Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yes, both players will get their characters back.

I believe you actually have it backwards. In multi, unless you're in battle, "opponent" doesn't specifically refer to any player (unless you choose one for a special ability to target). TGT, for example, is only active if its holder is actively in battle, Player 1's TGT doesn't let Player 2's Peter ignore evil brigades while in battle with Player 3. I would think Raiders' Camp would work the same way (RC's controller would need to be in battle for it to have an "opponent").

In multi, unless you're in battle, "opponent" doesn't specifically refer to any player (unless you choose one for a special ability to target).

That's not true, it specifically refers to the the one person you are facing in battle if you are, but if not, it refers to opponents in general.  For example, it has been ruled that TGT provides the ignore to characters in territory, meaning it must be active outside the battle phase.  This is only possible if opponent can be used out of the battle phase as a general term for any opposing player.

TGT, for example, is only active if its holder is actively in battle, Player 1's TGT doesn't let Player 2's Peter ignore evil brigades while in battle with Player 3.

Not true, it does allow that specifically to occur, for the same reason that TGT provides the ignore-immunity to characters in territory while not in battle.

I am not saying we should change the ruling on this card.  I am saying that there is inconsistency with the application of the words used and the rulings.

Oh, and just saying that the others are all at least right that ALL heroes are released   "Any means any and all means all, so sayeth CactusRob.  Amen."

Can only someone actively engaged with you in battle discard a fortress to get rid of Iron Pan?

Can no one instead the discard on Judge's Seat?

Does Pharaoh's Court not negate all good OT ignore not used by you?

Does Pharaoh's Throne Room only negate ignore on heroes if you are actively engaged in battle?

Can you not actually discard from deck with Beheaded if played as TC?

That definition you give for "opponent" does not include all of its uses.  You may be able to argue with some of the situations above, but it is obvious that the term is not exclusive to the battle phase on all cards.  Cards are printed with the ability to act against 'an opponent' or 'opponents' while the word used is "opponent."

I have played Multi as my primary category for many years and it has consistently been ruled that TGT only has an "opponent" when its controller is actively in battle.

T2 Multi at Nats last year disagrees with that assessment.  We may need to get some Elders involved here, but it is clear that "opponent" does not meet that narrow definition.  It can't, or certain cards would not work.  There is always going to be flexibility with terms used, that's a given.

Why are we debating this, with no Elder input?

Well, I don't think that the rule on this one will change.  I also don't think it should.  So probably, the silence is just giving that support.

On the "opponent" debate, I agree it needs clarity, but I don't fault anyone for not posting yet, since I feel this is a huge undertaking to redefine and it does have a definition in place that covers almost all cards.  I also don't believe anything will ever be done to make it so one person is able to define the rules in a more reasonable manner by that one person's opinion, there is a collective of great people here for that.

I suppose every system with problems feels like it could use a Cincinnatus every now and then, but hopefully that isn't needed for Redemption

The quote I provided was the PART of the definition of "opponent"...

LOL. Don't do that! 

If I have Iron Pan up and 2 of my opponents are in battle, I would rule that neither of them could discard a fortress to get rid of it during the Battle Phase.

Although this is technically true, I still find this may be confusing to new players. It will, of course, make them more aware of what needs to be done before beginning a battle, but having the same word mean different things depending on the Phase seems counterproductive.

With that said, I'm not sure what the best answer is, so the current definition will have to do. 

I've felt for a while now that the definition of "opponent" should be changed to mean any possible opponent at the table. The difference between "opponent's" and "opponents'" is already middling, and it doesn't really change all that much except help give players a bit more control of their destiny in Multi.

Redoubter is correct in his understanding of how opponent works.

However, Chris is probably right that we should change the definition.

I'm slightly confused because Chris is saying that the definition should be changed and Redoubter is saying that the definition is already changed? What, exactly, is the current definition of "opponent" if the REG entry is incorrect?

So we are changing the official definition of opponent for next season?  Is there any additional Elder support for such a change?

Thank you for active elders

I think that opponent should be ANY and ALL opponents, except for when it specifically targets a player or their cards.

For example:  "If opponent has a redeemed soul..." means anyone at the table.

Or: "Negate and discard opponents'..." means everyone at the table.

BUT: "Negate and discard opponent's..." means ONLY one person, because there is a target, and if you are involved in a battle phase it must be the person with whom you are having that battle.

So, definition time.  My suggested wording is below.

---

Opponent
An opponent is any other player in the game. The word opponent can be specific or general, though. When a single opponent is indicated, the player may select any other player for the ability. “Opponents' ” or “each opponent” refers to all other players in the game.

When a player is involved in a battle during the Battle Phase, however, any ability that specifically targets card(s) or a player and uses the singular, then “opponent”, “your opponent’”, or “opponent's” means only the other player engaging you in battle. The general “an opponent”, “any opponent”, or “one opponent” can still be selected by the player, and if the ability does not target cards or a player, it may refer to any player as normal.

Several cards in Redemption® refer to “opponent’s cards” (e.g., opponent’s Heroes). For a card to be considered an “opponent’s card”, that player must be the owner of the card as well as have control of the card.

I did some research with the Visualizer on cards that have the word "opponent" and can be active outside of battle AND in battle (so everything except the I/J cards and tin 26 and filtering out characters and enhancements). Any TC enhancements played outside battle would fall under the "selectable" option of Redoubter's suggested change.

All Lost Souls and Covenants speak of each, any, or an opponent and are not specific. Curses Unknown Nation and Madness specify "If opponent's Hero is in battle" so under Redoubter's suggestion that would be confirmed (as is the current status) to be only a player you are actively in battle with.

All Sites, except Roman Prison, Jericho, and Pharaoh's Court, refer to non-specific opponent. RP and Jer refer to blocking battles at those sites and so inherently refer to the opponent in battle with the holder. Pharaoh's Court was brought up as an example earlier and currently would only prevent ignore abilities on an opponent's cards that was directly in battle with PC's controller. Under Redoubter's suggestion I'm not sure if this would count as "specifically targeting cards or opponents" and be singular, or whether it would be non-specific.

Gates of Jerusalem, Pharaoh's Throne Room (as brought up before), Raiders' Camp (that this thread is about), and Satan's Seat all specify "opponent's" something and under the current definition would only be a player actively in battle against a controller. As with the Sites above, I'm not entirely sure with Redoubter's suggestion if they specifically target something or not so I don't know if they would be treated differently (I assume he intended them to since his stance was that TGT/etc, shouldn't be specific to an opponent).

TGT, as specified before, just says "if opponent" so that's unclear at this point.

Iron Pan says "opponent" so under the current definition only a player actively in battle with IP's controller could discard it during the battle phase. Again, not sure about Redoubter's change.