Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I know this was asked before, but it was a long time ago, and I cannot find the thread. It came up in a game today, and I just was wondering if the answer was ever settled upon.

If my wanderer is in a site, and I exchange for my opponent's Hand/Deck discard LS (also in a site), am I putting it in a site so that I can use it's ability? Then my opponent and I could go back and forth discarding cards from each other's hands/decks until something puts a stop to it?

Ezekiel 34:6 (‘Wanderer’)

Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If this card is in your territory during your preparation phase, you may exchange it with a Lost Soul in an opponent’s territory (except another copy of this card). • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ezekiel 34:6 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Uncommon)

I Corinthians 1:27 (Hand Discard)

Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If you put this lost soul in a site, each of your opponents must discard a card from hand. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Corinthians 1:27 • Availability: G Deck

Hosea 13:2 ('deck discard')

Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When this Lost Soul is put in a Site, discard the top card of each opponent's deck. If it is a Lost Soul, put it in play instead. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Hosea 13:2 • Availability: Rock of Ages (Set 17)

on the contrary to cameron the lost soul says when put in a site I don't think that your technically putting it into a site again

I guess it comes down to the Redemption definition of 'put'. Based on the intuitive definition, it would seem that this should work, as 'to put' simply means to move or place. The Lost Soul was not in my Site, and now it is, because of my action; I 'put' it there. But Redemption definitions don't always abide by intuitive definitions (with good reason most of the time) so I could certainly see this as being somehow made illegal by some definition of 'put', because of the total chaos that could ensue.

I'm going to put my two cents in as a "No," because of the following quote from the Current REG:

Instant Abilities > Search, Reveal, or Exchange >Special Conditions

•      If you exchange Ezekiel 34:6 (‘Wanderer’) with the Psalms 1:4 (‘Site Doubler’) Lost  Soul that is in a site with another Lost Soul, the Ezekiel 34:6 (‘Wanderer’) remains in the site.


In this case, the exchanged LS could not be legally be "put" into the site that already has a LS in it. To me, that would indicate that "exchanging" does not constitute "putting" (not to be confused with the golf term) as BubbleBoy already stated.

I am pretty sure it was ruled you can.  The REG quote is simply saying IMHO that the wanderer stays in a site compared to the general LOB.  I do not think it is relevant to this question.

Based on the intuitive definition, it would seem that this should work

Intuitive definitions are best unless there is a good reason to change them.

Hah! I found it!

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16500.0

The debate starts around page two.

"put" is not addressed in the rulebook or the REG.

If a word doesn't get it's own definition in the rulebook or REG, then it should be treated in as a normal word.  Since the LS is "put" into a site using the word in its normal sense, then it makes sense that this works.

The thing is, how would we address cards whose abilities say "put"?

The same way we address cards whose abilities say "go" or "send" or "the" or any other word that is not in the rulebook or REG.  We just interpret them intuitively.

Quote from: BubbleBoy on March 23, 2010, 04:51:27 PM

The thing is, how would we address cards whose abilities say "put"?

The same way we address cards whose abilities say "go" or "send" or "the" or any other word that is not in the rulebook or REG.  We just interpret them intuitively.

I am not aware of any cards in particular that say "go" or "send." Could you name at least a few?

And by the way, if I haven't already made it clear (which I don't think I have), I am trying to get "put" (and "go" and "send") defined somewhere in the REG. All we need is a clause that says "'put,' 'go,' and 'send' all mean the same thing as "place" when found in an ability."

In case I haven't already made it clear, I'm trying to keep as few words defined in the REG as possible so that people can read a card and know what it does without having to look it up in the REG.  Regular English ftw!

That has to be the most ironic thing I've ever heard. Was that on purpose?

I think defining things in the REG is always a good thing. If the way it's defined is the way we play it already, or would play it intuitively, then great. But not having a distinct definition for something (as you have more than likely seen with "holds" and abilifiers and all that mess) can always lead to problems, and causes frustration in people like me who just like to see written down officially how they are supposed to play a certain ability with a certain wording.

As I'm now thinking about this, I think my political views may be influencing my perspective on this.  I am a big proponent of smaller government and don't like giving the federal government control over anything more than I have to (ie. national defense).  Therefore, giving the REG control over any more words than are necessary seems similar to me for some reason.  Odd, I know.

Power to the People!!!!!!!1!11!!!!1!!!!!

especially since it is run almost directly by the players themselves.

I disagree, we can make suggestions but we ultimately have no say in what happens in the REG.  The PTB make the decision and that decision is occasionally codified into a document that players have access to.  Otherwise you get to spend hours searching old threads for answers to pertinent questions, only to find there is no official word because "X" thread was purged or lost or something.