Cactus Web Site special offer: Orders over $75 will receive a free Angel of God 2023 National Promo card while supplies last.
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.
QuoteWhy 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.
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?
Weapons are PLAYED (not placed) on a character, the same as any other enhancement is played on a character.
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.
Care to explain how exactly a "regular" enhancement managed to get on a character in a territory in the first place?
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?
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?
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.
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. To say that a weapon should be shuffled is to depart from that consistency.
And when looking to improve the rules, there is no inherently wrong way to approach a problem.
I'm arguing to change the rules, you're arguing based on what the rules are.
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.
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?
And I asked you why that is the case in light of the way weapons line up with other aspects of gameplay.
I say it's not relevant whether or not the rule can be changed if it is not necessary in the first place.
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.
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.
It's not a matter of it being necessary, it's a matter of it being beneficial.
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.
Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 30, 2008, 08:45:00 PMWhich 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.