Cactus Game Design Message Boards

While we're simplifying rules, can we get rid of the rule that a weapon is discarded when it's bearer is shuffled? It's easy to explain why the weapon falls off when he's captured, but in every other instances cards follow their host if he's shuffled. I'd like to be able to say "cards follow host if shuffled" instead of tagging on "except when a weapon is on a warrior-class character." It's extra silly that a weapon will be shuffled with a non-WC character but not a WC one.

I seem to recall a discussion among the elders last year about making these changes:

• Weapons follow the same rules as all other held or placed cards.
• All cards held by or placed on a captured character are discarded.

I'm not sure what happened to that discussion. I'll try to find and revive it.

I thought it was the rule too.

I agree that is a good change.

wait, so what is the current ruling involving shuffle?

The traditional view has been that the character is shuffled, but the WC-enh on them is discarded.  However, it sounds like most elders (including myself) are in favor of having the WC-enh follow the character like normal to add simplicity to the game.  So the traditional ruling may change in the future.

In my opinion, the rules should not be simplified. Granted, it would be easier to learn, but would be less fun/competitive.. and it might get to a point where players wont want to learn for that reason, which would be counter-productive. Just saying.

Try playing a old dead CCG called Middle Earth then you will know why the game needs to be simplified.

having the WC-enh follow the character would not make the game any less fun, but would make it easier to play/learn, so you are not losing anything in the game by making it simpler in this case.  I am against making the game simpler if it means chopping away fun aspects of the game (such as infinite inititive while being ignored) within reason

how would the effect angels with a weapon that go to chamber? do they keep the weapon with they go on top of deck?

I agree with this change.  I was well into the game before I discovered this rule, and had already ruled it wrong several times.  The proposed change just makes sense.