Cactus Game Design Message Boards

No. If a Hero set aside for a specified duration in order to gain a benefit is returned before that duration, the benefit is lost.

Before the change to ignore, WtC was a pretty strong card. You could combine it with Three Nails and the only options for an opponent to block with were the two animals in the game at the time, Leviathan and The Serpent. I used this strategy to win T2 2P at Nationals in 2007. 

However, with the change to ignore and the introduction of other animals and symbolic characters, it's not really that big of a pay-off for something that takes 7 turns to work.

Yeah, that was a powerful blocking option back in the day.

To be honest though, a defense with Prince of this World, Abaddon the Destroyer, Red Dragon and King of Tyrus combined with a bunch of negates (which Orange has several of) and Household Idols could actually be pretty formidable. An opponent would basically need a battle winner and a negate (or two battle winners) every turn.

Wait, you could totally play Witnesses in battle to take Michael out for (effectively) the rest of the game!? XD

You can't set aside the opponent's hero's with your good set aside cards. I tried using it in a type 2 deck with a couple green and purple set aside cards and it was ruled a no go.

No it is the current ruling. I questioned it at the 2017 type 2 only and Gabe, John, and Justin all agreed and used something from the regs to justify it. I used it in battle on my hero and tried to set aside the opponent's hero.

Sorry to say it but that was a bad ruling based on how things used to be.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but I agree with Aggie that the old rule did not allow you to set-aside your opponents' cards of same alignment. However, as Aggie also pointed out, the new REG does not make this distinction.

... Gabe, John, and Justin all agreed and used something from the regs to justify it.

Pray tell what the justification from the current REG was.... 

I PMed Justin asking him to respond.

This is under review.

I think you are misunderstanding my question. I want to know what justification was used during the Type 2 Only event this year. Wild Bill said that you guys used the REG to make your decision, unless I am the one who misunderstood what happened. 

Oh, I see. He had said the 2017 Type 2 Only, which I assumed was recent.

As you were. 

But both Bill and I are getting up there in years. It's hard to tell with these things. 

LOL. You don't have to explain the effects of "getting up there in years" to me....   

Thanks for sticking up for me kariusvega, we did talk about it at the type two only this year but the ruling was made earlier after I won a local tournament. In Gabe's defence, he was probably busy playtesting and maybe wasn't in on that discussion. Gabe is right, Tim Maley was in on the discussion. A little while after the tournament I was at John Earley's house and Justin Alstad was there along with Tim and John. They informed me that it wasn't legal and it might have been tied to the old regs and the information wasn't put in the new regs by mistake. And the tournament was in 2016 before Nationals because I had to build a new deck right before Nationals 2016. (The older you get the years just all run together)

Again I'm old so my details are a little fuzzy but some things you do remember, like winning a type 2 multi player game at a tournament with a couple Alstad at the table. I was frustrated at the ruling, it didn't make sense to me. Maybe now they will reverse that ruling and I can put that deck back together again adding Witnesses to Creation to it. (If I can remember what cards I had in the deck)