Author Topic: shame LS question (Read 4953 times)

sepjazzwarrior · « **on:** February 06, 2010, 10:42:50 AM »

I apologize if this has been asked before. Whenever you set a character aside the enhancement follows them correct? So would the same go for the Shame LS, would it follow the hero to the set-aside?

Shame LS=when you draw this card, you may set aside a Hero from each territory for two turns

Gabe · « **Reply #1 on:** February 06, 2010, 11:23:11 AM »

Only Enhancements go to the set-aside area with the character(s) they target. The Shame LS would not be set aside. The same applies to Haman (promo).

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #2 on:** February 06, 2010, 07:05:13 PM »

wouldn't it be easier if all set-asides either went with the characters they sent aside or none of them did? It seems unecessarly confusing to have enhancements do one thing and characters/LS do another for no reason

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2010, 07:16:33 PM »

It seems more confusing to me to have a Lost Soul in set-aside when no other Lost Soul ever goes to set-aside.

lightningninja · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2010, 07:33:44 PM »

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on February 06, 2010, 07:05:13 PM

wouldn't it be easier if all set-asides either went with the characters they sent aside or none of them did? It seems unecessarly confusing to have enhancements do one thing and characters/LS do another for no reason

... Seriously? You mean like lost souls have no brigade, no numbers, and are in your land of bondage, while enhancements are played on characters to help in territory or battle? I see no reason why lost souls and enhancements do the same thing... In fact that'd be SO confusing.

I think you just want to get rid of a ls.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2010, 07:37:09 PM »

no its jsut when set-aside is done by some things what causes the set-aside follows it and sometimes it doesn't and I would like to know the reasoning behind it. Basically why do set-aside enhancements follow to set-aside. Freedom doesn't follow the character it removes from the game, captures don't follow a character to LoB, so why do set-asides follow?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2010, 07:41:44 PM »

I think it is because of idiots like me that see a character set aside in territory and wonder what he's doing there, when he was put there, how long he's been there, and why I didn't notice him earlier. According to Murphy's Law, that character would have won the game for me three turns ago.

lightningninja · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2010, 07:50:53 PM »

I'm not really sure the reasoning... I think it's just that if ls or characters followed they'd be broken.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2010, 07:54:18 PM »

I just want set-asides to be discarded after use so i can recur them faster, and that i cant see a reason why they should follow

SirNobody · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2010, 01:14:26 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on February 06, 2010, 07:05:13 PM

wouldn't it be easier if all set-asides either went with the characters they sent aside or none of them did? It seems unecessarly confusing to have enhancements do one thing and characters/LS do another for no reason

This was discussed when we were playtesting RoA which introduced the first two non-enhancements that set cards aside (the Shame Lost Soul and High Priests Maid). Set aside enhancements going to the set-area had been the rule for 10+ years, is a helpful visual aid, and wasn't causing any problems. We didn't want to change that rule. But at the same time setting aside an evil character or Lost Soul with the cards it set aside didn't sit well with us (particularly when you consider the rule that the set aside card - i.e. the shame lost soul - is discarded when the heroes return). So we decided to do what we did with healing abilities and have the ability function differently when it appears on a non-enhancement than when it appears on an enhancement.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2010, 10:39:36 AM »

Hey,

Quote from: SirNobody on February 07, 2010, 01:14:26 AM

...the shame lost soul - is discarded when the heroes return...

I am so going to mention this official ruling the next time I use the Shame lost soul. To make it easier for everyone else to use it I excised the portions of the post that hid the beauty of this OFFICIAL RULING.

Ta Ta For Now,

EmJayBee83

CountFount · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2010, 06:41:05 PM »

Quote

Shame LS=when you draw this card, you may set aside a Hero from each territory for two turns

When one draws this lost soul does the "you may" mean that you don't have to set aside a hero from each territory; you can pick and choose which territory's to set aside a hero from?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2010, 06:46:25 PM »

No. It's all or nothing. You may set aside one from each territory or you may not set aside any.

CountFount · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2010, 07:01:30 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 01, 2010, 06:46:25 PM

No. It's all or nothing. You may set aside one from each territory or you may not set aside any.

What if there isn't one from each territory? None?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2010, 07:28:01 PM »

Quote from: CountFount on March 01, 2010, 07:01:30 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on March 01, 2010, 06:46:25 PM
No. It's all or nothing. You may set aside one from each territory or you may not set aside any.

What if there isn't one from each territory? None?

I believe this is an "as much as possible" SA. If a territory is lacking a hero, oh well, you tried.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2010, 07:50:22 PM »

Correct. You just can't pick and choose which territories to set aside from. Every territory that has a hero would be targeted if you chose to use the ability.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2010, 01:42:53 AM »

That's a rule change from the last ruling. The official ruling (unless it has been changed) is that you may from territory A, you may from territory B, you may from territory C, etc. I believe the rationale was to keep it consistent with the way "may" functions on most other cards.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #17 on:** March 02, 2010, 02:19:28 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 02, 2010, 01:42:53 AM

That's a rule change from the last ruling. The official ruling (unless it has been changed) is that you may from territory A, you may from territory B, you may from territory C, etc. I believe the rationale was to keep it consistent with the way "may" functions on most other cards.

No, that's consistent with the last ruling, it's a change from the last ruling you were aware of. Each ability on a may card can be done, but if an ability is done, then all of it has to be done. So if I play Reach, I may ItB, may d3, may play next, since those are three separate abilities. However, I may not d1 or 2 if my deck has more than 2 cards in it.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #18 on:** March 02, 2010, 02:21:10 AM »

Because it says you may D3, not that you may draw each of the top three cards. Shame LS says you may (do something) from each. It does not say you may (do something) from all.

browarod · « **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2010, 02:28:00 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 02, 2010, 02:21:10 AM

Because it says you may D3, not that you may draw each of the top three cards. Shame LS says you may (do something) from each. It does not say you may (do something) from all.

Each = all

See: Political Bribes

Professoralstad · « **Reply #20 on:** March 02, 2010, 02:30:56 AM »

To be fair, he's not really changing anything, rather, the ruling changed. If I was more motivated, I'd find the thread, but my 8AM class tomorrow is in a small classroom where falling asleep is a bad idea. So yeah...

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #21 on:** March 02, 2010, 02:36:16 AM »

I remember the thread because I posed the same Reach argurment you did. Here it is here: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18934.0

browarod · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2010, 02:45:26 AM »

Haha, I totally forgot it was my thread

Yeah, SirNobody posted with finality that the ruling is all or nothing.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2010, 07:30:57 AM »

Quote from: browarod on March 02, 2010, 02:45:26 AM

Haha, I totally forgot it was my thread

Yeah, SirNobody posted with finality that the ruling is all or nothing.

Just to go back to the original question, is everyone agreed that ruling is "as much as possible" or nothing?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #24 on:** March 02, 2010, 08:50:58 AM »

Yes. If someone's heroes are protected from set-aside (I think Miraculous Hankies would do that since LS's are neutral and thus of a different alignment) then you can still do everyone else's heroes.

News:

Author Topic: shame LS question (Read 4953 times)

browarod

browarod