Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I attack with a Purple king with The Throne of David in territory.  My opponent has one evil brigade in play, but bands to an evil character of mine of a different brigade.  Do I draw 1 or 2?  Basically, is the number of evil brigades my opponent has in play based on brigades he controls, or brigades he owns?

The Throne of David (RA)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When your purple brigade King is blocked, if no Evil Character in battle has a weapon, you may draw X cards and play an O.T. purple brigade Enhancement. • Play As: When your purple brigade King is blocked, if no Evil Character in battle has a weapon, you may draw X cards and play an Enhancement that is from the O.T. and purple brigade. • Identifiers: X = the number of evil brigades your opponent has in play.

Your opponent doesn't have your evil character in play, you do.

So the Job Overcomes/Self combo does not work then.  (I block with SWS, exchange into my opp's territory.  My opponent attacks again, I block w/ banding EC, band to SWS, exchange with my Self in territory.  After battle, I control SWS again, and my opponent controls Self.  Then I attack and play Job Overcomes to clear my opp's hand of evil cards.)

Your opponent doesn't have your evil character in play, you do.

I would argue that he does have my character.  If I find a wallet with $5 in it, someone else owns it, but I have it.  Even if I have to reimburse it later, I can physically spend the money because I have (i.e. control) it.

Quote from: jmhartz on May 01, 2012, 07:08:44 PM

Quote from: Chris on May 01, 2012, 11:45:22 AM

Your opponent doesn't have your evil character in play, you do.

I would argue that he does have my character.  If I find a wallet with $5 in it, someone else owns it, but I have it.  Even if I have to reimburse it later, I can physically spend the money because I have (i.e. control) it.

While I am not a fan of the current rules of control, they are set and fairly consistent.

If a card says "Your" or "Your Opponent's" or "A Player's", etc. then it requires both ownership and control.  The card must have originally come from the deck of the player the ability is referencing and be in that player's territory/side of battle/set-aside/hand/deck/whatever is specified.

I understand that it may not be as intuitive (and is slightly annoying ) but it is also a consistent rule we have to follow

I have no beef with the definition of "yours", "opponent's", "ownership", and "control".  I just think that when a card says "has" or "have" that it should mean control only and not necessarily ownership.

Quote from: jmhartz on May 01, 2012, 07:47:30 PM

I have no beef with the definition of "yours", "opponent's", "ownership", and "control".  I just think that when a card says "has" or "have" that it should mean control only and not necessarily ownership.

I understand.  TToD essential reads (identifier anyway): "X = number of brigades on your opponent's evil characters".

Trust me, I wish control were different, but the ruling is that it must be control and ownership

The reason I want the difference is because when I think of the literal definition of "has" and "have", I think control.  And there are honestly few cards that this would affect.  Job Overcomes, TToD, a few others.  Most cards just say "opponent's" without "has" or "have".

And what of EE's placed on Heroes? I have had it ruled as increasing my opponents Throne count when he placed EE's on my heroes of brigades I wasn't using.

This is a good time to again propose splitting control into permanent and temporary control and change the definition of "your" to be both of those

I would fully support a proposal to change the definition of control, I've only been referring to the actual rules in my responses.  Not in favor of the current structure, just saying how they work, so yeah, would like to see a change