Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Once a character leaves play, it reverts to its original state (or something like that). So he would be neutral when he enters your discard. So no, you could not bring him back with Chariots.

(Which brings up an interesting question; what happens if Abijam is set aside? What happens on his return?

ChristianSoldier is correct. If Abijam is set aside while not in play (for example, with Samaritan Water Jar) he would remain both a Hero and Evil Character in set aside since he only becomes one or the other when entering play.

First, the easiest way to explain this one (and all similar questions) is that cards are at face value in hand, deck, and discard.  Whatever that may be, and no matter what.

If Abijam is set aside while not in play (for example, with Samaritan Water Jar) he would remain both a Hero and Evil Character in set aside since he only becomes one or the other when entering play.

While it may seem that way, I would rule that when it is taken out of deck, it takes a 'form'.  Cards can only remain at face value in one of the three locations mentioned, and since set-aside cards are still under your control (even if they are not 'in play'), and cards can affect them there (including sending them to territory), it would be against hard-game-rule to have a single card 'active' and controlled which has not only two alignments, but also would be considered a hero and evil character at the same time.  The only time this should be possible is in hand, deck, and discard, regardless of the text on the card.

We should probably get some Elder input on this one.  I can see this going either way, but I think that the idea that you can have a card with multiple personalities out leads to a lot of problems and is very contradictory.

The question would not be whether a played King A would retain the chosen alignment if set aside, that is absolutely true.  The question is what happens if he never actually hits 'in play' to trigger that via his identifier.

Also, what if I set him aside with Ambush? Could I choose him to be an Evil Character after he is blocked?





P.S. This is more or less a joke and should more or less be treated as such.

I don't think there is an actual precedent beyond that cards are only at face-value in hand, deck, and discard and that they must have identity elsewhere (for interactions with other cards and the way thing could happen with set-asides in particular).

For your last point, I did acknowledge that it says that in my post, I'm saying I don't believe it can override the hard rules around card identity.  A character cannot be out and be good and evil at the same time, and he is out and controlled by a player even in set-aside, so I don't believe his identifier can limit him to just being put in play.  As I said though, that is something Elders need to address.

Going off of jmhartz, I have a question about stronghold in the desert. Protect contents from opponents' cards. While occupied, each time an opponent plays an Evil Character of a brigade he does not already have in play, discard the top card of his deck.
What does it mean to play an evil character? Set them aside? Put in play? Block?
What conditions could satisfy needing to discard the top card of their deck?

A card is considered “played” if it meets these criteria:
-You play an enhancement by attempting to activate its special ability (or numbers in battle)
-You play a character or multicolor site by putting it in your territory or your side of the battle.
-You play any other card type by putting it face up on the playing surface from hand, deck, or discard pile due to your special ability or game action, except when you discard a card from hand.

Abijam being set aside by SWJ DOES meet the third criteria (SWJ sets aside face-up, I believe, since you have to check them for Lost Souls) so I would agree with jmhartz that if he instead said "When Played" then he would choose even if played to set aside. However, Abijam says "When Put in Play" which is different than being "played."

Am I okay with Abijam having to choose when set aside? Yes. I just don't, personally, believe that this is the way it currently works.