Cactus Game Design Message Boards

The elder team believes we have found a good solution to one of the many things we're attempting to improve with rule updates after Nationals. We'd like to separate exchange and search, which is not quite as easy as it sounds.

Below is the proposed entry for the REG. The red text is new. The strike through text is being removed.

Exchange

General Description
An exchange ability allows you to switch the locations of two cards.
 
How to Play
In addition to switching locations, if either of the cards is targeted by other abilities when the exchange is carried out, the targets of those other abilities are also switched.

An exchange ability targets the two cards that are to be exchanged.

All exchange abilities are instantaneous.
 
Default Conditions
●   If an exchange ability exchanges a card that you permanently control with a card that your opponent permanently controls, the permanent control of each exchanged card is switched.
●   If an exchange ability exchanges a card in a deck, the deck must be randomized afterward.


Special Conditions
●   An exchange ability requires targets on both ends of the exchange.  If a valid target for one end of the exchange is not found, the ability does nothing.
●   An exchange ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile or Artifact Pile is not considered to search that location.
●   An exchange ability that targets a card in a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile that is not in a specific location in that pile, includes a search of the pile for the target.

We welcome your feedback and questions about how this might impact the game we all enjoy.

Has the rules for search changed? If not, then I'm not a fan of this change. It simply adds another exception to a rule. Search specifies that if you target a card in an unknown location it includes a search. If exchange doesn't include a search, then it just adds another layer of complexity. I think the best way to make exchange not a search, if it must be done, is just to get rid of implied search altogether. But that brings up other issues. I don't think it is necessary to make them separate at the moment anyways. If anything, an exception should be made for healing, but that's solved by the other rule change.

I like that exchange and search are separated, but as Kram was getting at and sounds like is being done with healing too, can we just eliminate implied abilities altogether? It just seems like it would make everything so much simpler and easy for new and veteran players alike. I'm assuming there are complications with eliminating implied abilities that I'm not aware of because it seems like an obvious solution which I'm sure the elders have thought of and discussed, and was wondering if those complications could be explained. 

I'm not a fan. If you actually search the pile, then why not let it be a search ability? But if everyone else is clamoring for it, then I'll use AUTO through HSR and Naz. I think we could have kept the status quo on this one, and let heal be its own ability.

What if I told you that there are changes coming for Heal as well? 

I'm not familiar with a bunch of the cards that might say otherwise, but aren't there some cards that say: Search deck for X and exchange this card with it?

There are still going to be implied abilities (mostly searches) because we have too many cards (including recent ones) that say things like "Topdeck a Hero from discard pile." We've moved away from saying "Search discard pile for a Hero and topdeck it" because it saves space on the card and allows for greater flexibility in writing multi-part abilities.

The definition of search will be updated to more clearly show what constitutes a search/search ability and what does not.

That makes sense- thanks for explaining!

Remember I sort of had a change for heal I proposed hahaha. Also, I really appreciate the Elders asking us for feedback on the rules.

Yes, yes you did. 

I actualy prefer Exchange to be a search ability as well. it seems logical to me.

I think it's a mistake to roll these out piecemeal because it makes it seem like the problem is X and Y and Z rather than that X, Y and Z are all symptomatic of entangled abilities. What the poll should be is whether rules made to disentangle abilities are supported, as people will have gripes and nitpicks about each individual case that don't matter when applied to the meta-issue.

I agree. Before a consensus can be agreed upon, we need to know all of the other rule changes that will be proposed. While I don't think discussion of the topic at this moment is entirely fruitless, I don't think decisions should be made before everyone knows what they are actual supporting.

It's easy enough to know when exchange is also a search, and when it isn't. At least, I think it's common sense.

I agree. People keep saying that this rule would be better because it is more intuitive. But I personally think that having exchange be a search ability is more intuitive. You are searching through your deck, so it's a search ability.

I hope people aren't against the change specifically because they think AuTO will be too powerful.  Making correct, intuitive rulings should be more important than trying to limit the power of single cards through the rules.  If a card is truly too powerful, that is grounds for an errata, not for changing the rules themselves to weaken that card.

I agree with this.  And if anyone was inclined to oppose "Exchanges are not Searches" because of AUTO, consider that HSR is possibly the most powerful non-Dominant if Exchanges are Searches.