Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem an official position was reached in the other thread.

No official position was reached?  

Tim Mirez, who has an impressive track record for being correct, starts out the thread by saying it works.

Schaef, who is official, says it works.

Tim "SirNobody" Maly says it doesn't work based on the way he wants to define "placed" in the future, not based on current rules.

Bryon who is also official says that it works unless someone can convince him otherwise (there's no indication that happened).

When Schaef and Bryon agree on something there is a less than zero percent chance that they're wrong.  That tells me that trading the "Wanderer" LS from a site for the "Site Discard" LS or the "Deck Discard" LS allows the discard ability to take place.

Cool, what about the site remover then? does that work?

I think the ability says "when drawn...".  If that's the case it wouldn't work if you exchange for it.

Quote from: FresnoRedemption on July 25, 2009, 09:05:13 PM

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem an official position was reached in the other thread.

No official position was reached?  

Tim Mirez, who has an impressive track record for being correct, starts out the thread by saying it works.

Schaef, who is official, says it works.

Tim "SirNobody" Maly says it doesn't work based on the way he wants to define "placed" in the future, not based on current rules.

Bryon who is also official says that it works unless someone can convince him otherwise (there's no indication that happened).

When Schaef and Bryon agree on something there is a less than zero percent chance that they're wrong.  That tells me that trading the "Wanderer" LS from a site for the "Site Discard" LS or the "Deck Discard" LS allows the discard ability to take place.

Well, I'm just curious: I realize that the people you mentioned are authoritative voices, but if they gave their input then why did an argument ensue for four pages? I mean, if that's the way it is, I'll accept it. Why can't there just be acceptance when an authoritative decision is made?

Hey,

I stand by my position expressed in the other thread.  Exchanging between two sites is exchanging not putting.

If this ruling goes against my position I weep for the future of Type 1 - Multiplayer.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

I stand by my position expressed in the other thread.  Exchanging between two sites is exchanging not putting.

I see no reason why it can't be both.  Exchange is an ability.  Putting something in a Site is just putting it in a Site.

So, if I use
Nebushasban

Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Crimson • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: You may exchange a Lost Soul in opponent’s territory with a Lost Soul in your territory. • Identifiers: OT Male Human,

To exchange my opponents deck discard lost soul with my own (both in sites), do I get to discard two cards from the top of his deck because I am putting both lost souls into sites?

Assuming Schaef's position to be correct, then it would certainly seem so. This and other potential combos are why I would tend to favor my original position. While I have never really seen widespread abuse of this strategy, it does unsettle me somewhat. Especially since Nebby would be able to do this every block, without your opponent ever getting a chance to do the exchange himself.

If exchanging LS between sites counts as "putting" them there, why doesn't exchanging 7Sons with a demon in your DC pile count as "discarding" 7sons?

I assume that was the question you meant to ask? I think it might have to do with the word 'put' which isn't really defined in Redemption terminology, so we're stuck with plain old English, where it would seem to work as Schaef argued. If it said 'place', I think that an argument could be made, but while I don't like it, I am beginning to think I agree with Schaef et al.