Cactus Game Design Message Boards

First of all, if the hero has already won the battle, there can be no more enhancements played. You can, however, play an enhancement with an interrupt ability after your opponent plays something that would remove you from the battle (and is interruptable).

But in answer to your real question, the weapons follow the characters to the set aside area.

Think about it. If you are holding a sword in your hand and you walk 10 steps away,
you are still holding the sword, right?
Hope that helped.

How does the first portion of your statement apply to the question? No enhancements were played (nor desired to be played... nor possible to be played because Nergy gives CBN...) after Nebby's Pride.

I apologize. I misread your post to say "Adino with Adino's Spear wins a rescue attempt," and I thought you meant that he had played a battle-winner and since there was no EC left he won, which is a mistake I see a lot of newer players make and I wanted to correct it. My mistake.

You already quoted the answer you are looking for:

REG (under 'special conditions')
Weapon-class enhancements are discarded if the warrior-class character holding the weapon is discarded, captured, returned to hand, or returned to draw pile. They stay on a character that is converted or returned to territory.

The REG specifies when weapons are discarded, and set-aside is not one of the conditions. I agree with the notion that the REG should specifically address set-aside, but you can derive the answer from the scenarios. Cards in the draw pile, discard pile, or hand are all reset by game rule (thus losing anything gained). Capture is the one exception because captured characters are treated as Lost Souls, which normally do not hold weapons. A converted character, on the other hand, becomes a type of card that normally does hold a weapon.

Set-aside characters do not change any attributes, so there is no reason for a hero or EC to give up their weapon.

The REG actually lists when the weapons stays and when the weapon gets discarded, and set aside isn't on either list.  So we can't assume it belongs on either list based on the fact that it's not on the opposite list.

I explained why I felt it should be on one list rather than the other, so your commnet is unwarranted.

Bryon and I discussed weapons following the character when the owner of the character removes it from play but not following the character if the opponent removes it from play, and we both liked the idea but I don't remember it ever becoming official.

That idea does not make any sense, and would contradict the REG. According to this, I can do self-capture of my heroes with weapons, then put them in my Raider's Camp, then when my opponent makes a successful rescue attempt, I can get my heroes back with their weapons. Is that really what we want?

We were discussing a potential rule change so yes it disagrees with the REG (but if you haven't noticed the REG disagrees with several current rules at the moment).

And yet there is no sense of urgency to replace it....

Read my comment again.  Capture does not remove the character from play so the rule change we discussed would not affect capture.  The status quo of weapons being discarded when a character is captured (and weapons remaining when a character is converted) would remain the same.

I did indeed miss the part about "in play." However, instead we will have the confusing situation where if I set aside my own weapon-bearer, then I keep the weapon, but if I capture my own weapon-bearer, then I don't keep my weapon. What you may see as a consistent structure, I see as inconsistent.

No apparent sense of urgency.

 

We are now approaching the National tournament with the same REG and known errors (plus some added "We're going to rule it this way inspite of the REG"). People from across the country will gather to find out that the way they have been playing certain cards is all wrong.

Regardless of how we end up ruling this we'll still have a situation where sometimes the weapon stays and sometimes the weapon goes.  Absolute consistency is not the goal of Redemption.

Consistency should be the goal of a complex card game. The exceptions should be clearly written. Otherwise we end up with people arriving at tournaments with personal emails showing that their combo does what they want, rather than what has been generally presumed.