Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RedemptionAggie on September 04, 2015, 08:47:18 PM
-
Watcher:
If an Evil Character was or is currently set aside, shuffle that Evil Character back into Owner's draw pile. Discard the set-aside card(s).
Tartaros:
Plays to Set Aside area, Holds any # of demons
If your demon is discarded or captured, you may hold it here instead. If your demon wins a battle, you may underdeck a demon from here.
Is Tartaros considered a set-aside card, such that it would be discarded if Watcher shuffled a demon it held?
-
It is a card causing a character to be played to the set-aside area. I'd say yes.
-
This is what I got when I asked that, but I wouldn't call it definitive:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/watcher-vs-tartaros-q/msg380925/#msg380925 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/watcher-vs-tartaros-q/msg380925/#msg380925)
-
I dont think that it would be discarded. I think that it is an instead ability, not a set aside ability.if anything I would consider it a place ability.
-
I would not say this is the definitive ruling without hearing from other Judges, but I would say that Watcher's ability includes clarifying text for that last part. At the time it was printed (and until this season, actually), set-aside enhancements went with the character to set-aside, and were discarded once the characters were to return. Therefore, this 'older wording' seems to fall into the "clarifying text" category, meant to define a default state that existed in the rules at the time of the printing, and is thus not its own ability.
-
I would not say this is the definitive ruling without hearing from other Judges, but I would say that Watcher's ability includes clarifying text for that last part. At the time it was printed (and until this season, actually), set-aside enhancements went with the character to set-aside, and were discarded once the characters were to return. Therefore, this 'older wording' seems to fall into the "clarifying text" category, meant to define a default state that existed in the rules at the time of the printing, and is thus not its own ability.
I would tend to agree with Redoubter here.