Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Assuming I activate Magic Charms on my Magician, and then discard it from there to capture, do the captured characters go to Raider's Camp if I have that in play? If not, exactly why?

Raiders’ Camp
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If your human Evil Character captures a Hero, place it here. When opponent makes a successful rescue attempt or battle challenge, instead of surrendering a Lost Soul, release all Heroes from here back to owner. Does not count as redeemed soul. Play As: If your human Evil Character captures a Hero, place it here. When opponent makes a successful rescue attempt or battle challenge, instead of surrendering a Lost Soul, release all captured Heroes from here back to owner. Does not count as redeemed soul. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Samuel 30:16 • Availability: Kings booster packs (Rare)

Magic Charms
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect your Magicians from capture and conversion. You may discard this card from your Magician during battle to capture up to two human Heroes. • Attributes: May be activated on your Magician • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ezekiel 13:20 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()

Quote from: browarod on December 04, 2009, 05:15:28 PM

Assuming I activate Magic Charms on my Magician, and then discard it from there to capture, do the captured characters go to Raider's Camp if I have that in play? If not, exactly why?

No, because they are captured by an artifact and not by an Evil Character (as RC requires).

So then, why do they go there if I use Apprehended, or Head of Gold, or any other capture enhancement? Those are enhancements, not characters. By your definition, the only time anything should go to Raider's Camp is when a character ability does it (such as Herod Agrippa II).

Artifacts aren't alive, how can they "use" characters? Magic Charms needs a character to be useful (in this case) just as much as a capture enhancement needs a character to be useful. I don't see how the two are any different.

The artifact says, by itself, "discard this card to capture....." It doesn't even need a Magician AT ALL.

I beg to differ. Read MC again.

An enhancement is played on a character and it counts as the character capturing. I think you know that. Unless you're actually trying to argue that using an enhancement on a character means that enhancement does the capturing. Good luck with that.

I know that the enhancement on the character counts as the character using it, what I'm arguing is why MC doesn't work the same way since it has the same basic requirements as an enhancement (it must be played on a character, though rather than specify brigade it is restricted to Magicians).

When posting a question, please use the search feature to see if it has been asked before.

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17470.0

Imho, that thread never really got to a solid conclusion. For example:

REG > Glossary > Capture:
"Capture takes place when one card takes another card prisoner to a Land of Bondage or to a fortress."

Enhancements require the character to do the capturing.  The character is the "one card" actually capturing another card.
Artifacts, however, capture on their own.  The artifact, not the character it is on, is the "one card" doing the capturing.

Just because Unholy Writ captures on its own doesn't mean Magic Charms has to. New cards = new ways of doing things. I honestly don't see a difference between using an enhancement on a character and using MC on a character. Without a Magician, MC cannot capture. Thus, it's not a stretch to see that the Magician uses MC to capture.

Also, when posting a response, kindly don't be snooty. It's rude and rather obnoxious. I did use the search function to look for this question, but none of the threads I found via searching had anything to do with the capture aspect. Apparently I either missed the thread or it was on a page of the search I didn't get to.

nobody uses the search function before asking a question.

I do  Thus why I almost never have to ask questions on this board.

My post wasn't being snooty -- it was me simply asking you to use the search feature before posting.  Simply looking for 'magic charms raiders camp' (the two key cards in question -- a logical search to try) had a top 5 result on the exact same topic as this post.

As our fourm admin says in the sticked Ruling Questions' Posting Guidelines, "As this section continues to grow and more issues are covered, the Search function will become quite useful in checking to see if a question not found in other resources has already been answered here. We suggest using the search function to see if your question has already been asked and answered, before posting."


As for the ruling itself, the previous thread had Schaef, Gabe, and Justin (a playtester) all in agreement.  It was people who didn't like the ruling that wanted to keep discussing it, even though only one rule or REG quote (which sided with the ruling) was ever brought up.  I don't recall seeing any argument for the other side that isn't just 'how I think it should be' (with the possible exception of Prof Underwood, though his post on this thread makes it sound like he was willing to accept the ruling).

It's not about strategy. It's about the fact that an artifact is not a character. Simeon requires a female genesis hero to be in play for his ability to work, but that doesn't make it the female genesis hero doing the discarding. Similarly, the artifact, although requiring a magician, does not make the magician do the capturing; the artifact captures, not the magician.

This is not a "so there!"

The only card that is doing ANYTHING is Magic Charms (being discarded to capture a hero)

So then is Scapegoat negating and discarding all evil enhancements since it removes itself?

It just seems to me that MC acts more like an enhancement in the regard of discarding to capture, so I don't see why it can't be treated as such.

Because it is clearly an artifact.  not a covenant, not a curse, just an artifact and therefore it works the same way UW or Go into Captivity do.

And you clearly cannot read. I already said arguments of "because it's an artifact" won't fly in this thread.

Please don't treat me like I'm stupid. It's obviously an artifact, I'm just wondering why this artifact (and any others like it in the future) can't be treated specially. There are plenty of examples of cards that are treated differently than other similar cards, and with the fact that Magic Charms has to be on a Magician in order to capture, I don't see why it can't be added that the capture goes to Raider's Camp. It's logical, it's cool, it would make TexP even more awesome. There isn't really any downside to it (unless you're playing against the combo ).

It's not that I don't like the reason. I totally understand it. I just want to make sure people actually think about this rather than just default to "it's an artifact, /topic". Being able to put artifacts on characters is a new thing that artifacts got, normally you can't do that. I don't see why we can't do that with MC and RC. Normally, artifact-captured people don't go to RC, but MC does, etc.

I guess my question isn't "Why doesn't MC send to RC?" but more "Why can't MC send to RC?".

For Raiders' Camp to work, the human Evil Character has to use a capture ability.

Exactly. So why can't we consider MC to be a capture ability that the Magician uses like we do with capture enhancements?

Hey,

So why can't we consider MC to be a capture ability that the Magician uses like we do with capture enhancements?

We could consider Magic Charms to be a capture ability that the Magician uses.  We have decided not to do that.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Hey,

Quote from: browarod on December 04, 2009, 09:43:15 PM

So why can't we consider MC to be a capture ability that the Magician uses like we do with capture enhancements?

We could consider Magic Charms to be a capture ability that the Magician uses.  We have decided not to do that.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Why did you decide not to do that?