Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Scenario: My opponent is making a rescue attempt, I blocked with a gold evil character played Besieging the city and then Failed objective. My passed to my turn.

On my turn I attacked with Matthew while my opponent had Gifts of the Magi active.

Question: Is besieging the city still active, or is the turn considered over and he gets to draw three cards?

Special Abilities:
*Besieging the City: (Opponent may not draw cards or make a rescue attempt next turn)

*Matthew: (You may draw up to X cards (limit 3) or search discard pile for a good Enhancement with a Matthew reference and place it beneath deck.)

*Gifts of the Magi: (Each time an opponent draws a card because of a special ability on a character or enhancement, holder may draw a card.)

I thought a turn consisted of each player going once. I assumed this because of set-asides. By this logic, shouldn't something like gathering of angels be completed once each person goes twice?

Ahh, ok thanks a lot for the clarification! It makes more sense to me now.

Not quite, sadly.

The card has been pretty consistently ruled that it is "your opponent's next turn" to my knowledge.  Yes, the card is worded weird, but it does still fit with the wording on the card and it is clear from the 'rescue' clause as well.

The way the card is worded and the way we play the card are in direct contradiction. There is a huge difference between "next turn" and "their next turn" and we don't play any other cards like this. The fact that rescue is in there just shows poor design, not a clarification (which is backwards). This is a top-down ruling and is incorrect.

So is that how Displeased Philistines work? How does that work in multiplayer? Did Justin rip us off in Booster Draft a month ago?

I feel like Besieging the City fell victim to the same problem a lot of older cards had: they were worded for 2-player gameplay with no thought as to multiplayer. In many other cases cards with bad wording have been ruled to play as written not as intended (*cough*Split Altar*cough*). Why is this card different?

Is there a game rule somewhere in the rulebook/REG that explains why it's being treated as "opponent's next turn"? I can't think of any basis for ruling it any other way than it's printed, which is that during the turn following the one in which BtC is played the opponent cannot rescue or draw.

If Justin played it a different way then there obviously isn't consensus even amongst the Elders on this and it is most definitely NOT being "conveyed consistently."

When you take the entire ability together, it applies 'opponent' throughout the statement.  The point about the rescue demonstrates that, but does not do so on its own.

This is applying bad grammar and is just plain wrong. Just because it mentions "rescue attempt" doesn't inherently restrict it to only one situation. If I'm restricted from drawing and searching on the next turn, but I wasn't planning to search, that doesn't change when the ability affects me.

You are correct, my apologies. I've edited my post above.

I still don't see how/why that implies what Redoubter is saying, though. "Next turn" has a specific usage in Redemption and having one card be an exception is, as Westy pointed out, very much a top-down ruling and one that I, personally, don't think needs to even be an exception. If the attacking player plays the card sub-optimally when the blocker isn't the next player to take a turn, it's their fault for playing it sub-optimally.

One full turn is 360º.

I thought that was called a full round?

Quote from: LukeChips on February 25, 2015, 07:23:09 PM

Quote from: Westy on February 24, 2015, 08:52:48 PM

One full turn is 360º.

I thought that was called a full round?

It is

So a turn and a round are the same thing?

No. My turn extends from my draw phase until the end of my discard phase. A round is once around the table with everyone having a turn.

Thaanks for the clarification, this is what I originally thought and read in the rulebook.