Author Topic: Shuffle and Set-Aside  (Read 52734 times)

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #100 on: August 28, 2008, 02:54:24 PM »
0
I don't want them to be treated liked placed enhancements really but if the charcter holds them in battle and the character holds them when set aside.  The weapon should follow the hero. Why? Because he is holding it, it makes sense, to say a character is holding a weapon in battle but then to say it is not shuffled in when the character is shuffled in it is contradictary to that rule.  It seems to me that a weapon is treated like a regular in Enhancement when it is convenient for it to be treated like one.

I will never understand why reach or any other enhancement isn't set aside with the caracter when played in battle but the weapon is.  If it's treated like a regular enhancement in battle fine, follow through with that to other ruling question though.

Is the character holding the weapon in territory?

Also could I suggest something new? Weapon transfer, during the prep/discard phase you my transfer a weapon from one character to another. Just like in LOTR.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #101 on: August 28, 2008, 03:01:08 PM »
0
Because he is holding it, it makes sense, to say a character is holding a weapon in battle but then to say it is not shuffled in when the character is shuffled in it is contradictary to that rule.

How is it that you can have a rule that a character retains a weapon while in play or set-aside, and say it's contradictory to lose it when he is no longer in one of those two areas?

Quote
It seems to me that a weapon is treated like a regular in Enhancement when it is convenient for it to be treated like one.

It is treated like a regular Enhancement when you're not putting it on a character in territory, or holding it while in play or set-aside.  What deviation do you see from those principles?  What is arbitrary?

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #102 on: August 28, 2008, 03:17:35 PM »
0
I say it makes more sense that an EC would drop his weapons and run if being faced down by a plague of frogs that penetrate his immunity without Negating it.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #103 on: August 28, 2008, 03:29:18 PM »
0
Hey,

Quote
Why do the rules currently state that a weapon class enhancement on a character in a territory gets discarded if the character is returned to a draw pile?

Because regular Enhancements are discarded if the character is returned to a draw pile.  In this way, weapons behave like regular Enhancements, just as the rules state and just as I have been stating, and in contradiction to your claim that they act like placed Enhancements.

Care to explain how exactly a "regular" enhancement managed to get on a character in a territory in the first place?

Weapons are PLAYED (not placed) on a character, the same as any other enhancement is played on a character.

In the rulebook and REG weapons are only refered to as being "played" if it is in battle like a normal enhancement before being retained at the end of battle.  Whenever the rulebook or REG refers to weapons being put on characters in a territory durng the preparation phase or discard phase it always uses the word place.

I am just wondering why an inconsistency should be arbitrarily added in the midst of so many questions about consistency and purpose within the rules.

If that's what I thought, then the next thing that would come to mind would be, these people that I'm arguing with are too smart to intentionally try to make the rules more inconsistent, so they must think that this change isn't adding inconsistency...what is the difference between how I see this and how they see this that makes me think of it as an inconsistency while they don't?

Tschow,

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

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #104 on: August 28, 2008, 03:36:36 PM »
0
Hey,

If a weapon class enhancement follows a warrior class character when it is set aside then there must be some connection between the two cards that causes the weapon to follow the character (that makes it different from regular enhancements that don't follow the character they are on to the set-aside area).

If there is some connection between the two cards that causes the weapon to follow the character, then shouldn't that connection cause the weapon to follow the character to the draw pile or to its owner's hand?

Tschow,

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

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #105 on: August 28, 2008, 03:45:42 PM »
0
Care to explain how exactly a "regular" enhancement managed to get on a character in a territory in the first place?

No, because the rules for weapons allow this.  There is no need to fold a specific rule into the rule that in every OTHER way they behave like regular Enhancements.

If that's what I thought, then the next thing that would come to mind would be, these people that I'm arguing with are too smart to intentionally try to make the rules more inconsistent, so they must think that this change isn't adding inconsistency...what is the difference between how I see this and how they see this that makes me think of it as an inconsistency while they don't?

Well, I've told you guys about 50 times that looking at weapons and placed cards under the same microscope is the wrong way to approach the problem.  I also think you're too smart to continue barking up the wrong tree, but you're obviously doing one of those two things wrong.

I don't know what's supposed to give me pause to "realize" that someone is smart enough to think they are right.  That doesn't really take a lot, and you guys surpass that effortlessly.  However, I've been arguing from the rules, and the rules say that a weapon is just a regular Enhancement that you can also stick on a guy in territory, and which follows him around while in play or set-aside.

This is consistent with other concepts in Redemption as well: gained abilities remain while in play or set-aside, but go away in other instances.  The rule for unique duplicates apply to your cards that you have in play or set-aside, but don't apply in other areas.  To say that a weapon should be shuffled is to depart from that consistency.  That is adding inconsistency by creating another exceptional rule for weapons, one that does not line up with how we monitor a character's status in all these various aspects.  It is also a rule that would be added for only one reason, because some other card with some other special ability that has its own set of rules governing it, does that thing.

Those two concepts fit my definition of inconsistent and arbitrary.  Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm too dense to grasp what you're saying, or to understand that you think you're right.

If there is some connection between the two cards that causes the weapon to follow the character, then shouldn't that connection cause the weapon to follow the character to the draw pile or to its owner's hand?

If there is some connection between a character and the ability he gains from Gathering, that causes him to retain that special ability in set-aside, shouldn't that cause the Gatheredness to follow the character to the draw pile or to its owner's hand?

In the meantime, I have proposed an alternative to TPTB, but it's something considerably different from what we've seen here so far.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2008, 03:52:06 PM by The Schaef »

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #106 on: August 28, 2008, 04:10:42 PM »
0
Well, I've told you guys about 50 times that looking at weapons and placed cards under the same microscope is the wrong way to approach the problem.

If I'm looking to understand the current rules set on the issue then you have a valid point.  But I am not looking to understand the current rules set in this thread, I'm looking to improve it (if I have not made that adequitely clear I appologize).  And when looking to improve the rules, there is no inherently wrong way to approach a problem.

Quote
However, I've been arguing from the rules, and the rules say that a weapon is just a regular Enhancement that you can also stick on a guy in territory, and which follows him around while in play or set-aside.

Well, that makes it very obvious why we disagree.  I'm arguing to change the rules, you're arguing based on what the rules are.  If we didn't disagree I'd be concerned.  On a side note, an argument from the rules is pointless against an argument to change the rules, which is probably my fault for not being clear on my intentions.

Quote
This is consistent with other concepts in Redemption as well: gained abilities remain while in play or set-aside, but go away in other instances.  To say that a weapon should be shuffled is to depart from that consistency.

I don't believe that it is.  A gained ability isn't lost when the card is sent to the draw pile, it is lost when it reaches the draw pile and resets to face value.  Treating weapons the same way, to me, would mean that the character carries the weapon with him to the draw pile, and when he reaches the draw pile he loses the connection to the weapon.  When the character is drawn again it is not connected to the weapon, but it was connected to the weapon long enough to get the weapon to the draw pile.

Tschow,

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

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #107 on: August 28, 2008, 04:25:03 PM »
0
And when looking to improve the rules, there is no inherently wrong way to approach a problem.

Even when I've pointed out the added inconsistency and the arbitrary nature of the recommended change?  I was hoping that you were picking up on the fact that I was demonstrating specific reasons why the rule makes sense as is.

Quote
I'm arguing to change the rules, you're arguing based on what the rules are.

No, the rules are the springboard, the reasoning stems from those.  There is a difference between that and just saying "that's just the rules".

Quote
A gained ability isn't lost when the card is sent to the draw pile, it is lost when it reaches the draw pile and resets to face value.

This is a distinction without a difference.  A card that reaches the draw pile is a card that was sent to the draw pile.  Of all people, you should know that abilities, particularly instant ones, do not have stages of progression.  Besides, if you proceed on this logic, that going to the draw pile is different from "reaching" the draw pile, then I see no reason why cards played on characters in battle would not also follow the character to the draw pile before losing their "connection" of being on the character in battle.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #108 on: August 28, 2008, 04:41:19 PM »
0
Personally, I think that it seems intuitive if you are looking at your territory and see 2 characters that have enhs on them (one "placed" on them, and the other a WC "played" on them), and you shuffle both characters then the same thing should happen to those enhs.

I know this isn't the current rule.  Tim, Hobbit, and I (and perhaps others) are just suggesting that it should become the rule.

Is there any chance?  Or is this a rule that really can't change and we should just drop it?
I will repeat this question again since no one has answered it.  I hate to keep arguing for something if there is no chance.  However, I am still convinced that our proposal is more intuitive than the current ruling.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #109 on: August 28, 2008, 04:44:16 PM »
0
And I asked you why that is the case in light of the way weapons line up with other aspects of gameplay.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #110 on: August 28, 2008, 05:07:56 PM »
0
And I asked you why that is the case in light of the way weapons line up with other aspects of gameplay.
I don't see how this answers the question of whether the current rule can change.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #111 on: August 28, 2008, 05:10:20 PM »
0
You say it's not relevant whether or not the rule needs changed if the rule cannot be changed.

I say it's not relevant whether or not the rule can be changed if it is not necessary in the first place.

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #112 on: August 28, 2008, 05:16:12 PM »
0
I say it's not relevant whether or not the rule can be changed if it is not necessary in the first place.
Of course you don't think it is relevant whether it can be changed since you think the current rule is best.  But that doesn't answer my question.  Please let me know if this rule is immutable so I can know whether I should continue investing time in it.  A simple yes or no would be fine.

P.S. ...not that I ever got one from you the last time I asked :)

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #113 on: August 28, 2008, 05:18:35 PM »
0
Hey,

You say it's not relevant whether or not the rule needs changed if the rule cannot be changed.

I say it's not relevant whether or not the rule can be changed if it is not necessary in the first place.

It's not a matter of it being necessary, it's a matter of it being beneficial.

Tschow,

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

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #114 on: August 28, 2008, 05:22:50 PM »
0
Of course you don't think it is relevant whether it can be changed since you think the current rule is best.  But that doesn't answer my question.  Please let me know if this rule is immutable so I can know whether I should continue investing time in it.  A simple yes or no would be fine.

Unless and until Rob says a rule will never ever be changed, I don't know that can be said of ANY rule.  That does not mean I agree with the idea of arguing to change any rule just because it's not cemented.

It's not a matter of it being necessary, it's a matter of it being beneficial.

Does that not still beg the question of consistency and purpose as I have been asking?  Necessity or benefit, both still face that obstacle.

Offline galadgawyn

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #115 on: August 28, 2008, 10:53:06 PM »
0
I think I have to agree with Schaef on this one. 

It seems like Tim's side acknowledges that the ruling currently is what Schaef has said it is but is arguing that changing it to their version would be worthwhile.  It seems like Schaef has acknowledged that the rule could be changed but argues that it is not desirable. 

Personally, I think it is 50/50 on which version of the rules would be better.  We all want consistency but if we keep changing the rules that works against that goal.  Since there is inherently a large con to changing the rules, the burden of proof is on Tim's group to show that it would be worth it.  I think this rule change merely exchanges one set of definitions and rules for another.  So unless there is some other large reason to support it then I would say let this one go.

P.S.  I'm all for changing the rule if there is a REALLY good reason to do so i.e.  Never under any circumstances being able to redeem Satan or the demons.  I just think God was pretty clear on that one.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #116 on: August 30, 2008, 07:25:45 PM »
0
After seeking feedback from TPTB, here is my proposal for the rule regarding cards which are placed or held or what have you.

If a support card (by which I mean a Fortress, Site or Artifact) is shuffled or discarded or what have you, the contents held by those cards follow them to their destination.  The continuing exception being that Lost Souls are returned to territory instead of being discarded or removed.

Cards that are placed on characters follow those characters as long as they remain in the Field of Play or set-aside area, but are discarded at any time that the character leaves those areas (discard, shuffle, return to hand).  This includes weapons and cards placed by a special ability.

What are your thoughts on this?

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #117 on: August 30, 2008, 07:27:47 PM »
0
Works for me.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #118 on: August 30, 2008, 08:22:59 PM »
0
That is the opposite direction that I was hoping for, however it does seem to be consistent.

Now if my student gets 2 ECs shuffled from their territory which each have an EE on them (1 placed, and 1 WC), then the same thing will happen to both of them.  That is easy to explain.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #119 on: August 30, 2008, 08:36:00 PM »
0
Well, the more thought I gave it, the more that going the other direction would seem to make paralysis decks and orange defenses basically infinitely recyclable given the right use of one's cards.

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #120 on: August 30, 2008, 08:45:00 PM »
0
Well, the more thought I gave it, the more that going the other direction would seem to make paralysis decks and orange defenses basically infinitely recyclable given the right use of one's cards.

Which wouldn't break the game.   


Thanks for talking to the Pb to get things settled I like the new suggestions.  :)

Offline Prof Underwood

  • Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8597
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #121 on: August 30, 2008, 08:51:53 PM »
0
I haven't had enough experience with paralysis or orange decks to have thought of that, and appreciate your perspective on that.  And in the end, it is much more important to me that things be consistent than for them to all be exactly how I would like them to be.

Keep up the good work!

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #122 on: August 30, 2008, 09:04:21 PM »
0
Which wouldn't break the game.

I never said it would break the game.  Not every rule is based only on whether one particular combo breaks the game or not.  Paralysis decks were just a common example; I'm sure there are other ways to exploit the game if everything was shuffled all the time, in ways more damaging than the quick-and-dirty example I gave.

Offline TheKarazyvicePresidentRR

  • Trade Count: (+4)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15781
  • Currently undead
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #123 on: August 30, 2008, 09:08:16 PM »
0
Which wouldn't break the game.

I never said it would break the game.  Not every rule is based only on whether one particular combo breaks the game or not.  Paralysis decks were just a common example; I'm sure there are other ways to exploit the game if everything was shuffled all the time, in ways more damaging than the quick-and-dirty example I gave.
Come on scheaf. :D you know you wanna let me abuse this.
Not quite a ghost...but not quite not.

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside
« Reply #124 on: August 31, 2008, 10:47:24 AM »
0
Wait... we were going to keep the rule that all captured characters always lose their weapons, right?

It just doesn't make sense to me otherwise. 

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal