Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: The Guardian on August 31, 2009, 06:24:08 PM
-
If the Site Remove LS is redeemed and then has Falling Away played on it, does the ability activate again?
Site Remove LS
"When you place this card in your land of bondage you may remove a Lost Soul from one of your sites."
-
To my knowledge, yes.
-
+1
-
I've done this before, so +1
-
+1 . I have likewise done it before (though in a teams game, because I don't actually own Falling Away).
-
I don't see why it wouldn't. You are placing it in your Land of Bondage after you use Falling Away, so the condition is met.
-
The ruling for this (I believe) is similar to that of the LS's that have effects when they are drawn. If they get drawn and then shuffled, their effects will activate again next time they're drawn.
-
Hey,
I really wish that card didn't say "place." Maybe we could give it play as so that it works when it "Enters a Land of Bondage..."
As it is currently worded, it seems to be the same issue as exchanging the exchanger with a "when you place this lost soul into a site" lost soul. In the exchange example, I believe you are exchanging not placing. And in this case you would be returning not placing. So if I was making a ruling at a tournament tomorrow I would say the ability does not activate again. But if I remember correctly, the exchange issue was never really resolved.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
I really wish that card didn't say "place." Maybe we could give it play as so that it works when it "Enters a Land of Bondage..."
As it is currently worded, it seems to be the same issue as exchanging the exchanger with a "when you place this lost soul into a site" lost soul. In the exchange example, I believe you are exchanging not placing. And in this case you would be returning not placing. So if I was making a ruling at a tournament tomorrow I would say the ability does not activate again. But if I remember correctly, the exchange issue was never really resolved.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
That's the thing I was wondering about and the reason I posted--to see if anyone else had that feeling as well...
-
Hey,
I really wish that card didn't say "place." Maybe we could give it play as so that it works when it "Enters a Land of Bondage..."
As it is currently worded, it seems to be the same issue as exchanging the exchanger with a "when you place this lost soul into a site" lost soul. In the exchange example, I believe you are exchanging not placing. And in this case you would be returning not placing. So if I was making a ruling at a tournament tomorrow I would say the ability does not activate again. But if I remember correctly, the exchange issue was never really resolved.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
That seems to make more sense.
-
Not every card that says "place" must be a place ability.
-
Hey,
Not every card that says "place" must be a place ability.
I'm not saying that every card that says "place" must be a place ability. And I'm pretty sure no one else in this thread is suggesting that either.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
I'm not saying that every card that says "place" must be a place ability. And I'm pretty sure no one else in this thread is suggesting that either.
That's exactly what you're suggesting when you say that "exchange" is not "place", making a distinction based on the exchange special ability, and not based on the more general definition of place as just putting something down on the table somewhere.
-
Hey,
That's exactly what you're suggesting
That's not what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that a "when placed" condition is only satisfied when the card is affected by a place special ability or a place game rule.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
How do you define a place game rule if it's something different from a special ability, but not just putting a card somewhere?
-
Hey,
A place game rule is anywhere in the rulebook when it says to place something somewhere. Some examples are Lost Souls are placed in a land of bondage when drawn, weapons can be placed on warriors during your preparation phase, a hero is placed in battle to start a rescue attempt, etc.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Where does placing a soul into a Land of Bondage fit into that, and why would this not qualify?
-
Hey,
Where does placing a soul into a Land of Bondage fit into that,
Rulebook pg 5:
"Each time you draw a Lost Soul at any time in the game, it is immediately placed in your Land of Bondage
and replaced by drawing another card."
That is the place game rule that normally activates this lost soul's ability.
and why would this not qualify?
Falling Away:
"Select any Redeemed Soul and return card to your Land of Bondage. Character is treated as a Lost Soul. Subtract the rescue from appropriate player's current score."
Because Falling Away doesn't have a place ability it has a return ability.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Return is not an ability that I am aware of. Where can I see that defined?
So you're saying that the general rule that Lost Souls are placed in your Land of Bondage is not what you would consider a game rule? Including any Lost Souls that are brought into play by any method other than drawing?
-
What if the lost soul that gets falling away'd was never in *your* LOB? Can you "return" something to a place it's never been?
I've never considered FA to be a place ability OR a return ability, but I guess consistent rulings are needed.
-
Well, the normal category for abilities that change a card from one type to another is convert.
-
Does any one else notice a trend lately? Every time a question like this comes up we now delve into whether some action has to be defined by a game rule or it does nothing. Whatever happened to simple straightforward rules? The card says when placed, it seems convoluted to try define "place" beyond the physical act. When I place the card in my land of Bondage, I place it in my land of bondage. Not everything requires 8 pages of debate over semantics.
-
Well, that's sort of where my questions are leading. I think we're trying too hard on things like this.
-
Does any one else notice a trend lately? Every time a question like this comes up we now delve into whether some action has to be defined by a game rule or it does nothing. Whatever happened to simple straightforward rules? The card says when placed, it seems convoluted to try define "place" beyond the physical act. When I place the card in my land of Bondage, I place it in my land of bondage. Not everything requires 8 pages of debate over semantics.
I don't think we've ever had "simple straightforward rules." A combination of sloppy wording and intent-actuality gaps have plagued this game since near its inception. By Kings-era, I could barely play with my dad anymore, because all the exceptions and changes and non-obvious interactions caused too much confusion for him and too little fun.
-
Well, the normal category for abilities that change a card from one type to another is convert.
Why not capture? That turns cards into lost souls, which is even more like what FA does.
-
Because capture only applies to characters, whereas convert applies to many different types of cards.
-
Because capture only applies to characters, whereas convert applies to many different types of cards.
What convert card besides Redemption can affect anything other than a character? Convert turns a character into another character, and capture turns a character into a lost soul, so I thought capture was more appropriate.
-
Doubt, Madness and Deafening Spirit turn themselves into ECs when played, even though Madness is the only one with "convert" language.
-
Madness. David's Tent. Redemption. Ahimelech.
-
Well most convert cards save for Redemption and Madness (which converts itself) only convert cards into the same type - character to character, enhancement to enhancement - and none of them can convert cards into lost souls, because if they did, they would be called captures, right?
-
but a Lost and Redeemed souls ARE the same type of card.
-
Well most convert cards save for Redemption and Madness (which converts itself) only convert cards into the same type - character to character, enhancement to enhancement - and none of them can convert cards into lost souls, because if they did, they would be called captures, right?
well, that's not really correct, because while Hero and Evil Character are both a type of character, they are separate card types. Same with Enhancements. It is for this reason that, even when allowing extra brigades to be played, an evil Enhancement can never be played on a Hero, nor a good Enhancement on an Evil Character. Similarly, a Curse is an "evil Covenant" but they are two different card types, when all is said and done.
I would even consider capture to be an ability that "converts" a card into a Lost Soul, and therefore a special convert ability, but for gameplay's sake (and out sanity), it makes more sense to have two separate abilities with their own language and their own rules. Sort of like how discard and remove are similar, or protect/immune/ignore are similar, but it works better to keep them separate than try to mash them together somehow.
but a Lost and Redeemed souls ARE the same type of card.
They actually are not, because none of the cards that target Lost Souls can affect a Redeemed Soul, and Redeemed Souls specifically are listed in the rules as the object of tracking points and victory in the game.
Redeemed Souls are a "special" type that do not have their own icons and so forth, but emerge as a part of gameplay and so have their own rules. The other "special" type is a Captured Character, which has different rules than a regular character but does not have its own icons and other stuff that normally comes on the face of a card.
-
The other "special" type is a Captured Character, which has different rules than a regular character but does not have its own icons and other stuff that normally comes on the face of a card.
I have a feeling Potter's Field is going to start making an appearance in more decks and we are also going to have to define "Discarded Character."
-
Hey,
Return is not an ability that I am aware of. Where can I see that defined?
Return is an ability that has been around since the beginning of the game (Chains has a return ability and was in the A/B starter decks). We just haven't recognized it's existence up until now. It is defined in Fall 09 REG.
So you're saying that the general rule that Lost Souls are placed in your Land of Bondage is not what you would consider a game rule?
Is that a game rule or a rule of thumb? It sounds like a rule of thumb to me. If it's not in the rulebook or REG it's not a game rule.
What if the lost soul that gets falling away'd was never in *your* LOB? Can you "return" something to a place it's never been?
You can return something to a place it's never been.
Well, the normal category for abilities that change a card from one type to another is convert.
Copy can turn an enhancement into a character (innumerable). Capture can turn a Hero into a Captured Hero (Net). Return can turn Captured Hero into a Hero (Covenant of Palestine). And Convert can turn an Evil Character into a Hero (Baptism). Changing card type is not limited to convert abilities.
Does any one else notice a trend lately? Every time a question like this comes up we now delve into whether some action has to be defined by a game rule or it does nothing. Whatever happened to simple straightforward rules? The card says when placed, it seems convoluted to try define "place" beyond the physical act. When I place the card in my land of Bondage, I place it in my land of bondage. Not everything requires 8 pages of debate over semantics.
The Other Tim addressed this very well but I will add a few comments to what he said. We originally tried to use "simple straightforward rules" but as the card base and complexity of Redemption grew the simple straightforward rules started to cause contradictions and confusion. We did a very poor job of wording cards back in the day, and because cactus doesn't cycle sets, ban cards, or have a massive errata list our only option to address the poorly worded cards is by adding some complexity to the rules.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Return is an ability that has been around since the beginning of the game (Chains has a return ability and was in the A/B starter decks). We just haven't recognized it's existence up until now. It is defined in Fall 09 REG.
Chains returns to hand. That is a withdraw ability.
Is that a game rule or a rule of thumb? It sounds like a rule of thumb to me. If it's not in the rulebook or REG it's not a game rule.
If you consider that the case, then you need to answer the follow-up question which was in that same post.
Changing card type is not limited to convert abilities.
Do we need to have a discussion about the difference between "normal" and "only"?
We originally tried to use "simple straightforward rules" but as the card base and complexity of Redemption grew the simple straightforward rules started to cause contradictions and confusion. We did a very poor job of wording cards back in the day, and because cactus doesn't cycle sets, ban cards, or have a massive errata list our only option to address the poorly worded cards is by adding some complexity to the rules.
And now we are swinging the pendulum in the other direction. Streamlining creates simpler rules that apply more universally. We have been finding ways to apply more rules universally (e.g. the change to New Jerusalem), but if we now have to have three different kinds of definitions for "place", one's a special ability, one's a game rule, and one is just an arbitrary word with no meaning, we're moving into territory where universal application is making the rules more complex, not less. Not every rule has to be one-size-fits-all. What is it about "place" that demand this distinction be made, and we can't just say that to "place" a card somewhere is just to put a card in that location?