Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Could you give an example of something that is newly cbi from the rule change?

Big bands are mostly cbi

.. assuming there was a “negate band abilities” is that technically causing cascade negate?

If they block with a character they searched for with dull and you negate dull their character goes back.. but the abilities of the character remain cbi?

Does removing cascade negate effect abilities or cards specifically?

I’m not really sure cascade negate can even be fully removed from Redemption

Gomer (CBN Band to male)->Persian Archers (band) ->King Darius (CBN Band) ->Persian Horseman

Persian Archers gets negated... does no more cascade negate affect this scenario?... if so, what would be the new resolution?


Godspeed,
Mike


Edit:

Using the "Dull" example, if I take Uzzah using Dull's SA and you allow me to block with him, then play SoG to negate Dull you will put Uzzah back in my deck but his ability wasn't negated by SoG so you just gave me an extra use when I draw him again later.

hmmm... I like this little shenanigan

so same as before... bad example on my part...

Godspeed,
Mike

Perhaps an easier-to-understand example: let's use some brothers.

Spoiler: Sons of Zeruiah (hover to show)

Say I attack with Joab banded to Abishai banded to Asahel. You play something that negates Joab.
Previously, Abishai would be kicked out of battle, and the negate would cascade to his ability, negating Asahel as well.
Now, that wouldn't happen. Abishai is still kicked out of battle, since the ability that brought him in is negated, but Asahel stays because Abishai himself was never negated.

So Joab and Asahal would stay in battle, correct. In simple terms.

The elimination of cascade negate will lead to some weird scenarios, there is no question about that. The premise behind the decision is that those scenarios will be easier to sort out and explain to both experienced and new players.

Let's look at an example that could be seen as more complicated without cascase negate...

I attack with Tribal Elder (band to OT Hero) and band in Abigail (draw ability). I draw from Abigail's ability and then you block. During the course of battle, you play Three Woes to negate Tribal Elder. Abigail would be sent back to territory but the draw would stick (under the previous rule her draw would be cascade negated).

Now because the band was negated, Abigail is actually able to be banded back into that same battle via a new banding ability. However, because her ability was activated and not negated, I would not get to draw again with her. It's similar (though not exactly the same) to how the situation works if her draw had been CBN or CBI. The difference is that her ability could still be targeted by a negate later in that same battle phase so even though it "stuck" when the band was negated, it is not CBI--you would just need to play an additional negate.


The bottom line is that there are some scenarios which are easier to understand with cascade negate and others that are difficult, but ultimately we decided that in general the complexity will be lessened if cascade negate was removed from the rules.

The elimination of cascade negate will lead to some weird scenarios, there is no question about that. The premise behind the decision is that those scenarios will be easier to sort out and explain to both experienced and new players.

Let's look at an example that could be seen as more complicated without cascase negate...

I attack with Tribal Elder (band to OT Hero) and band in Abigail (draw ability). I draw from Abigail's ability and then you block. During the course of battle, you play Three Woes to negate Tribal Elder. Abigail would be sent back to territory but the draw would stick (under the previous rule her draw would be cascade negated).

Now because the band was negated, Abigail is actually able to be banded back into that same battle via a new banding ability. However, because her ability was activated and not negated, I would not get to draw again with her. It's similar (though not exactly the same) to how the situation works if her draw had been CBN or CBI. The difference is that her ability could still be targeted by a negate later in that same battle phase so even though it "stuck" when the band was negated, it is not CBI--you would just need to play an additional negate.


The bottom line is that there are some scenarios which are easier to understand with cascade negate and others that are difficult, but ultimately we decided that in general the complexity will be lessened if cascade negate was removed from the rules.

Not sure why she wouldn't be able to activate again when brought back into battle. Nothing I know of in the rules prevents her from activating a second time.

I would defer to Marcus on the full explanation, but I believe it's the same principle as when a Hero from the main battle is pulled into a side battle.

That's going from battle to battle though. Moving from a non-battle location to battle should always activate the ability of the character. If it currently doesn't that should change along with cascade being removed because it's going to come up a lot more and is not remotely intuitive.

Moving from a non-battle location to battle should always activate the ability of the character.

That is true unless the ability has been previously activated (without being negated) in the same phase.

I don't think I've seen anyone play it where you could use an ability twice, which tells me it is intuitive.

(i.e. Tribal Elder to King Saul (draw 1, CBI). Tribal Elder negated, King Saul back to territory. Tribal Elder uses Courage to band King Saul back into battle, King Saul's ability does not activate again.)

I agree with KtD and Reth. I see no reason why the SA wouldn’t activate again. Their being in battle was negated and not their SA, so why couldn’t it be reactivated a second time?  The idea behind removing CN is to simplify the game and make it easier to teach/understand, but if the ability not activating a second time is made into a rule this would only keep the unnecessary complexity in the game, trading one complicated rule (CN) for another.

I say keep it simple by allowing the ability to work each time the character is put into battle. If there’s a limit on the ability (i.e., once per turn) then it wouldn’t reactivate again.  Perhaps the opponent doesn’t want a character’s ability to potentially activate a second time as it may be more of a detriment to him than if he simply left that character in battle (i.e., Woman with Child getting a second good dominant out). This is part of good gameplay strategies we’ll see, whether or not to negate the band.

Quote from: Watchman on November 19, 2019, 08:16:52 PM

I agree with KtD and Ruth.

  Is this a Freudian slip? And I totally agree: Reactivating the SA when a character enters battle again is quite intuitive.

Ha no it’s Apple’s autocorrect slip.