Cactus Game Design Message Boards

When looking through my cards I noticed a difference between the warriors and kings version of Edge of the Sword.

Edge of the Sword
s.a. Discard one site from one opponent's territory. The Lost Soul(s) remains in play.

The kings version specifies a single color site.  Can I use the warriors version (with HT) to get rid of my opponent's access site?

I think that's true unless the WA version was given errata. You could check the REG to be sure.

I of course did check the Reg but I have found that to be less than reliable. 

There was no "play as" so I hoped that would be the case.  Thanks for the official ruling Gabe.    Since Roa gave little help to site decks  , I've been looking for help.

Well I said little not none.  The problem with almost all that you listed is that they are double-edged swords.  Sure they can get rid of an opponent's access but they make it easier for my opponent to get rid of my sites.  Blue and Green could potentially get rid of every site in my territory.  So I saw at least five extra ways (counting that red hero) that nuke my sites and I have to try to stop.  I think Banks of the Nile is questionable; you have to lose a lost soul from it for it to be good.  The only exception here is Demonic Blockade; that is just good.  The other Roa card that helps imo is the site guard lost soul but that is also good for non-site decks.

I think cards that protect my single color sites from being discarded/stolen, cards that recur sites from discard pile, and cards that get a boost from having sites would be helpful.  example:  Discard a hero in a territory.  Opponent must also discard a card from hand or territory for each matching brigade occupied site that you have.

I think you misunderstood the idea.  Maybe I didn't word it right. 

What I meant was that if you discard a red brigade hero then for every occupied red brigade site that you have your opponent has to discard a card.  I don't think that has anything to do with what color sites they are using.

Ok, I'm really not getting what you're saying so I'll walk through what my intention is and what I thought my wording would do.  Just for reference, I'll call the hypothetical card "Roman Aggression".


I have initiative and play Roman Aggression.  I discard my opponent's Moses in their territory.  Since Moses is gold, I now check to see if I have any occupied gold sites in my territory.  It doesn't matter what sites my opponent has.  I happen to have 2 so my opponent must now choose 2 cards to discard and either card can be good, evil, or nuetral (except lost souls) and be from their hand or their territory.  I can only discard 8 extra cards if I have 8 occupied matching (gold) sites and only if those are the 8 cards my opponent chooses to discard.  It was intended to be an example of a useful bonus for having sites but I don't think it is too much (except probably in type 2 so you'd have to make it dual-colored gray and gold).  If it was a real card, I would restrict it to single color sites.  Again, there is no penalty to the opponent for what sites they use, only a bonus for the card player for having matching sites.

gotcha. 

It does do that but if you're using all purple sites and your opponent has an all purple offence then your site defense is at a huge disadvantage anyway.  Again, they get to choose which cards are discarded so I can't see it being that bad.  I think cards like this would help offset what would otherwise be completely useless defensive cards.