Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on July 11, 2011, 11:53:55 PM

Does the same hold true when a hero is corrupted?  Is the original hero SA simply unusable or is the SA actually removed?

The original Hero SA is still there, it's just unusable. Thus a corrupted David still has a special ability, he just can never use it.

This is important in considering whether a card is a "banding card," for example. The character can still be a banding card, even if it has no legal targets for banding.

I think that WC enhs all convert with their characters.  So I would say, "yes".

This is confirmed in the Rulebook p.35:

If a warrior is discarded or captured, or returned to hand, all weapon cards on the character are discarded. If a warrior is converted, weapons remain on the character. The special ability on the weapon continues to function provided it does not conflict with the nature of a Hero or Evil Character.

Alright alright....


Now this all came about because of the game me and Czepp were playing. He converted my "Archers of Kedar" which special ability is "May band to any warrior Evil Character. May discard any Hero in a territory but then discard Archers of Kendar at end of battle."

So, I get it. The card can't band. Fine, but the card has two abilities in one. Your saying that the entire ability is negated because it hurts a hero. But I have a card "Mephibosheth" which special ability says, "Discard this Hero after battle if David is not in play." (please correct me if I'm wrong) but this is a negeatice effect. Why is it helpful to discard my own hero because of his own special ability so why is it considered an "impossible" situation to have a hero harm a hero. So would the entire ability Of "Archer of Kedar negated or just the part about banding?

It is believable that one hero harms another, believe me I've seen it many times in real life and there are several incidents in the Bible. Even Redemtion has an example another card I have is "Christians suing another" which cause Heros to fight other Heros.

It (IS) possible and historically accurate to have chrisians fight one another. I see no reason that the specially abilities be negated based on the concept of "imposible situation"

( all the cards I mentioned in this post I have sitting in front of me this second)

What has been going on since I lost internet? This is the second thread in a row that is overturning a rule that nobody ever said anything about being overturned. It's been ruled that abilities convert unless they target a Hero ever since the problem with the definition of "harm" was brought up. Now we've reverted back to the old, broken definition?

It's been ruled that abilities convert unless they target a Hero ever since the problem with the definition of "harm" was brought up. Now we've reverted back to the old, broken definition?
[/quote]


I just think there both broken.

There is no reason a hero couldn't harm another hero.
Is it tragic and harmful, but it has... Is... And will happen again

Jmbeers, They have ruled that Heroes can't harm other Heroes and that is not likely to change, Mephi's ability that discards himself if David is not in play is not targeting another hero, but himself.  They are not the same situation. 

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 13, 2011, 09:30:10 PM

What has been going on since I lost internet? This is the second thread in a row that is overturning a rule that nobody ever said anything about being overturned. It's been ruled that abilities convert unless they target a Hero ever since the problem with the definition of "harm" was brought up. Now we've reverted back to the old, broken definition?

I guess so, it would be nice to know which version of the rules we are expected to use sometimes.

In case you guys are referring to my post on the topic, those were more guidelines that I sometimes use. I didn't mean to suggest that anything had actually changed. I'm fairly certain that any ability that doesn't target a Hero when the character is an EC converts as long as it doesn't break any game rules. My guidelines were more about how to think through the logic, rather than any set ruling.

If there isn't already an evil card about this, then there totally could be. Evil actions, even between good people, are represented in Redemption as evil cards. Saul's Disobedient Sacrifice, for example, is an evil card despite the fact that there is a King Saul hero.

He's also an Evil Character. There's two versions of him.

I'm not arguing that the rules don't work. They make sense and I just played a game with a conversion where we needed to follow the explanations on the form for how to deal with converted abilities. The process worked well and the game played without another catch. I just think all the conditions could have been skipped in the first place. I just don't see a conceivable reason why in the very first place that a hero can't harm a hero.

Again, the rules work... But were pointless to begin with. Could have just kept all the abilities and simply reversed the rolls of good and evil. But at this point, it really doesn't matter. 

Haha (I'm not even getting close to that cold of yours. That thing could light this fourm on fier with off topic debates)

I see your point, and yea it's foolish to expect a card game to be entierly accurate to theological parameters. Besides those parameters would change every time you drove 5 miles.

Don't think I'm attacking the game. In the opposite, I love and enjoy playing it. I was never looking for a rule change. I can see why they chose the rules to play the way they do. The ONLY thing I was ever trying to say, for a third time, was why was this ever an issue in the first place...


No rule change.
No big secret .
No rewriting the story of Jesus so he has a wife that is protected by the free masons.

Props   

We're not really arguing about whether abilities that damage Heroes should be able to convert. We're questioning why the definition "targets" heroes, which was simple and worked, has reverted back to "harms" which is complicated and broken.

I don't think so.  With Gabe's clarification (harms before conversion), and the good Prof's explanation of why Sapphira would work (targeting and whatnot), aren't the two definitions basically one and the same? Or, put another way, can you give me an example of a card that would work differently under the two definitions?

There shouldn't be a difference, but I often hear from the "harms" crowd things like "Discarding top of deck doesn't convert because it can Harm Heroes."

I would find that distinction odd since there are "good" abilities that discard the top card of the deck.  Warriors spear is the first that comes to mind.  So I would question why that ability would not convert.

That's the impression I get from the other side of the aisle, yes.