Mount Doom and "Exchange" vs "Replace"

[sgtdraino]

This question occurred to me while reading this thread:

http://lotrtcgwiki.com/forums/index.php/topic,8957.0/topicseen.html

Mount Doom states, "Until the end of the game, sites in this region cannot be replaced."

Dmaz was exploring ways to combat site manipulation using site control, and discovered:

Uruk Cavern Striker

...as a way to control a certain site that the fellowship is actually standing on (by exchanging it with another site you control).

I began wondering what if Mount Doom was in Region 1, and had been controlled (along with other Region 1 sites). Could you still do the swap?

But then I further noticed how Mount Doom says you "cannot replace," whereas some site manipulation cards (Uruk Cavern Striker, Led Astray) say "exchange" not "replace." Is there a CRD ruling that says Mount Doom also applies to cards that say "exchange?" Or does Mount Doom not stop such cards?

[dmaz]

Yeah, an interesting situation!

In our last game, I remember that even though I had the Mount Doom from region 2 under control, it wouldn't allow traveled leader to change the sites that were in region 2.

That's pretty straightforward, as the card states "until the end of the game" as a BOOM once the card is played that's the issue for the rest of the game. So even though that Mount Doom wasn't in region 2 anymore, since it was controlled, the fellowship and the subsequent sites they were at were still in region 2.

I looked through the rule book and current rulings, but couldn't find anything addressing this situation.

If I had to GUESS, I would say that "exchange" and "replace" should be considered the same thing here. For example: even if I already had control of Mount Doom from site 4, but the opponent's fellowship was still in Region 2 at site 6. If I were to try to use Uruk Cavern striker, even though it's technically saying that I am "exchanging" the site with a site I control....isn't site 6 STILL being replaced if that happens? It's just being replaced by a site I control rather than one from the adventure deck (a more common scenario).

I guess that one should still be kind of obvious....maybe haha...

But it sounds like you suggested that perhaps the fellowship was in Region 2, site 4 at Woody End or something, and I already controlled all of the Region 1 sites (one of which is Mount Doom).
In this case I THINK that I would have the liberty to exchange Mount Doom or any of the other two sites with Woody End, because once those cards are under my control, they are "region-free" right?

[sgtdraino]

If I had to GUESS, I would say that "exchange" and "replace" should be considered the same thing here. For example: even if I already had control of Mount Doom from site 4, but the opponent's fellowship was still in Region 2 at site 6. If I were to try to use Uruk Cavern striker, even though it's technically saying that I am "exchanging" the site with a site I control....isn't site 6 STILL being replaced if that happens? It's just being replaced by a site I control rather than one from the adventure deck (a more common scenario).

TCGs tend to be a stickler for specific words for specific things, even though the result might be the same. For example, if your character exerts once, or if your character is wounded once, the result is the same: You now have one wound token on your character. But a card that prevents wounds will not prevent exertions, and a card that prevents exertions will not prevent wounds.

Another example is "prevent all wounds" (Gimli's Helm), "cannot take wounds" (Swept Away), and "each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead" (converting with The One Ring). Under many circumstances, the result of these three things is more-or-less the same, but something that prevents one of them from working (Steward's Tomb, "wounds cannot be prevented") will not prevent the other two.

In this case I THINK that I would have the liberty to exchange Mount Doom or any of the other two sites with Woody End, because once those cards are under my control, they are "region-free" right?

I don't think so. What determines a Site's region is the site number, not whether or not it is on the Adventure Path. Just because (for example) Site 3 is in your support area, that doesn't mean it is no longer Site 3. It's still Site 3, which means it's still in Region 1, even though it is not currently on the Adventure Path. This is defined under "region" in the CRs.

[Legion]

If I had to GUESS, I would say that "exchange" and "replace" should be considered the same thing here. For example: even if I already had control of Mount Doom from site 4, but the opponent's fellowship was still in Region 2 at site 6. If I were to try to use Uruk Cavern striker, even though it's technically saying that I am "exchanging" the site with a site I control....isn't site 6 STILL being replaced if that happens? It's just being replaced by a site I control rather than one from the adventure deck (a more common scenario).

TCGs tend to be a stickler for specific words for specific things, even though the result might be the same. For example, if your character exerts once, or if your character is wounded once, the result is the same: You now have one wound token on your character. But a card that prevents wounds will not prevent exertions, and a card that prevents exertions will not prevent wounds.

Another example is "prevent all wounds" (Gimli's Helm), "cannot take wounds" (Swept Away), and "each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead" (converting with The One Ring). Under many circumstances, the result of these three things is more-or-less the same, but something that prevents one of them from working (Steward's Tomb, "wounds cannot be prevented") will not prevent the other two.

I would be inclined to disagree for a couple of reasons.  The first is that to exchange and to replace really do mean the same thing.  "Cannot take wounds" sounds like the sword passes through you doing nothing, "Prevent all wounds" sounds more like your armour taking the blow and "each time bearer is about to take a wound, add a burden instead" is just magic.  They are 3 separate ideas (though the first and third do sound quite similar and are always essentially treated as the same).  Exchanging and replacing are just the same thing.

The second and most important reason is that Big D had given up when they were printing those cards.  Uruk Cavern Striker would have used "replace" just as Orkish Ax would have had an "e" on the end if they had bothered to think it through.  I can see how you could argue that as we take the cards as they are, perhaps we should be more rigorous (it may be a detriment to me that English is my first language here), but to me as "Replace" and "Exchange" have no specific place in the rules, I'll translate it as they mean the same thing.  If you're going to be really fussy, I'm going to bring up my dislike of One Good Turn Deserves Another being pulled from Dammed Gate Stream.  If the card has never been in your hand, you shouldn't be able to add a burden to take it "back" there

Incidentally, if anyone has these cards in foreign languages that could help.  If they use the same word in any language, it must be the same thing.  I always found it weird that "You're a Liar and a Thief" is translated as "You're a Thief and a Liar" in Italian.

[sgtdraino]

For what it's worth, I do agree with Legion to the extent that, if Decipher had really been thinking about it, they wouldn't have put "exchange" on those two cards, but would have stuck with "replace." I don't think Decipher intended them to be different terms.

However, that's just my opinion, and dictionary-wise, "replace" does not mean exactly the same thing as "exchange."

Any other thoughts?

[Air Power]

The CRD states: "To replace a site, choose a new site from your
adventure deck and place it on top of the site you
are replacing on the adventure path. Take the
old site from beneath the new site and place it in
your adventure deck. You can't replace a site card
with the same site card."

Exchanging a site you control with another site that is also in play does not fit this definition.

However, the phrasing also implies that if the FP player replaces a shadow site, the replaced site goes into the FP adventure deck.

[dmaz]

Hmmm....both ways seem to have a reason why it either should or shouldn't be allowed to be "exchanged".

Now I'm curious and want to playtest it, to see what MarcinS did with the situation