Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Professoralstad on March 21, 2010, 09:26:00 PM
-
I know this was asked before, but it was a long time ago, and I cannot find the thread. It came up in a game today, and I just was wondering if the answer was ever settled upon.
If my wanderer is in a site, and I exchange for my opponent's Hand/Deck discard LS (also in a site), am I putting it in a site so that I can use it's ability? Then my opponent and I could go back and forth discarding cards from each other's hands/decks until something puts a stop to it?
Ezekiel 34:6 (‘Wanderer’)
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If this card is in your territory during your preparation phase, you may exchange it with a Lost Soul in an opponent’s territory (except another copy of this card). • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ezekiel 34:6 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Uncommon)
I Corinthians 1:27 (Hand Discard)
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If you put this lost soul in a site, each of your opponents must discard a card from hand. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Corinthians 1:27 • Availability: G Deck
Hosea 13:2 ('deck discard')
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When this Lost Soul is put in a Site, discard the top card of each opponent's deck. If it is a Lost Soul, put it in play instead. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Hosea 13:2 • Availability: Rock of Ages (Set 17)
-
Absolutely :)
-
on the contrary to cameron the lost soul says when put in a site I don't think that your technically putting it into a site again
-
you can still throw in one of your sites.
-
I guess it comes down to the Redemption definition of 'put'. Based on the intuitive definition, it would seem that this should work, as 'to put' simply means to move or place. The Lost Soul was not in my Site, and now it is, because of my action; I 'put' it there. But Redemption definitions don't always abide by intuitive definitions (with good reason most of the time) so I could certainly see this as being somehow made illegal by some definition of 'put', because of the total chaos that could ensue.
-
I always felt this did not work because "put" seems like it should be a separate ability from "exchange."
-
I'm going to put my two cents in as a "No," because of the following quote from the Current REG:
Instant Abilities > Search, Reveal, or Exchange >Special Conditions
• If you exchange Ezekiel 34:6 (‘Wanderer’) with the Psalms 1:4 (‘Site Doubler’) Lost Soul that is in a site with another Lost Soul, the Ezekiel 34:6 (‘Wanderer’) remains in the site.
In this case, the exchanged LS could not be legally be "put" into the site that already has a LS in it. To me, that would indicate that "exchanging" does not constitute "putting" (not to be confused with the golf term) as BubbleBoy already stated.
-
That's the kind of logic I would be inclined to agree with to avoid this situation, but I know there was some disagreement in the past, but I don't remember how it turned out.
-
I am pretty sure it was ruled you can. The REG quote is simply saying IMHO that the wanderer stays in a site compared to the general LOB. I do not think it is relevant to this question.
-
I think it is relevant because you could not normally put the second LS into the site. That quote indicates an exception to the regular rules for putting LSs into sites. Likewise, the Deck-Discarder LS falls under the same exception, and would therefore not reactivate.
-
Based on the intuitive definition, it would seem that this should work
+1 Intuitive definitions are best unless there is a good reason to change them.
-
It was ruled way back when that it works, I'm suprised we can't find the thread.
-
Hah! I found it!
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16500.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16500.0)
The debate starts around page two.
-
You know, the real controversy comes from the fact that "put" is not addressed in the rules. We typically deal with "put" as if it were an ability just like "place," but as far as I can see, "put" is not addressed in the rulebook or the REG.
Does the word "put" refer to a physical action or a game function? It seems like it could, looking at the wording of Lost Souls which say "when put in a site..." If this is the case, then I might agree that this combo should work. But then we would have to rethink cards like Taking Naboth's Vineyard (http://redemptionreg.com/REG/takingnabothsvineyard.htm), which distinctly use the word "put" as an ability. This seems to present a bit of a conflict...
-
"put" is not addressed in the rulebook or the REG.
If a word doesn't get it's own definition in the rulebook or REG, then it should be treated in as a normal word. Since the LS is "put" into a site using the word in its normal sense, then it makes sense that this works.
-
"put" is not addressed in the rulebook or the REG.
If a word doesn't get it's own definition in the rulebook or REG, then it should be treated in as a normal word. Since the LS is "put" into a site using the word in its normal sense, then it makes sense that this works.
The thing is, how would we address cards whose abilities say "put"?
-
The thing is, how would we address cards whose abilities say "put"?
The same way we address cards whose abilities say "go" or "send" or "the" or any other word that is not in the rulebook or REG. We just interpret them intuitively.
-
You mean like the word "Professor?" ;)
-
The thing is, how would we address cards whose abilities say "put"?
The same way we address cards whose abilities say "go" or "send" or "the" or any other word that is not in the rulebook or REG. We just interpret them intuitively.
I am not aware of any cards in particular that say "go" or "send." Could you name at least a few?
And by the way, if I haven't already made it clear (which I don't think I have), I am trying to get "put" (and "go" and "send") defined somewhere in the REG. All we need is a clause that says "'put,' 'go,' and 'send' all mean the same thing as "place" when found in an ability."
-
I am not aware of any cards in particular that say "go" or "send." Could you name at least a few?
I was just throwing out other non-defined words. I don't know of any cards with those words. However, there are a lot of cards with the word "with" in the SA, and we just read it like the regular English word "with".
if I haven't already made it clear, I am trying to get "put" (and "go" and "send") defined somewhere in the REG.
In case I haven't already made it clear, I'm trying to keep as few words defined in the REG as possible so that people can read a card and know what it does without having to look it up in the REG. Regular English ftw!
-
In case I haven't already made it clear, I'm trying to keep as few words defined in the REG as possible so that people can read a card and know what it does without having to look it up in the REG. Regular English ftw!
That has to be the most ironic thing I've ever heard. :D Was that on purpose?
I think defining things in the REG is always a good thing. If the way it's defined is the way we play it already, or would play it intuitively, then great. But not having a distinct definition for something (as you have more than likely seen with "holds" and abilifiers and all that mess) can always lead to problems, and causes frustration in people like me who just like to see written down officially how they are supposed to play a certain ability with a certain wording.
-
That has to be the most ironic thing I've ever heard. :D Was that on purpose?
Oddly enough, no. Which perhaps makes it worthy of that unintended double entendre thread.
I think defining things in the REG is always a good thing.
I on the other hand think that the REG should not need be an entire dictionary. I think that it should only contain words that have specific meanings that are different from their standard usage according to the dictionary. Adding a word to the REG makes it a "Redemption word" and seems to make it more subjective and more likely to have its definition changed in a later REG revision. I'd rather just say that "put" means the same thing that the dictionary says it does, and leave the REG out of the discussion.
As I'm now thinking about this, I think my political views may be influencing my perspective on this. I am a big proponent of smaller government and don't like giving the federal government control over anything more than I have to (ie. national defense). Therefore, giving the REG control over any more words than are necessary seems similar to me for some reason. Odd, I know.
-
As I'm now thinking about this, I think my political views may be influencing my perspective on this. I am a big proponent of smaller government and don't like giving the federal government control over anything more than I have to (ie. national defense). Therefore, giving the REG control over any more words than are necessary seems similar to me for some reason. Odd, I know.
Power to the People!!!!!!!1!11!!!!1!!!!!
-
I do see Prof's side, and I agree with the federal power thing, but I don't feel the same about giving the REG "power," especially since it is run almost directly by the players themselves.
-
especially since it is run almost directly by the players themselves.
I disagree, we can make suggestions but we ultimately have no say in what happens in the REG. The PTB make the decision and that decision is occasionally codified into a document that players have access to. Otherwise you get to spend hours searching old threads for answers to pertinent questions, only to find there is no official word because "X" thread was purged or lost or something.
-
Tut tut! You can all put "put" aside for now. The card is categorized in the "Search, Reveal, and Exchange" section of the REG, as YMT references above. As such, the new REG will need to either define a default condition or include this as a special condition.
-
Thank you, Jesus!