Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Gabe on September 11, 2009, 02:36:59 PM
-
Stalks of Flax
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: On activation, discard this card to exchange two O.T. human Heroes in your territory with two Heroes in an opponent's territory for two turns.
Is the returning of the exchanged Heroes also an exchange ability?
For example, I "Stalks" two of my Heroes for two of my opponent's Heroes. During the following two turns one or more of the "Stalks" Heroes leaves play.
Do Heroes still return to their owner since it wouldn't be an even 1 for 1 exchange?
Are my Heroes returned to their owners territory after two turns even if the other players Heroes didn't survive to be returned?
What happens if some of the "Stalks" Heroes are set aside at the end of two turns?
-
Stalks of Flax is a unique exchange ability, since it is the only one that has a time limit. Since there is no precedent, I would go with the logical solution, which to me is that the heroes go back where they came from, unless they can't. If they are discarded, removed, captured, or otherwise indisposed, then they can't return. But all heroes who can return do.
-
I agree with the honorable professor. When the second turn comes 'round, return the heros that can return.
-
So if I stalks of Flax 2 heroes from my opponent and then set one aside with Training in Righteousness, would I keep the hero set aside indefinitely?
-
No. I 'd say that the hero who is set aside simply moves to the set aside area of the original player.
The "ownership and holdership" of the hero reverts after two turns expire.
-
I'm pretty sure you can only set-aside your own hero with a good set-aside. An exchanged-for hero is not yours if I remember correctly, so you can't use TiR on an exchanged-for hero, just like you couldn't use it on your opponent's hero that you banded into battle.
-
you could set aside that hero if you played the set aside card in a battle though.....
-
Cards that are exchanged are considered "owned" by the player who has possession of them. At least that's the way the exchange with Seven Wicked Spirits was ruled. I don't see why Stalks would be any different. You should be able to set aside a Hero that you received with Stalks.
-
Hey,
Cards that are exchanged are considered "owned" by the player who has possession of them. At least that's the way the exchange with Seven Wicked Spirits was ruled. I don't see why Stalks would be any different. You should be able to set aside a Hero that you received with Stalks.
Stalks could be done differently than Seven Wicked Spirits because it is a temporary exchange rather than a permanent exchange. I'm not sure how I feel about the issue in general.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Cards that are exchanged are considered "owned" by the player who has possession of them. At least that's the way the exchange with Seven Wicked Spirits was ruled. I don't see why Stalks would be any different. You should be able to set aside a Hero that you received with Stalks.
Are you saying "own" doesn't actually mean own; it just means permanently control? These are the kinds of things that make me hate Redemption.
-
Cards that are exchanged are considered "owned" by the player who has possession of them. At least that's the way the exchange with Seven Wicked Spirits was ruled. I don't see why Stalks would be any different. You should be able to set aside a Hero that you received with Stalks.
That doesn't make sense to me at all. So you're saying if I exchange my Hero who has Destructive Sin on him, my opponent's Fortresses are negated, since he is now the "owner"? That doesn't make sense to me.
Destructive Sin
"Place on a hero. While this card remains, negate that hero's special ability and it's owner's good Fortresses."
-
The thread with that ruling was probably from around the time FOOF came out. It's been purged by now. The best I can show you is that it was talked about again here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13564.0) and referenced by Aggie here. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15818.0) Also, Schaef's answer here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13856.0) says that SWS goes somewhere which would only be the case if ownership was exchanged.
One interesting thing I find about the past discussions is that Bubbleboy has always agreed with the ruling. Suddenly he "hates" Redemption because of it. ::)
-
One interesting thing I find about the past discussions is that Bubbleboy has always agreed with the ruling. Suddenly he "hates" Redemption because of it. ::)
I'd like to say that I've learned quite a bit about the game since last year. My current self would probably disagree with a lot of the things I said in those posts.