this a few posts up. The glossary specifially says that you cannot cause duplicates to fight each other.

Are characters of different alignments still duplicates, though? Redemption already has weird match-ups that didn't happen in history (Adam battling Judas Iscariot, for example) so I don't see why a good Moses couldn't be blocked by a converted-to-evil Moses. It's perfectly within the rules to have a converted-to-evil Moses in your territory, so it doesn't seem fair to punish its holder by basically creating a cannot be negated (because the ability isn't on any card) ignore that prevents him from entering battle. Even TGT ignores have weaknesses (IoJ, Destructive Sin, etc.) but this ignore is insurmountable. If they took the time to convert Moses, they should be able to use him to block as normal regardless of whether another Moses is the rescuer. I can understand the duplicates not being able to battle in the case of side battles where it's 2 identical versions of the same person (of the same alignment), but an evil Moses obviously is not the same person as a good Moses any longer considering his entire Philosophy has changed.

unless Moses has some complicated issue with multiple personalities.

We don't know that he didn't .

Self can block.  And Self is part of a character, as well as Doubt and Madness are things we battle withing ourselves.  So I think there is reason why a character could block himself.  In fact I'm sure much of the time WE ARE OUR WORST ENEMIES.  However I really don't see why that's a problem because the chance of the "I essentially ignore you because you converted your own hero, who happens to be the same as the attacking character, to an evil character and have not other evil characters to block with" scenario is really that much of a problem.  Yes technically is a CBN pre-battle ignore but its VERY VERY specific and will rarely come into play.  TGT even though it has counters is FAR better because it will actually happen more than a random fluke.

FWIW, I am talking about Redemption rules, not pyschoanalysis.

wyn.

has this been resolved yet? I'm far too lazy to read all of the posts...