Author Topic: Shuffle and Set-Aside (Read 52762 times)

The Schaef · « **Reply #175 on:** September 13, 2008, 02:28:10 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on September 13, 2008, 01:41:54 PM

I thought before entering this discussion that the only reason the weapon is discarded is because if you put a person in jail they cant keep a weapon.

Can you tell me where that is printed in the REG?

Quote

"Captured heroes cant be targeted as Hero's but they are still heroes". What's wrong with that?

For what reason would they still need to be called Heroes? That is the question I asked before, and I do not see an answer here.

Quote

Do you understand why a "captured hero in raiders camp isn't a hero or character" rule can be confusing? When I go to the zoo and look at an elephant your telling me it's not an elephant? See what I mean?

No, I don't see why that would be confusing because we're not talking about elephants. We are talking about cards. And cards in Raider's Camp are not treated the same as cards outside of Raider's Camp. Now we can make that because of an arbitrary rule about targeting, or we can make it because they are not treated as the same type of card any longer. The first is what I was told in many other threads is bad and confusing and counter-intuitive. The second allows cards to be played by the regular rules that govern them.

If you want to make an analogy, make it about soldiers since the game is a metaphor for spiritual warfare. Captured soldiers are not on the field of battle, you cannot issue orders to them, you cannot add them to the battle, you cannot kill them in the same manner that you can kill soldiers on a battlefield or even in an encampment. There is no reason to continue referring to them as soldiers in the tactical sense.

SirNobody · « **Reply #176 on:** September 13, 2008, 07:49:37 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on September 13, 2008, 01:41:54 PM

When I go to the zoo and look at an elephant your telling me it's not an elephant? See what I mean?

I like this analogy, or at least I like it as the start of an analogy. If you take me to a zoo to look at an elephant I can tell you it is not a wild elephant and I would be telling the truth. There are captured elephants and there are wild elephants. Usually the term "elephant" would be used to refer to a member of either group.

It's similar in Redemption. We have captured heroes and we have uncaptured heroes. Which if you really want to you could make up a supercategory of "all heroes" that the two both fall into. When we use the word "hero" in redemption we are not refering to the "All heroes" group like is common for words like "elephant" we are instead refering to the "uncaptured heroes" group. While this may not be the most common meaning for the term "hero" it is a valid one and it is the most practical one for Redemption since the "uncaptured heroes" get referenced a lot and the "all heroes" groups gets mentioned...I can't think of any time where it is referenced. So using "hero" to refer to "uncaptured hero" and thus shortening what must be said significantly is the best way to go.

Tschow,

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

The Schaef · « **Reply #177 on:** September 13, 2008, 09:02:13 PM »

Except all of our cards say "Hero" and creating a supercategory of Hero would mean that either all of those cards could target into Raider's Camp or two weeks from now we'll have ten more threads talking about how confusing it is to say "Hero" and expect people to know you actually meant only the uncaptured variety.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #178 on:** September 13, 2008, 10:30:39 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on September 13, 2008, 09:02:13 PM

Except all of our cards say "Hero" and creating a supercategory of Hero would mean that either all of those cards could target into Raider's Camp or two weeks from now we'll have ten more threads talking about how confusing it is to say "Hero" and expect people to know you actually meant only the uncaptured variety.

No it won't because we would still refer to them as captured heroes if we want to talk about them. Nothing would change just the thought process behind it would change. Even though the hero is captured there is still a hero under there beneath everything, you cant target it as a hero but it still is a hero.

The Schaef · « **Reply #179 on:** September 13, 2008, 10:46:11 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on September 13, 2008, 10:30:39 PM

No it won't because we would still refer to them as captured heroes if we want to talk about them.

I'm referring to saying "Hero" when you mean "uncaptured Hero"

Quote

Even though the hero is captured there is still a hero under there beneath everything, you cant target it as a hero but it still is a hero.

If it's a Hero, why could you not target it as a Hero? Why does it have to be called a Hero at all just for the sake of naming it? That makes no sense. I keep asking you this and I don't understand why you refuse to answer this very fundamental question.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #180 on:** September 14, 2008, 11:10:46 AM »

Quote from: The Schaef on September 13, 2008, 10:46:11 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on September 13, 2008, 10:30:39 PM
No it won't because we would still refer to them as captured heroes if we want to talk about them.

I'm referring to saying "Hero" when you mean "uncaptured Hero"

Quote
Even though the hero is captured there is still a hero under there beneath everything, you cant target it as a hero but it still is a hero.

If it's a Hero, why could you not target it as a Hero? Why does it have to be called a Hero at all just for the sake of naming it? That makes no sense. I keep asking you this and I don't understand why you refuse to answer this very fundamental question.

You cant target it as a "hero" because it is a "captured hero". If you understand that the captured hero is a still a hero than everyones good to go.

That's better than saying it's not a character any more. It isn't a subgroup of lost soul it is a subgroup of hero.

If if the hero in raiders camp isn't a hero how can raiders camp release "all Heroes to owners territory"?

The Schaef · « **Reply #181 on:** September 14, 2008, 12:06:30 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on September 14, 2008, 11:10:46 AM

You cant target it as a "hero" because it is a "captured hero".

That's what I've been telling you for pages now, but you still want to call it a "Hero". If a "captured Hero" is a "Hero" then you can target it with cards that say "Hero". What you have not told me yet, so now I'm asking you for the fourth time, why these cards HAVE TO STILL BE HEROES. Please please please answer that question for me. Please.

Quote

If you understand that the captured hero is a still a hero than everyones good to go.

If I understand that the captured Hero is still a Hero, then I'm going to target that Hero with my Great Image or my Fruitless Tree, and when you try to tell me I can't, I'm going to complain that your rule is arbitrary and inconsistent. And I would be right, because you have not yet given me one single reason that I should think anything else.

Quote

If if the hero in raiders camp isn't a hero how can raiders camp release "all Heroes to owners territory"?

Please read the REG before asking questions that are already addressed.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #182 on:** September 14, 2008, 09:08:00 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on September 14, 2008, 12:06:30 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on September 14, 2008, 11:10:46 AM
You cant target it as a "hero" because it is a "captured hero".

That's what I've been telling you for pages now, but you still want to call it a "Hero". If a "captured Hero" is a "Hero" then you can target it with cards that say "Hero". What you have not told me yet, so now I'm asking you for the fourth time, why these cards HAVE TO STILL BE HEROES. Please please please answer that question for me. Please.

These have to still be Heroes because it makes sense to call John Mcain not a hero when he was captured in Veitnam seems strange. If a prisonar is capture in war he is still human, he is what every he is. Why does losing the priveledges of a hero make someone not a hero anymore? A captured hero is a hero AND a captured hero, you cant target it because the target cant get through the first barrier ,captured hero. The fact that a "captured hero" has the word hero in it's name is proof that it is still a hero, it is just captured.

The Schaef · « **Reply #183 on:** September 14, 2008, 10:52:35 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on September 14, 2008, 09:08:00 PM

These have to still be Heroes because it makes sense to call John Mcain not a hero when he was captured in Veitnam seems strange.

John McCain is not a Redemption card. He is also not counted among the soldiers for either side when issuing orders to troops or battling against other troops. I already made this analogy before, did you read it?

Quote

If a prisonar is capture in war he is still human, he is what every he is.

Again I have to ask you to please read my posts when responding.

Quote

Why does losing the priveledges of a hero make someone not a hero anymore?

Because those privileges are part of the way we define our card types. I say a captured Hero is no longer the card type "Hero" for gameplay purposes. You say that it IS a Hero, but then there should be another rule that says you can't do any of the things to them that you do to regular Heroes. That makes it 110% pointless to assign the card type Hero to that card.

Quote

A captured hero is a hero AND a captured hero, you cant target it because the target cant get through the first barrier ,captured hero.

There is no such "barrier" that you speak of. If it is a Hero, I can target a Hero. Your logic would allow me to have a Curse that cannot be discarded by Destruction, because it is a Curse AND an Artifact, but I can't target it because I can't get through the first barrier, Curse. Do you see how that doesn't make any sense? How you just construct this imaginary barrier that doesn't appear anywhere on the card and makes no sense within the rules?

Quote

The fact that a "captured hero" has the word hero in it's name is proof that it is still a hero, it is just captured.

The only thing that proves is that TPTB assigned the card type a name that directly coincides with the language on cards designed to release them. Which again is something that I already told you earlier in this thread. That's like saying Temple of Nisroch is a Temple because it says "Temple" in the name, without bothering to just look at the card and see that it's a pale green Enhancement.

TimMierz · « **Reply #184 on:** September 15, 2008, 10:59:50 AM »

I just wanted to applaud Stephen for mentioning Spiritual Realm, Fruitless Tree, and Temple of Nisroch in his recent posts. This message is brought to you by the Foundation of Cards Everyone Forgot About.

I guess while I'm posting, I could say it'd be nice if the term were something like "prisoner" rather than "captured character", but we're too far down the road for that. As long as we can remember that "captured character" is a solid unit of a term that does not encompass "character" in any way other than describing some past action that happened to get it into its current state, there shouldn't be an issue. I urge you, Mr. Bit13, to defer to Stephen's wisdom.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #185 on:** September 15, 2008, 06:51:54 PM »

"Because those privileges are part of the way we define our card types. I say a captured Hero is no longer the card type "Hero" for gameplay purposes. You say that it IS a Hero, but then there should be another rule that says you can't do any of the things to them that you do to regular Heroes. That makes it 110% pointless to assign the card type Hero to that card."

There is no rule added we just have different conclusions taken from the phrase "captured hero".

TimMierz · « **Reply #186 on:** September 15, 2008, 06:55:29 PM »

Not to interject where I shouldn't, but do you honestly think there's "no rule" about whether captured characters are still characters?

Quote

Captured characters placed in a fortress (e.g., Raiders’ Camp or Tartaros). are not treated as Lost Souls because they are not in the Land of Bondage nor are they treated as regular characters. Rather, they are treated as captured characters. Captured heroes in a fortress are not subject to any effects that specify Heroes, Evil Characters, or Lost Souls (e.g., Band, Discard or Remove, or rescue). Cards that target all cards (e.g., A New Beginning), captured Heroes (e.g., Military Escort or Lamb’s Righteousness), or captured Evil Characters (e.g., Satan Released) can effect captured characters in a fortress.

The Schaef · « **Reply #187 on:** September 15, 2008, 06:59:57 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on September 15, 2008, 06:51:54 PM

There is no rule added we just have different conclusions taken from the phrase "captured hero".

What? If the card is of the card type "Hero" and you are saying a card that "targets a Hero" cannot "target a Hero", that's an added rule. This is an incredibly simple concept to still be in dispute.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #188 on:** September 15, 2008, 07:05:27 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on September 15, 2008, 06:55:29 PM

Not to interject where I shouldn't, but do you honestly think there's "no rule" about whether captured characters are still characters?
Quote
Captured characters placed in a fortress (e.g., Raiders’ Camp or Tartaros). are not treated as Lost Souls because they are not in the Land of Bondage nor are they treated as regular characters. Rather, they are treated as captured characters. Captured heroes in a fortress are not subject to any effects that specify Heroes, Evil Characters, or Lost Souls (e.g., Band, Discard or Remove, or rescue). Cards that target all cards (e.g., A New Beginning), captured Heroes (e.g., Military Escort or Lamb’s Righteousness), or captured Evil Characters (e.g., Satan Released) can effect captured characters in a fortress.

I wasn't aware of that wholly, they are but they arn't in aspects of the game they arn't but logically they still are, follow? I just mixed them both together in this discussion thanks for helping me figure this out. Any way I would like to get off on another tangent, what is the definition of a successful rescue? I couldn't find the definition in the REG.

The Schaef · « **Reply #189 on:** September 15, 2008, 07:16:17 PM »

It's under Battle Resolution in the rulebook. Win the battle and have access to a Lost Soul.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #190 on:** September 15, 2008, 07:49:58 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on September 15, 2008, 07:16:17 PM

It's under Battle Resolution in the rulebook. Win the battle and have access to a Lost Soul.

The moment I win the battle my opponent can play burial to stop a successful RA, but according to the definition from the rule book I still made a successful RA because they played burial after I won (that cant be entirely correct because we all know that he didn't have a successful RA). So a Successful Ra has to be determened when you recieve a lost soul correct?

In type 2 you recieve experience credit for a successful ra, why don't I get experience credit when I get a hero back from raiders camp? (If the rule you stated is correct) If the rule you stated is incorrect and successful rescue is determined when you rescue a lost soul how can you ever release a hero from raiders camp? Or do you just go back in time and give the lost soul back?

Hold it! in both situations I should get experience credit for releasing the hero in Raiders Camp because I made technically made a successful ra.

SirNobody · « **Reply #191 on:** September 15, 2008, 08:28:58 PM »

Hey,

The rulebook has at least one error in the section you were directed to. You can not play burial (or any other dominant) one you "win the battle." Because you don't "win the battle" until battle resolution begins and once battle resolution begins you can no longer play dominants.

The success or failure of a rescue attempt is determined at the beginning of battle resolution (the first step of battle resolution).

Tschow,

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

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Shuffle and Set-Aside (Read 52762 times)

The Schaef

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

SirNobody

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

The Schaef

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

TheHobbit13

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

The Schaef

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

TheHobbit13

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

The Schaef

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

TheHobbit13

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

The Schaef

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

TimMierz

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

TheHobbit13

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

TimMierz

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

The Schaef

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

TheHobbit13

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

The Schaef

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

TheHobbit13

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside

SirNobody

Re: Shuffle and Set-Aside