Cactus Game Design Message Boards

If I previously gave my opponent 7WS and my opponent has an EC in KotW, can I make a RA with Ehud/Jael and choose 7WS to block?

Kingdoms of the World - "..While an EC is here, protect holder from being forced to block with another player's characters."
Ehud - "Interrupt Wall of Protection and choose a male Evil Character from opponent's territory to block..."
Jael - "Character may choose any male, human EC in opponent's territory to block a RA."
Seven Wicked Spirits - "You may interrupt all fortresses and exchange this EC with any other EC in play or set-aside area."

Thanks,
Kirk

Jael cannot since 7WS isn't human.

My initial thought is that "another player's characters" implies ownership so I would rule no on Ehud as well. However, I would be open to discussion on that one.

I agree with the initial assessment.

Quote from: The Guardian on February 19, 2013, 06:03:14 PM

Jael cannot since 7WS isn't human.

My initial thought is that "another player's characters" implies ownership so I would rule no on Ehud as well. However, I would be open to discussion on that one.

I agree with the initial assessment.

That does not seem to be correct per the wording on the cards and the way ownership and control are handled.

First, the wording on Ehud states "Interrupt Wall of Protection and choose a male Evil Character from opponent's territory to block...", and since it does not say "their" character in any way, it only requires control, not ownership.

Second, the wording on KoTW states "..While an EC is here, protect holder from being forced to block with another player's characters."  Another player's characters would be the same as "opponent's".  It implies both ownership and control.  There is only ownership in this case, as control is with the player with KoTW.

Therefore, since SWS is owned by the attacker and controlled by the defender, it fits both criteria and Ehud could select SWS in this situation as the blocker.  KoTW only restricts the ability to choose a character that is both owned and controlled by the attacker, so it does not help in this case.

Quote from: Redoubter on February 20, 2013, 04:45:29 PM

Another player's characters would be the same as "opponent's". 

This is your own interpretation, but not the interpretation of the Elders.

Read my post, it began with "That does not seem to be correct per the wording on the cards and the way ownership and control are handled."  I had hoped it would be clear that it is my interpretation, but I am questioning the ruling on those grounds.  I am allowed to ask questions, and I thought it was encouraged.  I don't see what your post adds to the discussion, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, especially since the first elder to post specifically said:

However, I would be open to discussion on that one.

So it does seem like we can discuss this.

I couldn't find a thread to prove it but I thought it worked the way Redoubter explained - which is why I brought this up.

Kirk

I am allowed to ask questions, and I thought it was encouraged.  I don't see what your post adds to the discussion, ...

A bit touchy don't you think. Your point was centered around that one statement, because the interpetation of "opponent" was critical to the argument. That does seem to "add to the discussion," and in fact brought that point to the proper attention.

and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, ....

So don't assume what I am saying. You are reading wayyyyyy too much into my words, probably because you are used to people being sarcastic. I would like to think that I avoid sarcasm more often than not.