Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

And I asked you why that is the case in light of the way weapons line up with other aspects of gameplay.

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.

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

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.

Works for me.

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.

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!

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on August 30, 2008, 08:45:00 PM

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. you know you wanna let me abuse this.