Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RTSmaniac on October 27, 2012, 09:16:01 PM
-
Who chooses order for Revealer LS?
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When you draw this card, each opponent must reveal the top two cards of his draw pile. Place each revealed Lost Soul in owner's Land of Bondage. Place the rest beneath owner's draw pile. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Romans 3:23 • Availability: Angel Wars booster packs (Rare)
-
The person whose cards where revealed chooses the order they are placed on the bottom of their deck.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/revealer-29297/msg458302/#msg458302
-
I thought it was ruled it was who was Revealing them.
-
I thought it was ruled it was who was Revealing them.
Read this post:
The person whose cards where revealed chooses the order they are placed on the bottom of their deck.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/revealer-29297/msg458302/#msg458302
Which tells you to read this post:
"When you draw this card, each opponent must reveal the top two cards of his draw pile. Place each revealed Lost Soul in owner's Land of Bondage. Place the rest beneath owner's draw pile."
The first sentence instructs the opponent to do the revealing, so the owner of the deck is the person who reveals their top 2 cards. I think we all agree on that.
The next two sentence could be read two different ways:
1) As two independent place abilities, no longer controlled by the opponent, but by the owner of the Revealer Lost Soul.
2) As instructions for the "opponent" who did the revealing, as to what they should do with the two revealed cards.
I believe that the second option is the correct interpretation. The two place abilities are instructions tied to the reveal ability. For that reason I've always allowed my opponent to choose the order of the two cards from my "Revealer" (if neither were Lost Souls), and chosen the order myself when my deck was revealed. It seems right that such a powerful Lost Soul as the "Revealer" would have a small, potential drawback of allowing the opponent stack their own bottom of the deck to their possible benefit.
For those that are unfamiliar with the reason a player is allowed to choose the order of the two cards, this is from the REG entry on Place abilities.
"If multiple cards are placed in the same location by the same place ability, the player placing them chooses what order to place them."
If you can find a different ruling (which I have not seen, nor found on searching) with a similar explanation as to why the rules apply the way you argue, or if you'd like to explain your disagreement with explanation using the rules, it could definitely be worth the discussion :) It doesn't help to just say that you think it was ruled differently, because I can say I heard anything ;) Find a reference or rule, like Drrek did.
-
I don't remember where it is, but I know it made a lot of people irritated, but it may have been reversed too.
-
I don't remember where it is, but I know it made a lot of people irritated, but it may have been reversed too.
Seeker of the Lost allows the owner of Seeker to choose the order. Revealer LS allows the owner of the placed cards to choose the order. Not sure if that was what you were thinking of.
-
It's probably some old thread where they overturned the ruling after I lost interest in the thread.
-
Necroposting. Being away from the game for so long and basically forgetting everything has given me some measure of outsider's eyes, and this came up in a game recently. This ruling seems to be made on really shaky grounds, and while I agree it should probably be the way to go, Revealer needs to be errata'd (or whatever happened soon after I left to the old language on a lot of cards) in order for this to be a correct ruling. It clearly says to place, not opponent places, and while it could be argued that it's old language and was meant to be tied to the reveal, that's not what the card says.
-
Revealer needs to be errata'd (or whatever happened soon after I left to the old language on a lot of cards) in order for this to be a correct ruling. It clearly says to place, not opponent places, and while it could be argued that it's old language and was meant to be tied to the reveal, that's not what the card says.
It is not in need of an errata, as each of the sentences expounds upon the initial statement and are thus linked to it in terms of who it refers to as doing the action. It clearly says that "each opponent" does the reveal, and the ruling has been that the player doing the reveal determines the order things happen or are placed if anything further is done to the revealed cards. While the wording may not be as clear as some may like, we have a clear and consistent ruling nonetheless. An errata is not needed.
-
(or whatever happened soon after I left to the old language on a lot of cards)
-
Welcome back, Polarius! ;D
-
Thank you. TEC has blown my mind, I can't believe a single expansion was able to do that much for the game! If it looks like I'm coming back just to be contentious, it's because the quality of the game is once again high enough that I care enough about the fast-and-loose logical inconsistencies in the way language is treated to say something!
-
If it looks like I'm coming back just to be contentious, ...
I thought you were coming back to school us on video games and music, Mr. Minister. ;)
-
Nah, don't want to get banned.