Cactus Game Design Message Boards

It's ability is "If a lone Hero begins a rescue attempt against you, you may discard one of your demons in your territory to shuffle this card back into owner's draw pile."  If I use the demon that lets me exchange it with another Evil Character and I take another players demon.  Can I then discard that demon since I control it to complete the special ability?

Sweet, I thought that was right!  Well I'm still hoping that is right!

After reading though the REG, it does seem that Tim is correct.  Sorry for misleading you, I thought for sure "your" was satisfied with SWS because the exchange was permanent, not temp like banding or Stalks.


Your
Several cards in Redemption® refer to cards that are “your” cards (e.g., your Priest, your Heroes, your demons, your warrior-class Evil Character, ). The possession and control of a card is implied by the use of the word “your”.


Control

You control a character when you are using it. You can control a character that you do not own. This happens when you band to an opponent’s character and use it in battle. You also con­trol a character when your opponent forces you to use a character that you do not own.
(I assume control can also mean exchange like with SWS.)


However, there isn't a defined definition for "possession".  Could we get one?  It doesn't mean the exact same thing as ownership.

Hey,

I believe the answer to the original question is yes.  Although I have no evidence to back it up.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Yay for another person who has a gut feeling but no proof.

But I don't think so. Gabe says that "your" means both posession and ownership, I asked him about this for another ruling question I had a little bit ago.

That's the way that SWS was ruled after FOOF came out.  I no longer recall the specific question and it's since been purged from the forum. 

So that's the way it was ruled once, but as we all know rules/rulings in Redemption change from time to time.  Until there's something official to contradict the original ruling I'm going to assume it was correct.