Author Topic: Self (Read 5824 times)

STAMP · « **on:** January 20, 2009, 05:36:16 PM »

Does Self become warrior-class if copying a warrior-class hero?

Self
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: * / * • Class: None • Special Ability: Abilities (*/*) match the abilities of one of opponent’s Heroes in play. If that Hero leaves the field of play, abilities become 0/0. • Identifiers: Generic NT Human, (gender, testament, and other identifiers match selected Hero) • Verse: Colossians 3:9

TimMierz · « **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2009, 05:53:31 PM »

Warrior-class is not an identifier.

STAMP · « **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2009, 06:02:05 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on January 20, 2009, 05:53:31 PM

Warrior-class is not an identifier.

I don't have a warrior-class insert here with me at work. Does it state this on the insert?

The rulebook and/or REG should be specific about the definition of identifier and also include the contents of the warrior-class card insert.

TimMierz · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2009, 06:31:04 PM »

REG entries, for example, list warrior-class-ness as "class", not as an identifier.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2009, 06:48:58 PM »

This was asked before the Great Purge and the result was as Tim said. Warrior/Weapon is a Class, not an Identifier.

Sean · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2009, 07:00:26 PM »

It seems kind of weird that Self would not be weapon class if it blocked Eleazar or Helez or somebody who is warrior class. I realize that warrior class isn't an identifier but that's just odd that it doesn't.

Sean

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2009, 07:06:07 PM »

Self simply has no class. It doesn't even go to musicals or the opera.

STAMP · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2009, 10:53:42 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on January 20, 2009, 06:31:04 PM

REG entries, for example, list warrior-class-ness as "class", not as an identifier.

But could "class" be an identifier? We don't know since the definitions of identifier and class are not found in the rulebook or REG.

Intuitively, I think class could be one of the many current identifiers. Testament is an identifier that is derived from the scripture box. So why can't class be an identifier that is derived from the shield icon? It all makes sense to me. Why would Eleazar's or Helez's evil Self all of sudden forget that they were warriors?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2009, 11:23:26 PM »

I would have to disagree. You are thinking from a realistic perspective rather than a gameplay perspective. Class is defined in the rulebook for its specific purpose in gameplay. A character simply is or is not Warrior-Class. Self is not.

Sean · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2009, 12:05:02 AM »

Quote

You are thinking from a realistic perspective rather than a gameplay perspective.

Why can't they be the same?

Sean

SirNobody · « **Reply #10 on:** January 21, 2009, 11:46:41 AM »

Hey,

Identifiers have no effect on how the card itself is played. The purpose for identifiers is for easy identification of the fact that the card satisfies a target limitation of a different special ability (such as King Shallum's identifier making it easy to tell that he satisfies the "King of Israel" requirement in King Amaziah's ability).

As such warrior class/weapon class cannot be (and are not) identifiers because they affects how the cards themselves are played.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #11 on:** January 21, 2009, 12:54:42 PM »

However, why is it not? The idea of self is to create an evil duplicate of a hero. Self itself is not WC, but if the hero is, it seems that self would be too. I see no reason why it shouldn't. It should be errata'd.

SirNobody · « **Reply #12 on:** January 21, 2009, 01:08:52 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Cameron the Conqueror on January 21, 2009, 12:54:42 PM

I see no reason why it shouldn't. It should be errata'd.

The fact that it would require errata to a card that is working perfectly fine right now is the very reason why it shouldn't.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

STAMP · « **Reply #13 on:** January 21, 2009, 01:18:16 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 21, 2009, 11:46:41 AM

Identifiers have no effect on how the card itself is played.

I beg to differ. Identifiers started out as simple identification of a card for targeting purposes. However, identifiers have expanded roles now. Most of the newer cards containing an "X" do more than just identify a card.

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #14 on:** January 21, 2009, 01:25:33 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on January 21, 2009, 01:08:52 PM

Hey,

Quote from: Cameron the Conqueror on January 21, 2009, 12:54:42 PM
I see no reason why it shouldn't. It should be errata'd.

The fact that it would require errata to a card that is working perfectly fine right now is the very reason why it shouldn't.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

But it isn't working fine.

Wouldn't the evil "self" of a WC hero carry a weapon? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

SirNobody · « **Reply #15 on:** January 21, 2009, 02:08:56 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: STAMP on January 21, 2009, 01:18:16 PM

Identifiers started out as simple identification of a card for targeting purposes. However, identifiers have expanded roles now. Most of the newer cards containing an "X" do more than just identify a card.

The expanded role of identifiers on some cards in recent sets was an oversight. I do not expect we will see identifiers used the same way in the future and the existing cards with identifiers that exceed the intended scope of identifiers will likely be given play as to address the issue.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemtpionne

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #16 on:** January 21, 2009, 03:47:01 PM »

Clarify?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #17 on:** January 21, 2009, 03:48:30 PM »

Regardless of the intent or use of identifiers or the "identifier space" on a card, the Class of character never changes (and personally I would have a problem with being able to un-WC a character). Trying to fit it into "realism" is not really the answer, since there are so many unrealistic situations in Redemption already (i.e. OT banding to NT).

Consider Goliath's Armor - having Goliath retain his armor because of an ability listed in the "identifier" space does not make Goliath Warrior-Class. Goliath will always have the same Class (none) until he is reprinted as a WC character.

STAMP · « **Reply #18 on:** January 21, 2009, 05:02:21 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 21, 2009, 03:48:30 PM

Regardless of the intent or use of identifiers or the "identifier space" on a card, the Class of character never changes (and personally I would have a problem with being able to un-WC a character). Trying to fit it into "realism" is not really the answer, since there are so many unrealistic situations in Redemption already (i.e. OT banding to NT).

Consider Goliath's Armor - having Goliath retain his armor because of an ability listed in the "identifier" space does not make Goliath Warrior-Class. Goliath will always have the same Class (none) until he is reprinted as a WC character.

I'm simply proposing that class be added to the long list of other identifiers: testament, gender, uniqueness, etc. I don't believe it impacts anything else in the game accept for Self. Like testament, class would not lose it's identity. A NT character is always a NT character. A warrior-class character is always a warrior-class character. In the case of Self, it is just copying the full identity of the hero it targets. And speaking of copy, I just remembered Innumerable. After searching (which is useless right now with most threads gone) I did not find anything about Innumerable copying "class". For the most part it would be moot except for an evil SA that targets warrior-class heroes.

The Schaef · « **Reply #19 on:** January 21, 2009, 05:12:37 PM »

warrior/weapon class distinguishes the card as a special kind of character/Enhancement with a different set of rules that govern how they may be played. Class is not an identifier, it acts differently than an identifier and I don't see any benefit from trying to lump two unlike things in together.

SirNobody · « **Reply #20 on:** January 21, 2009, 06:29:11 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: STAMP on January 21, 2009, 05:02:21 PM

I'm simply proposing that class be added to the long list of other identifiers: testament, gender, uniqueness, etc. I don't believe it impacts anything else in the game accept for Self. Like testament, class would not lose it's identity. A NT character is always a NT character. A warrior-class character is always a warrior-class character. In the case of Self, it is just copying the full identity of the hero it targets. And speaking of copy, I just remembered Innumerable. After searching (which is useless right now with most threads gone) I did not find anything about Innumerable copying "class". For the most part it would be moot except for an evil SA that targets warrior-class heroes.

Class is very similar to an identifier. Especially right now since there is only one type of class for characters and one type of class for enhancements. But identifiers were originally introduced as a convenience and my understanding is that the current design it to keep them as close to "just a convenience" as possible. Making class into an identifier would be a step away from the "just a convenience" plan.

Regarding Innumerable, it is a copy ability and as such it is "treated as" the card it copies, which means it imitates the card it copies in every way including whether or not it is warrior class.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne

News:

Author Topic: Self (Read 5824 times)

The Schaef