Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Sean on May 11, 2020, 06:41:31 PM
Title: High Places LS Exchange
Post by: Sean on May 11, 2020, 06:41:31 PM
For the Lost Soul exchange on High Places (LoC), does it mean you chose 2 LSs and exchange them with 2 others or do you choose 1 LS and exchange it with the 2nd LS?
"...If your evil king, prophet or priest blocks, you may...exchange 2 Lost Souls."
Title: Re: High Places LS Exchange
Post by: RedemptionAggie on May 11, 2020, 08:05:20 PM
You exchange 1 LS with 1 LS. I think both sides of the exchange are always specified on the card, but it's usually "X with/for Y".
Title: Re: High Places LS Exchange
Post by: Watchman on May 12, 2020, 09:12:32 AM
I wondered the same when I read that card. The way it’s worded sounds like you’re exchanging two of your lost souls with an opponent’s two, not one for one. If that were the case it should read like Centurion at Jerusalem, Wanderer LS, or Nebushasban in that the diction makes it clear that it’s a one for one exchange. Why not just have it read “you may exchange a lost soul”?
Title: Re: High Places LS Exchange
Post by: RedemptionAggie on May 12, 2020, 03:28:51 PM
Apparently during design we had Prisoner Transfer in mind rather than any of the 3 Watchman mentioned, since that's the wording we used.
"You may exchange a Lost Soul" is probably more confusing, as people would ask what you're exchanging it with.
"You may exchange 2 Lost Souls" is functionally shorthand for "you may exchange a Lost Soul for a Lost Soul". That could be applied to any card type, it just hasn't yet because most other exchanges target their card or have limitations on one end or the other.
Title: Re: High Places LS Exchange
Post by: Watchman on May 12, 2020, 09:55:56 PM
How come there’s inconsistency in certain wording? For example, Nebushasban was from FooF, and Prisoner Transfer from RoA, while Wanderer is from Priest and Centurion from PC and High Places from LoC. Why does the wording for this specific ability keep changing back and forth if it’s intended to do the same thing?
Title: Re: High Places LS Exchange
Post by: RedemptionAggie on May 13, 2020, 12:20:10 AM
Wanderer has to be different, because it self-targets.
Priests also came before FooF, so Centurion is the only outlier. There are reasons it could have been worded similar to Nebushasban (N.T. restriction on your side, developed with Nebushasban and held back) but ultimately not using "exchange 2 LS" was probably an oversight.
Title: Re: High Places LS Exchange
Post by: Watchman on May 13, 2020, 10:39:34 AM
Gotcha. I just think that that wording choice isn’t very clear, as evidenced by the OP and what I also thought. For example, what if an ability allowed a player to exchange 2 of your lost souls for 2 of his? This ability would probably never be approved but if it ever was how would that ability be worded? When the wording “exchange 2 lost souls” is used in English it sounds like two are being exchanged from one side of the board to the other. I don’t see why “exchange a lost soul” or “exchange a lost soul for another” can’t be used. It’s simple, straightforward, and has limited wording.