When A player plays Coercion and takes another hero, does that hero go with all his items?

Or is this considered disertion, and that heroes items are discarded like normal Desertion?

basically this made or breaked our game. if they take the items a player wins if they don't another player wins.

Crazy, I can't believe this hasn't come up. If it does say the player deserts his owner, does that mean he isn't actualy deserting?

or if a hero leaves his owner in ANY way is that a desertion

The card says "you take control" of the hero, so we've been playing the hero merely switches sides, and brings all his goodies with him.

TK

i think it hasnt come up because it seems clear that you get the hero and his items. Nothing suggests otherwise. Why would the hero just dump his stuff when he decided to join your cause?

Desertion only happens in one of two ways: the Showing Their True Nature season card and when a player gets more than 3 heroes (he must choose one to desert him). Corey has confirmed that the Coercion card does NOT cause the hero to desert, thus it retains all of its rewards. This also means that the Captain of the Heroes' League title card does not prevent Coercion either.

Edit: "Corey has confirmed that the Coercion card does not cause the hero to desert" is a fact. "Thus it retains all of its rewards" is the conclusion that I have drawn from that fact. Corey hasn't said anything further about the Coercion card.

The items are "attached" to the Hero. If the Hero changes hands, so do the items.

hmmm. Are you sure about Coercion not being prevented by the Captain of the heroes guild" title?

mateooo said:

Absolutely, 100% sure - A direct answer from Corey confirms it. "Coercion does NOT make the hero 'desert'. Therefore, the Captain of the Heroes Guild does not protect against this."

well, you may be right, but I'd rather see Corey say "Captain of the Hero's League prevents coercion."

mateooo said:

Um, that's pretty much what he said - My quote above was directly from him! I don't know how much more direct it could be: "The Captain of the Heroes Guild does not protect against this." (With the "this" being "Coercion", as it was the topic of the question and the first sentence of his answer.)

ahh, i misread... thanks

cool, thanx for the answers.

mateooo said:

Honestly, I would have preferred to see him say that as well.

broken said:

But he did; his second sentence says pretty much that; sure it uses the word "this", but that's only because the topic was already set.

IE, his answer is pretty clear.

no worries... ive already specifically asked corey this, and ill post the answer.

What did you ask exactly? I guess, while asking again won't hurt, my first question was pretty direct:

Does the "Coercion" Tactics Card count as a hero Deserting? IE, if a player has the "Captain of the Heroes' Guild" Title, does it prevent other players from using Coercion against them?

Again, I guess it doesn't hurt to ask again, but I'm not sure how the original answer had any ambiguity to it - it was pretty direct and specific.

sigmazero13 said:

No, I would have preferred him say what Mateooo quoted: "Captain of the Hero's League prevents coercion." I hate that card.

Oh, I apologize, I have been misreading what you are saying.

What you WANT him to do is rule that Coercion DOES count as Desertion? IE, change his ruling? I guess you can ask, but I'll be surprised if he does. I think the ruling is fine - the Captain of the Heroes Guild doesn't protect you.

I'm not a big fan of the card either (except when I get to use it!), but it's not that hard to avoid if you have a hero that you absolutely cannot lose - just keep him away from enemy controlled territory, unless you have one too and are willing to coerce him back Or just play without the card, if it doesn't sit well with the group. I actually hope he does NOT reverse the ruling, personally.

I don't want him to reverse his ruling now, I just wish he had ruled otherwise.

I think if there's one Tactics card "missing" is something akin to TI3's "Sabotage". In TI3, it puts a check on all the really nasty cards, and it would have been nice to have some way of blocking a nasty card at just the wrong time in Runewars.

how bout a tactic card that lets you peek at a future season card... you could call it premonitions, oracle, visions, omens... etc. Or a bid called a sign of things to come.

Or a tactic that lets you choose your order after everyone else has, sort of like the one that lets you bid after everyone else.

mateooo said:

I've actually been working on a variant for "spells" (because Battlemist had Spells, but this game doesn't). And one of my ideas for a Spell was like this, an Oracular spell. Maybe spend 3+X magic, and look at the top X Fate cards.

(For what it's worth, my basic idea was every spring, you refresh your "magic" up to the number of rune tokens you control. Unused magic from the last year aren't lost, but don't "add". IE, if you have 3 magic, and control 5 runes in spring, you'll have a total of 5 runes. If you have 5 magic, but due to area loss you only control 3 runes, you still keep your 5 magic. I'm hoping to fine tune this in the coming few days and post a draft of it on the Geek).

Wouldn't that just help the winner? The guy who is ahead can cast more spells, so he starts winning more? But I don't want to come across as too critical; I think the idea of spells could be awesome, and I hope they add it in the next expansion. Maybe a few racial ones, plus a few "Books/Scrolls of Magic" that you could find as quest loot. You could even tie a few to terrain, like volcanic explosions than can only happen if your hero is near a mountain, etc...

I'm trying to make it so that the winner only has a slight advantage in spellcasting. The major spells will be "expensive", which means that you can only cast one really, and you wouldn't necessarily have to be in the lead to cast it. Most of my spells right now cost from 2 to 6; and since you start with 3, you can cast some useful spells right off.

It will take some work to make sure it's fair, but I don't think any of them will be "game winners", except maybe in specific situations.

And I do plan on having Faction-Specific spells. Right now, each faction has 5 specific spells, one each at 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 cost. Then there will be some generic spells.

I'm also trying to make sure the spells don't just duplicate Tactics Cards effects.

The "generic" spells that I definitely will include are:

• A "sabotage"-like spell, which cancels a tactics card
• A "counterspell", which will nullify any other spell (this will help keep the leader from getting too powerful, as if they cast a spell, another player can nullfiy it, though by doing so that other player is likely sacrificing casting major spells of his own)
• An "oracle" spell which lets you look at the top X cards of the deck

I'll probably have an initial list ready in the next little bit, but it will almost definitely need tweaking, so I'm not sure if I'll release it right away, or wait until I've made sure they aren't too imbalanced.

I would recommend the Sabotage type spell be a once per game, not a thing that refreshes yearly.

broken said:

Well, it's going to be a rather expensive spell, 4 or 5 things. So if you want to waste all your spellcasting ability to cancel ONE action card, I don't think that'll be gamebreaking, especially since it just means you won't be able to counter any spells or any other Tactics cards.

A smart player would use that to their advantage and try and coax them to burn their magic to sabotage a "lesser" card, then hit them with a whammy.

Of course, playtesting will really tell what needs to be done with it. But I gotta admit, I don't like the idea of "once per game" spells, I'd rather not have the spell at all, as that seems contrary to how I envision them