this impossible but the what if is interesting

[jbeers285]

Gray Evil Characters: 1
   Shobach SA:may use and hold weapons of any brigade 
(if the plural on weapons means he can hold as many as he wants then this would be a list of weapons shobach could hold)


Multi-Color Hero Enhancements: 1
   Foreign Sword (Red/Black) -  (negate an opponents evil or neutral card)

White Hero Enhancements: 1
   Sword of Punishment (discard a human OT with abilities */2 or less)

Red Hero Enhancements: 2
   Caleb's Sword (you may discard an evil weapons class enhancement)
   Warrior's Spear (discard top card of opponents deck. Put lost soul in play)

Green Hero Enhancements: 1
   Sword of the Lord (discard Leviathan or cause any 2 evil characters to fight)

Blue Hero Enhancements: 1
   Sword of Justice (may discard to discard an evil queen)

Purple Hero Enhancements: 2
   Coat of Mail (may negate and discard an evil weapon class enhancement. may discard to return bearer to territory)
   Glittering Sword (discard a human OT EC in play or Set aside area)


Crimson Evil Enhancements: 1
   Swift Horses (draw 2)

Gold Evil Enhancements: 3
   Egyptian Horses (draw 2)
   Egyptian Spear (discard opponents top card put LS in play)
   Mace (discard a weapon class enhancement on a hero in battle)

Black Evil Enhancements: 3
   Goliath's Armor (immune to purple CBN)
   Goliath's Spear (3/2)
   Jehu's Sword (cant be converted)

Gray Evil Enhancements: 3
   Bow and Arrow (ignores silver brigade)
   Dart (discard to reduce a human hero 6/6 till end of turn)
   Sword (if block is successful opponent must discard a card from hand without using it)

Brown Evil Enhancements: 3
   Abner's Spear (may discard to discard a male hero in battle)
   Ahab's Armor (protect from capture and convert, discard is Syrian archer is in play)
   Saul's Javelin (return david to territory. david can not enter battle)

Summary of all of it

Shobach is now 58/56
he ignores silver
he is immune to purple CBN
protected from capture and convert
he draws 4
he discards 2 from top of opponents deck Puts LS in play
he may discard 1 weapon to discard an evil queen
he may discard 1 weapon to discard a male human hero who is in battle
he may discard 1 weapon to decrease a hero 6/6 until the end of a turn
he discards a male evil OT in play or set aside area
he negates an opponents evil or neutral card
he kicks david out of battle and prevents him from entering
he discards a players choice of card from hand if his block is successful

 its late and im losing it but i thought this kinda fun lol

[The M]

Well I play Useless Tactics. Boom!

[Minister Polarius]

Shobach can't use Good Weapons.

[Warrior_Monk]

And this is where Redemption's grammar fails. Stacking 2K Horses and Namaan's Chariot and Horses could be broken. I don't see why he can't have multiple weapons though.

[Minion of Jesus]

If he could hold any # of weapons he would actually be useful...

[Minion of Jesus]

On the same subject, why can't Goliath hold all his armor and stuff. They all say, "Goliath may retain as a weapon". He should be able to hold his armor and spear.

[browarod]

I believe there is a game rule that characters can only hold one weapon at a time. Though, you might be able to get around that with Goliath's Armor since the special ability specifically says Goliath can retain it.

[Warrior_Monk]

I believe there is a game rule that characters can only hold one weapon at a time. Though, you might be able to get around that with Goliath's Armor since the special ability specifically says Goliath can retain it.

I would argue that the special ability is what's granting him to hold weapons, not him being W/C. The rule (if it does indeed exist) is talking about W/C.

Is the REG gone?

[browarod]

I believe there is a game rule that characters can only hold one weapon at a time. Though, you might be able to get around that with Goliath's Armor since the special ability specifically says Goliath can retain it.

I would argue that the special ability is what's granting him to hold weapons, not him being W/C. The rule (if it does indeed exist) is talking about W/C.

Is the REG gone?

The REG moved to: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/REG/

I had the same question earlier.

[Warrior_Monk]

"This is a special kind of character marked by a shield icon below its icon box. A warrior-class character may hold one weapon-class enhancement outside of battle."

I guess it depends on whether "hold" is different than "retain". Shobach would actually be useful if you could, and though it's a stretch, I can see how it'd be allowed.

[Redoubter]

"May use and hold weapons of any brigade" is the same as "May use good enhancements of X brigade" or similar abilities.  It does not mean you can hold multiple weapons in defiance of game rule.  It means that weapon-class enhancements of any brigade can be used.  Just because I can use good enhancements (plural) does not mean I can plop down as many as I want with initiative.  Just that all of them (plural) are usable.  All weapons (plural) are usable, just not at the same time.

On the good vs evil weapons, game rule also restricts characters from using cards of the opposite alignment unless they are converted or redirected.  See David's Tent, which has such a convert ability.  Shobach does not have this ability, and cannot use weapons of the opposing alignment.

To use an enhancement example again, Jeremiah can use enhancements of any brigade from Jeremiah, regardless of brigade, with no mention as to 'good'.  However, he cannot convert them to good, so he could not use Broken Cisterns (evil brown brigade), for example while a hero.  Game rule says no.

[Warrior_Monk]

"May use and hold weapons of any brigade" is the same as "May use good enhancements of X brigade" or similar abilities.  It does not mean you can hold multiple weapons in defiance of game rule.  It means that weapon-class enhancements of any brigade can be used.  Just because I can use good enhancements (plural) does not mean I can plop down as many as I want with initiative.  Just that all of them (plural) are usable.  All weapons (plural) are usable, just not at the same time.

On the good vs evil weapons, game rule also restricts characters from using cards of the opposite alignment unless they are converted or redirected.  See David's Tent, which has such a convert ability.  Shobach does not have this ability, and cannot use weapons of the opposing alignment.

To use an enhancement example again, Jeremiah can use enhancements of any brigade from Jeremiah, regardless of brigade, with no mention as to 'good'.  However, he cannot convert them to good, so he could not use Broken Cisterns (evil brown brigade), for example while a hero.  Game rule says no.

Using and holding are different things. If Shobach says you can hold them, you should be able to hold them. Using also is not the same as playing. It doesn't grant infinite inish.

If Shobach was only one weapon, they would have worded it "May use and hold a weapon of any brigade.", but it is plural because it can be multiple. In the same way, when you can use enhancements of any brigade, you can use more than one enhancement.

As for good and evil, I agree. Alignments can never cross. That's a game rule. Pol already covered that. However, whether Shobach can use and hold weapons of any brigade (like he says) I would debate (more because I want it to be that way and less because I think it is that way).

[Redoubter]

No, you missed my point.  It is not plural because he can hold multiple weapons.  It is plural because that is how Redemption indicates that it applies to all weapons (of his alignment, of course).  It is the exact same language as the "may use enhancements...", and it only indicates that it does not apply to a single case.

You can't hold multiple weapons, that is game rule, and this card does not have language that actually overrides that rule.

[Chronic Apathy]

He actually does have wording that defies game rule, because his special ability specifically says that he can hold weapons of any brigade. The special ability is allowing the holding of multiple weapons; his being warrior class has nothing to do with it.

[Warrior_Monk]

No, you missed my point.  It is not plural because he can hold multiple weapons.  It is plural because that is how Redemption indicates that it applies to all weapons (of his alignment, of course).  It is the exact same language as the "may use enhancements...", and it only indicates that it does not apply to a single case.

And the wording is that way because you can use multiple enhancements. The wording on Shobach is the exact same so you should be able to use and hold multiple weapons.

He actually does have wording that defies game rule, because his special ability specifically says that he can hold weapons of any brigade. The special ability is allowing the holding of multiple weapons; his being warrior class has nothing to do with it.

Pretty much this. Yeah, exactly this.

[Redoubter]

No, actually, his special ability does not defy game rule.  If it did, it would read, "May hold any number of weapons of any brigade."  It does not say he is able to hold multiple weapons at all.  It does not specify, and therefore it does not defy game rule, which is established.

The plural on the weapons, as I said, specifies that any weapon of his current alignment is able to be held.  If he could actually hold multiples, it would say "may hold X" or "may hold any number".  That's the only way he could defy game rule.  His current wording does not.

[Warrior_Monk]

No, actually, his special ability does not defy game rule.  If it did, it would read, "May hold any number of weapons of any brigade."  It does not say he is able to hold multiple weapons at all.  It does not specify, and therefore it does not defy game rule, which is established.

The plural on the weapons, as I said, specifies that any weapon of his current alignment is able to be held.  If he could actually hold multiples, it would say "may hold X" or "may hold any number".  That's the only way he could defy game rule.  His current wording does not.

Regarding the first paragraph, Redemption is constantly trying to abbreviate things, like saying "First Strike". Even though in the past they specify "Character has first strike ability" they've now changed to it. Alternatively, Redemption frequently changes how they word things. How can you say so absolutely that this is the way it is, when grammar contradicts that?

As for the second, I understand your explanation of it, I just disagree. If he could only hold one, it would be limited to one. But it's not. It's plural. It's not limited. There are other ways to say that he can hold any number, and they have been used in the past, but this is a simple way and what it actually says fits the bill for holding multiple, IMO.

Also, this thread should be split into ruling questions. Or just moved there.

EDIT: Thanks, ProfU!

[Redoubter]

Use and hold weapons of any brigade means that he can use any weapon (of course, by alignment).  Nowhere in there does it say that he can use multiple weapons at the same time.  At all.  It just says he can use them all.  It never says he can use them in a way that violates the game rules.  Thus, he cannot.  Your argument is not supported by the card itself.

Can we get an Elder to respond too so that this can be resolved 

[lp670sv]

using weapons not of your brigade breaks a game rule so you already have precidence there. for that matter why cant he use good weapons? it says weapons of any brigade not of any evil brigade

[Redoubter]

using weapons not of your brigade breaks a game rule so you already have precidence there. for that matter why cant he use good weapons? it says weapons of any brigade not of any evil brigade

Do you argue then that Jeremiah can use Broken Cisterns then?  The game rule is that you cannot use a card of opposing alignment, and cards need to be specific to break the normal reading of a card. 

Cards always default to play, right?  Then how about Blood of the Lamb: "Discard any demon or beast."  Well, if any means any, and all means all, then why can't I discard a demon in set-aside?  Because it doesn't specify.  And when it does not specify, the relevant game rules apply (default to play).

This card does not specify that you can convert or use any opposing card.  This card does not specify that you can use multiple weapons.  Therefore, it cannot for the exact same reasons.

[Warrior_Monk]

Do you argue then that Jeremiah can use Broken Cisterns then?  The game rule is that you cannot use a card of opposing alignment, and cards need to be specific to break the normal reading of a card. 

Alignments can never cross. That's an unbreakable game rule, not a game guideline. A game guideline would be "Characters my only use enhancements with the same brigade as the character". This would fall under a game guideline.

And yes, I'm making this up as I go, but the point still stands that there are some rules that you can break via special ability, and some you can't.

Cards always default to play, right?  Then how about Blood of the Lamb: "Discard any demon or beast."  Well, if any means any, and all means all, then why can't I discard a demon in set-aside?  Because it doesn't specify.  And when it does not specify, the relevant game rules apply (default to play).

This card does not specify that you can convert or use any opposing card.  This card does not specify that you can use multiple weapons.  Therefore, it cannot for the exact same reasons.

Cards default to play when they don't have another specified location. That's a game rule.

This does specify that you can use multiple weapons by making it plural. Just like something that says "you may use enhancements of any brigade" means you can use multiple enhancements of any brigade, whether it breaks game guideline or not.

[Redoubter]

First, there is no guidelines vs. rules.   There are rules, and some cards do things that normally can't be done (such as any drawing card ever), but those cards have to be specific as to what they can and cannot do.

This does specify that you can use multiple weapons by making it plural. Just like something that says "you may use enhancements of any brigade" means you can use multiple enhancements of any brigade, whether it breaks game guideline or not.

Wrong, as I pointed out above, this does not mean that any card that said I could use "any enhancements" would mean I could break game rules like initiative ("Oh, I have initiative?  Let me play 5 enhancements.  What?  The card says plural!").  It does not work that way.

The plural here does not mean using multiple weapons.  It means that it applies to all the weapons, not just select ones.  You are completely misinterpreting what the plural means both grammatically and rules-wise.

[Warrior_Monk]

First, there is no guidelines vs. rules.   There are rules, and some cards do things that normally can't be done (such as any drawing card ever), but those cards have to be specific as to what they can and cannot do.

There are some rules which can be overridden by special abilities. There are some that can't, regardless of any special ability, such as the alignment rule (i.e. Assyrian Archer cannot band to a converted Assyrian Archer)

This does specify that you can use multiple weapons by making it plural. Just like something that says "you may use enhancements of any brigade" means you can use multiple enhancements of any brigade, whether it breaks game guideline or not.

Wrong, as I pointed out above, this does not mean that any card that said I could use "any enhancements" would mean I could break game rules like initiative ("Oh, I have initiative?  Let me play 5 enhancements.  What?  The card says plural!").  It does not work that way.

Use and play are about the same as negate and immunity. You CAN USE multiple enhancements of differing brigades, you cannot PLAY them whenever because the card says USE, not PLAY.

The plural here does not mean using multiple weapons.  It means that it applies to all the weapons, not just select ones.  You are completely misinterpreting what the plural means both grammatically and rules-wise.

I agree that it applies to all the weapons. All weapons may be used and held, regardless of brigade. Which means you could use all of them (provided they are of the same alignment).

[Redoubter]

Use and play are about the same as negate and immunity. You CAN USE multiple enhancements of differing brigades, you cannot PLAY them whenever because the card says USE, not PLAY.

Thank you oh so much for making my point

The whole point is that he is able to hold weapons of any brigade, right?  But just like "use enhancements of any brigade" does not let me use them all at once (which you concede to me), it still specifies a rule that the card does not obey (use the same brigade as you are).  Holding weapons is limited to brigades of the character using them.  It is the exact same language to indicate that he can hold weapons of any brigade.  However, nowhere in there does it allow him to hold multiple.  That rule is not specified as being broken, just like "use enhancements" does not let him use multiple.

The same principle applies.

[Chronic Apathy]

There's absolutely nothing restricting him from holding multiple weapons; game rule is violated by his special ability, which clearly has a plural. If he wasn't able to hold multiple weapons, the wording would read, "a weapon of any brigade," but it doesn't.