Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: BubbleBoy on August 01, 2009, 02:46:48 PM
-
"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."
If either I or my opponent has only one hero, can I still do the exchange? Can I exchange one hero in my territory with two in my opp's territory if that's all I have?
-
no. you must complete the full requirement of the ability.
-
I would agree that you must fulfill it all.
-
Hmm... you're supposed to carry out as much of the ability as you can. But since its an exchange, I would dare say that you exchange two if its possible, or only one if either of you has only one hero.
As a side note, the heros that you grab from your opponent's territory don't have to be O.T. or human :) You could grab Arianna.
-
Hmm... you're supposed to carry out as much of the ability as you can. But since its an exchange, I would dare say that you exchange two if its possible, or only one if either of you has only one hero.
like you said, it's an exchange. but that's why you can't.
-
So, this is kind of like a cost/gain scenario? It's basically saying "Give your opponent two heroes to take two heroes from him" (some deets left out)?
-
Hmm... you're supposed to carry out as much of the ability as you can. But since its an exchange, I would dare say that you exchange two if its possible, or only one if either of you has only one hero.
like you said, it's an exchange. but that's why you can't.
You can't exchange 1 hero for nothing, or nothing for one hero, but if you both have only one hero, I don't see why you wouldn't complete that much of the ability.
So, this is kind of like a cost/gain scenario? It's basically saying "Give your opponent two heroes to take two heroes from him" (some deets left out)?
The cost is discarding the card and the gain is exchange part of the ability.
-
Thus, the "kind of like" in the sentence. :P
-
Here's how I see it. An 'exchange' is replacing one card with another; I don't know of any 'exchange' cards where the exchange is not 1 to 1. Therefore, I would say that if you or your opponent only has one hero, you can only give one hero and take one hero. That would be completing the ability to its fullest. But if you both have at least two eligible heroes, you must do both if you use the artifact. If either player has no heroes, you can't complete any part of the ability (i.e. you can't give your opponent a hero for nothing, or take a hero for nothing).
I see no reason why you couldn't use the artifact at all even if you can't do a 2 for 2 exchange, since Jephthah allows you to discard one EC.
Of course, I'm not official, but this is how I see it.
Instaposted by Mr. Snyder
-
What about Zeal? It states that you "discard two ecs of different brigades", yet if only 1 brigade is in play, it still works. I really don't know, but this was just something I was reminded of.
-
What about Zeal? It states that you "discard two ecs of different brigades", yet if only 1 brigade is in play, it still works. I really don't know, but this was just something I was reminded of.
What about it? You can certainly discard just one character, just as you can exchange one of your heroes for one of theirs (the way I see it). My point is 'exchange' in Redemption has always been 1-for-1 (unless I'm forgetting something) so you can do a 1-for-1 exchange if that is all that is possible, but you can't do an X-for-Y exchange, unless X=Y. So no 1-for-2, 2-for-0, etc.
-
I guess that's true... maybe you can...
-
Hey,
An exchange ability must find all of the targets it needs or it doesn't exchange anything. If either player doesn't have two heroes (or if you don't have two OT heroes) no exchange happens. Exchange abilities cannot be done in part.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Exactly. Same reason you cant just give the wanderer to your opponent when they have no Lost Souls in their LOB.
-
YES! I WAS RIGHT!
that's a first...
-
Hey,
An exchange ability must find all of the targets it needs or it doesn't exchange anything. If either player doesn't have two heroes (or if you don't have two OT heroes) no exchange happens. Exchange abilities cannot be done in part.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
That seems like its inconsistent with other instant abilities. Why should exchange be treated differently?
-
It's not. It has to do with what EXCHANGE means.
If I am instructed to discard two cards, but only have one, I can carry out part of the instruction by just discarding one.
If there is only one of the two things in play needed for an exchange, I can't even carry it out partially because there is nothing to EXCHANGE it with. It's not an exchange then.
-
It's not. It has to do with what EXCHANGE means.
If I am instructed to discard two cards, but only have one, I can carry out part of the instruction by just discarding one.
If there is only one of the two things in play needed for an exchange, I can't even carry it out partially because there is nothing to EXCHANGE it with. It's not an exchange then.
I understand that 1 card can't be exchanged for 2 cards, or 1 card for 0 cards, etc. They have to be exchanged in even amounts, otherwise it isn't an exchange. However, if either player has only one hero, I see no reason why you couldn't complete as much of the ability as possible, and exchange 1 hero for 1 hero. Do you see what I mean?
That seems to be the most consistent way to rule it, unless I'm missing something. I don't see how Zeal of the Lord can only discard one evil character in play if there's only one evil brigade, if Stalks couldn't complete only one of the two exchanges if there aren't enough heroes to do both.
-
Exchange means an even-up trade. I think we all agree on that.
Based on the way other cards are played (do as much as possible), I would agree that a 1-for-1 exchange can be done if 2-for-2 is not possible had the card been worded differently. However, Tim raises a valid point. The card says the exchange is for 2 - period. If 1-for-1 were to be possible, it would say "exchange 1 or 2" or "exchange up to 2". I must agree with Tim that you must do it all or do nothing in this case.
Luke's point of view is well-taken. But I think the interpretation should be 2-for-2.
Mike
-
Hey,
I don't see how Zeal of the Lord can only discard one evil character in play if there's only one evil brigade, if Stalks couldn't complete only one of the two exchanges if there aren't enough heroes to do both.
Stalks doesn't have two one-for-one exchanges. It has a single, two-for-two exchange.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hmm, I understand what you guys are saying, but I'm still a little bit unclear. Please bear with me, I've been out of Redemption for a good year now, so I guess I'm just being slow :)
Hey,
I don't see how Zeal of the Lord can only discard one evil character in play if there's only one evil brigade, if Stalks couldn't complete only one of the two exchanges if there aren't enough heroes to do both.
Stalks doesn't have two one-for-one exchanges. It has a single, two-for-two exchange.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
I still don't understand how this is different from zeal, really...
Zeal for the Lord
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Teal • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and discard two Evil Characters of different brigades. Cannot be negated if used by Phinehas, son of Eleazar. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Numbers 25:11 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Rare)
Couldn't you say the same thing about zeal? Zeal doesn't have two one evil character discards, it has one two evil discard? It seems to me that the wording on the cards is almost identical, maybe I am misunderstanding the nature of exchanging or something.
-
Exchange has an inherant cost. Discard does not.
That's how I see it, anyway.
-
but zeal says discard two evil characters. period.
-
Actually, the period isn't there. But I understand what you are saying. In Redemption, you MUST complete all costs before using an ability. There is no cost in Zeal. There is a cost in every exchange ability.
Once you pay the cost (if any), you complete the ability as much as possible.
-
Once you pay the cost (if any), you complete the ability as much as possible.
That would mean that you could exchange two of your Heroes for one of your opponent's with Stalks.
-
Once you pay the cost (if any), you complete the ability as much as possible.
That would mean that you could exchange two of your Heroes for one of your opponent's with Stalks.
I don't believe that is correct, because it doesn't really make sense to exchange one for nothing. But I do think it makes sense to complete one of the exchanges, since two is not possible. Really though, there is no precedent for multiple exchanges occurring at the same time.
-
How i take it is that with this specific card the Complete ability must be completed otherwise it wont work.
-
How i take it is that with this specific card the Complete ability must be completed otherwise it wont work.
But why? I thought you were supposed to complete abilities as far as possible? Why does Stalks of Flax come as a package deal and not cards like Zeal?
Exchange has an inherant cost. Discard does not.
That's how I see it, anyway.
So exchanging is treated like a cost/benefit? Give one card to get one card? That makes sense, and I think its a good way to look at it, but I don't see how that changes whether or not you complete as many of the exchanges prescribed by the card or not.
-
I don't believe that is correct, because it doesn't really make sense to exchange one for nothing.
Based on the "pay price => do as much as possible" line of thinking, it is correct. It isn't an exchange for nothing, it is a 2 for 1.
-
I don't believe that is correct, because it doesn't really make sense to exchange one for nothing.
Based on the "pay price => do as much as possible" line of thinking, it is correct. It isn't an exchange for nothing, it is a 2 for 1.
I think I see what you're saying, you pay the cost of sending two heroes to your opponents territory in order to receive the benefit of getting two of their heroes. However, you always pay the cost (sending two heroes over) and complete as much of the benefit as possible (getting anywhere from 0 to 2 heroes back, depending on what they have) Is that what you intended?
My only problem with looking at it that way is that you would be able to pop the wanderer into your opponent's land of bondage and get no lost souls back, if it was empty beforehand.
I think it makes more sense to treat the two exchanges like individual trades, similar to how zeal has two individual discards. That way, if you complete one exchange, and there are either no suitable targets left in your opponent's territory or you are out of heroes, you just stop because you completed as much of the ability as possible.
I think I understand where you're coming from though.
-
Is that what you intended?
Yes.
My only problem with looking at it that way is that you would be able to pop the wanderer into your opponent's land of bondage and get no lost souls back, if it was empty beforehand.
Hey, don't get ahead of me.
similar to how zeal has two individual discards.
Zeal doesn't have two individual discards. It has one discard that targets up to two Evil Characters even though "up to" is nowhere to be found in the special ability.
Here's where I get to the Wanderer. If you treat the Wanderer as a cost/benefit ability then you can exchange for nothing. I don't think exchange should be treated as a cost/benefit for that reason. All targets for the exchange need to be available. I also think all targets should be available for Zeal because otherwise I agree, with whoever already stated, that it would be inconsistent if we said that Zeal discards as much as possible but Stalks can only exchange if all targets are available.
Is "as much as possible" even in the rulebook or REG? I know we've used it but now I'm thinking that maybe we should rethink it.
-
If you require all targets to be available, what about a situation where there are more than 2 ECs of different brigades in play, but all but 1 is protected? Does Zeal work? What about AoC?
-
Protected characters are not valid targets.
-
similar to how zeal has two individual discards.
Zeal doesn't have two individual discards. It has one discard that targets up to two Evil Characters even though "up to" is nowhere to be found in the special ability.
I don't think its a package deal the way its currently understood/ruled. Also, it doesn't discard up to two evil characters. If it did, you could choose to only discard one even if there were two legal targets for it. I don't believe thats how its currently played.
Here's where I get to the Wanderer. If you treat the Wanderer as a cost/benefit ability then you can exchange for nothing. I don't think exchange should be treated as a cost/benefit for that reason. All targets for the exchange need to be available. I also think all targets should be available for Zeal because otherwise I agree, with whoever already stated, that it would be inconsistent if we said that Zeal discards as much as possible but Stalks can only exchange if all targets are available.
Is "as much as possible" even in the rulebook or REG? I know we've used it but now I'm thinking that maybe we should rethink it.
I agree with you partially. I definitely think it would be inconsistent to rule Stalks and Zeal differently. I also agree that exchange shouldn't be treated as a cost/benefit, given the example of the wanderer. In my opinion, I think each exchange should be viewed as an instantaneous, single swap of two cards. It should be viewed as a single action, and treated exactly the same as other instant abilities. In light of that viewpoint, it would follow the precedent of Zeal precisely. If you couldn't complete both exchanges, you would complete one. That seems to be the simplest way to do as much of the ability as possible.
And I have no idea about "as much as possible." I just know I've heard it constantly for a long time now.
-
I don't think its a package deal the way its currently understood/ruled. Also, it doesn't discard up to two evil characters. If it did, you could choose to only discard one even if there were two legal targets for it. I don't believe thats how its currently played.
You are correct and I realize this. The difference is that I am advocating changing the way we play Zeal so that we play exchange that way whereas you are advocating that we play exchange how we currently play Zeal. We're both advocating consistency.
-
So if you require "all or nothing", what happens with AoC when there are protected targets?
-
Protected targets can't be targeted. All valid targets are still targeted. I don't see the problem with that.
-
I agree that there seems to be an inconsistency in the way exchange and zeal work. I remember the first I saw zeal I said oh I have to discard 2 EC's or it won't work (that is what the card says), only to find out it was ruled that I could go up to 2. Then stalks comes along, looks the same, but it HAS to be 2 or nothing. I believe we would be best served by a ruling on this, for consistency. It can get really confusing otherwise.
-
Is "as much as possible" even in the rulebook or REG? I know we've used it but now I'm thinking that maybe we should rethink it.
It is not currently in the REG, nor is the concept in a state to be put there. I'm not sure I understand what it means and when it works. The phrase "as much as possible" is a quasi thingy. I agree something needs to be clarified that can be an easy rule to apply to all cases.
Mike
-
If I play a draw 3 ability when I have 2 cards left in deck, I draw 2.
If I play a discard 2 ECs ability, and only one is available, I discard 1.
If I play an exchange ability, though, there has to be an exact one-to-one correspondance between the cards. Further, the cards exchanged have to go to the exact location of the other card (including into a fort, etc.). So, if I have only one hero, I can't exchange it for two, since one card can't go into the exact spots held by two distinct heroes. Get it?
Now, whether that means I can still exchange one-for-one, I don't know.
-
I had someone play stalks on me last night and I only had one hero out. He switched one of his for one of mine. I didnt see a problem with that given the way that zeal works.
-
If I play a draw 3 ability when I have 2 cards left in deck, I draw 2.
If I play a discard 2 ECs ability, and only one is available, I discard 1.
If I play an exchange ability, though, there has to be an exact one-to-one correspondance between the cards. Further, the cards exchanged have to go to the exact location of the other card (including into a fort, etc.). So, if I have only one hero, I can't exchange it for two, since one card can't go into the exact spots held by two distinct heroes. Get it?
I agree with all of that. I guess the question is, what is the difference between doing "as much as you can" for Zeal and discarding one EC, and doing "as much as you can" for Stalks and exchanging 1 for 1. That's what I (and others) are unsure of. Since this is the only card to exchange 2 cards for 2 other cards, it's never come up before. But it seems that in order to be consistent, it should be possible to do a 1-for-1 trade.
-
I agree. 1-to-1 exchange seems totally fine here.
-
If I play a draw 3 ability when I have 2 cards left in deck, I draw 2.
If I play a discard 2 ECs ability, and only one is available, I discard 1.
If I play an exchange ability, though, there has to be an exact one-to-one correspondance between the cards. Further, the cards exchanged have to go to the exact location of the other card (including into a fort, etc.). So, if I have only one hero, I can't exchange it for two, since one card can't go into the exact spots held by two distinct heroes. Get it?
Now, whether that means I can still exchange one-for-one, I don't know.
I feel that if this is the way that we are going to play all of these other cards then it needs to be the way we play Stalks. Which leads to a one for one exchange if one player only has one targetable Hero.
-
The following is a bit of a tangent.
Since I cannot exchange unequal quantities, why can I exchange the wander for the doubler lost soul? Since the The doubler "counts as to lost souls".
Back to stalks of flax,
I am not sure if you can exchange a one on one because it does not specify "up to, like prisoner transfer does. IMO discards are different and should be treated differently then exchanges, but I can see how it could be ruled the other way.
-
Wanderer for Souls - It is equal quantities of cards, not equal abilities or equal worth.
I can see both sides of this, and really don't care how it falls, as long as it is never a 1 for 2 exchange.
-
Given the grayness of "as much as possible", we might be better to be strict and say you have to follow the letter of the law. It seems the "as much as possible" issues have no simple procedure. From a rules and judging perspective alone, I think a strict interpretation would be wise. However, I doubt anyone will want to play that way. I have trouble even considering a phrase like "as much as possible" being placed in the REG. That goes against the nature of the REG.
Mike
-
Given the grayness of "as much as possible", we might be better to be strict and say you have to follow the letter of the law. It seems the "as much as possible" issues have no simple procedure. From a rules and judging perspective alone, I think a strict interpretation would be wise. However, I doubt anyone will want to play that way. I have trouble even considering a phrase like "as much as possible" being placed in the REG. That goes against the nature of the REG.
I get what you're saying and I agree. However, I'm not sure it would be "easier" to rule in that we have been ruling it the "as much as possible" way for so long. It would definitely be easier in as much as for newer player's and judges. I think it'd be "hard" for older players to get used to.
Seems like we're at the point where Rob and the play testers need to have whatever discussion they need to have so we can get a final ruling and move on.
-
I actually don't agree that getting rid of the idea behind "as much as possible" will make things easier for anyone. Currently, people ask if they can use Zeal to discard the only valid target in play, and the answer is "Yes, because you complete as much of the ability as possible." If this changes, people will ask if they can use Zeal this way, and the answer will be "No, because you have to complete the whole ability or none of it." Either way it will bring up questions. The difference is that there will be a lot of cards that will never be used if the "all-or-nothing" stance is accepted. Vengeance of Eternal Fire is one of them, and I'm sure there are many others.
I'm perfectly fine with the "complete as much as possible" idea, I just hope we can keep it consistent, by making 1-for-1 exchanges possible. As far as putting it into the REG, I don't know why something along the lines of the following would be so bad to put in there:
"If an ability says you must target multiple cards, and there are not enough valid targets in play to fulfill the whole ability, then you must fulfill as much of the ability as possible. For example, Zeal for the Lord says: 'Interrupt the battle and discard two Evil Characters of different brigades. Cannot be negated if used by Phinehas, son of Eleazar.' If you play Zeal for the Lord and there is only one Evil Character able to be discarded in play, or all Evil Characters in play that are able to be discarded are of the same brigade, then you must discard only one Evil Character to fulfill as much of Zeal for the Lord's ability as possible."
I'm sure this would have to be modified somewhat, but I think it might be a good starting point if the "as much as possible" idea is to stay around.
Thoughts?
-
I see your point. There is no simple solution. That means status quo should be the path of least resistance. "The long, and winding road, ..."
Mike
-
I think for this scenario you have to exchange two heroes. If you don't have two heroes you can't exchange two heroes.
Guys... I see your points but I think sometimes we try to see combos that we really have to stretch, just because technically the rules don't allow it. I think it's pretty obvious that you can't exchange two heroes if you only have one.
-
I also see this both ways, but I think newer players would want this and Zeal to be treated similarly. I would probably allow a 1-for-1 exchange, but obviously never a 1-for-2 exchange.
Kevin Shride
-
If I were to rule it I would also allow a 1-to-1 exchange, not 1-to-2, because I believe that is keeping with the spirit of the rules, and is consistent with Zeal. Watch now that I've said that someone official is gonna make ruling opposite of me. :P
-
I'd like to see Stalks allow for a 1-1 or a 2-2 exchange for the same reasons we allow Zeal and Jephthah to only target one character.
My :2cents:
-
I personally see stalks and Zeal as being different. I agree with Zeal having the as much as possible. For stalks though it says two of your OT heroes, which in essence makes that your cost. You have to pay 2 OT heroes as a cost and if you don't have those you can't do the deal and if there isn't two heroes to trade with then you can't make an even exchange as well. Given that I see the 2 OT heroes as a cost, and everyone agrees you can't pay only half a cost then I would say it has to be 2 for 2. Just my thoughts on how I would rule it at the given time.
Zeal has no cost only effect.
-
On activation, discard this card to...
That's the cost. Discard this card. Not the exchange of Heroes, yours or mine.
-
True hmmmmmmmmmmmm, well then I guess I would support the 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 if ruled that way, but I still see discard (zeal and jepathah) as being different then exchange (wanderer, stalks) and don't think we should necessarily use one to help define the other.
-
True hmmmmmmmmmmmm, well then I guess I would support the 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 if ruled that way, but I still see discard (zeal and jepathah) as being different then exchange (wanderer, stalks) and don't think we should necessarily use one to help define the other.
They are indeed different, but there are many types of special abilities that already have the "as much as possible" concept applied. Exchange is just another special ability that has recently come up due to this card, as all other exchanges were previously 1-for-1 only. The difference is that you can't do "as much as possible" on your side (0 or 1 heroes) and still get two of your opponent's heroes. The "as much as possible" would apply to as many exchanges as possible, which is either to exchange this one hero for that one hero or these two heroes for those two heroes.
-
Perhaps the wording in the Play As section should be "up to but equal" meaning that you can exchange up to two characters satisfying the stipulations on those characters, but the exchange must be an equal exchange in terms of number of characters involved. I agree that even allowing a Play As that doesn't follow the exact wording of the card is a slippery road we want to avoid at all costs. If that is the case then make it as is and if the cards are not in play to satisfy the cards special ability then it does nothing...
-
I'd like to see Stalks allow for a 1-1 or a 2-2 exchange for the same reasons we allow Zeal and Jephthah to only target one character.
My :2cents:
For whatever it's worth, I agree with Gabe.
-
I'd like to see Stalks allow for a 1-1 or a 2-2 exchange for the same reasons we allow Zeal and Jephthah to only target one character.
My :2cents:
For whatever it's worth, I agree with Gabe.
+1
-
For whatever it's worth, I agree with Frank.
And Frank, you know what you did, but I can't repeat it, because I'm Jesus.
-
You win the thread.
-
For whatever it's worth, I agree with Frank.
And Frank, you know what you did, but I can't repeat it, because I'm Jesus.
That is pure awesome. XD
-
Okay, I haven't read this whole post yet, but I agree that SoF should allow 1-1 exchanges.
-
Okay, I haven't read this whole post yet
Oh you should. There's character development, plot twists, riveting action sequences, and a sidebar comic relief bit. Overall, it's a very good read.
-
Hey,
Having re-read this entire thread and actually reading the exchange entry in the new REG, I have changed my opinion on this issue. The new REG specifies that an exchange ability switches the location of two cards. Which means every exchange has to be 1 for 1. Which means Stalks has two 1 for 1 exchanges not a single 2 for 2 exchange. Having two 1 for 1 exchanges means it functions the same as Zeal's two discards and can be done halfway if there are only enough targets to do it halfway.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Sounds good to me. :)
-
actually reading the exchange entry in the new REG
Would that be reading what you previously wrote? ;)
-
new and related question to Stalks of Flax.
The exchange has been done...it was a 2 for 2 exchange. 2 turns have elapsed and it's time for it to be undone, BUT there is a catch....some characters have died.
The Question:
Is the last part of the ability an "exchange" back OR is it an undo, in that everything returns to it's owner's territory?
Example: I exchange my Zeb and Dan to you while taking your Jacob and Captain. Captain is CMed and Jacob is captured. Do I get Zeb and Dan back because the 2 turn limit is up OR since they can't be exchanged back..my opponent keeps them?
Also:
What if Captain is dead and Jacob is still alive? Do I get to pick which hero comes back if it is an exchange? (Because the "undo" would hand both of them back.)
-
Check this out. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17858.0)
-
Thanks Gabe...I thought the question was answered but I couldn't find it. I stink at searching for stuff. That was exactly what I wanted to know.