Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
I thought it was ruled it was who was Revealing them.
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
"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."
I don't remember where it is, but I know it made a lot of people irritated, but it may have been reversed too.
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.
(or whatever happened soon after I left to the old language on a lot of cards)
If it looks like I'm coming back just to be contentious, ...