Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Ok, what happens if my judge is blocked by Abimelech and I play Ambush the City?

Abimelech
S.A. "Evil Character repels all Heroes with a Judges reference."

Ambush the City
S.A. " If making a rescue attempt, set all cards in battle aside (regardless of immunity). Holder may begin a new rescue attempt against same player. Once new rescue attempt is completed, the original battle resumes as a battle challenge. Cannot be negated."

Since Abimelech is ignoring the hero, Ambush the City can't target him but it still targets the heroes and sets them aside.  It then is supposed to start a new battle.  So does Abimelech stay in battle and block the new rescue attempt (but it is a whole new rescue attempt which would imply choosing a new blocker)?  Does he just go back to the territory since he can't be in the new battle and can't be set-aside (but that seems to make the ignore ability hurtful instead of helpful)?  Or does he go to the set-aside area anyway to wait for his battle to resume?

What is abimilech's ability?

I think this is how it plays out.

1. Abimilech stays in battle cause you can't target him.
2. He goes back to territory cause he won the ra.
3. You make a new ra. That finishes.
4. You're guy comes back and wins the bc cause there is not ec to block you.

I think this is how it plays out.

1. Abimilech stays in battle cause you can't target him.
2. He goes back to territory cause he won the ra.
3. You make a new ra. That finishes.
4. You're guy comes back and wins the bc cause there is not ec to block you.

Or: You set Abimilech aside with the judge. You aren't really effecting Abimilech at all, your just delaying the battle until you finish the new battle.

"Nah, Wild Bill isn't a liar.  He has gotten a ruling wrong once or twice though.  This could be one of those times."

That's what I think, although I'm not even sure you can play Ambush the city if you're being ignored, can you? I still get confused by ignore.

I have another question though (just thought of it): What if there's a NT human hero and/or EC in battle when you play Ambush, and then in the next battle your opponent blocks with Emp. Augustus (who sends all set-aside NT humans back to territory); what would happen then? Would everyone just go back to their territories and forget it ever happened?

that's interesting.... I think they would go back to their territories, and that battle would not be able to resume, even as a battle challenge.

@ YMT, I think that you can't target abililech, but you can still be set - aside. For instance, if you attacked with Ehud and chose Red Dragon and then played samson's sacrafice, then you can still discard yourself, but Red Dragon is protected. He won the ra and goes back to territory. If you had played the long day(due to some crazy gold shield action or something), then you would still be able to make a new rescue, cause Red Dragon would return to his territory; he won the ra.

Back to the original example, your judge would now come back from the bc once the ra is over, and you would win the bc cause there is no one to block you. I still think that this would work.

The first sentence of Ambush the City is a prerequisite for the rest of the ability to complete. Since you cannot fulfill the first sentence, the rest of the SA does not take place, IMO.

Why should that be the case? Several cards, like Goods Recovered ("Discard one Raiders' Camp and return all captured Heroes to owner's territory. Return one of your good cards discarded from draw pile by opponent to draw pile. Shuffle draw pile. Cannot be negated.") have multiple abilities not dependent upon each other.

I believe I'm going to have to side with Tim Mirezasaldfausdglui on this one. 

If Ambush the City said "set all cards in battle aside to begin a new rescue attempt..." then YMT would be correct.  As it's worded they are two different abilities that aren't reliant on one another.  That leads me to believe that Abimelech would stay in battle to block the new rescue attempt since he's not a legal target to be set aside.

Ambush the City
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If making a rescue attempt, set all cards in battle aside (regardless of immunity). Holder may begin a new rescue attempt against same player. Once new rescue attempt is completed, the original battle resumes as a battle challenge. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Joshua 8:19


Tim and Gabe are correct.  The first sentence represents a special ability that must be done and has its own trigger.  The second sentence is a special ability that may be done.  The third sentence is a trigger that is tied to the second ability.  Both special abilities cannot be negated.


So how many players have declined to use the second ability?  Pretty nice to set-aside an EC band for the rest of the game, eh?

 

Ambush the City
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If making a rescue attempt, set all cards in battle aside (regardless of immunity). Holder may begin a new rescue attempt against same player. Once new rescue attempt is completed, the original battle resumes as a battle challenge. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Joshua 8:19


Tim and Gabe are correct.  The first sentence represents a special ability that must be done and has its own trigger.  The second sentence is a special ability that may be done.  The third sentence is a trigger that is tied to the second ability.  Both special abilities cannot be negated.


So how many players have declined to use the second ability?  Pretty nice to set-aside an EC band for the rest of the game, eh?

 

Stamp, does this actually work? If you don't start a new attempt that is?  I've never heard about this card doing anything like that!

Well, interesting comments but I'm actually less sure now than when I started.  So far I think:

No, it cannot be used as STAMP stated. IF you could just set-aside and forget the rest (which I still argue you can't), then your opponent could return his characters from set-aside on his next prep phase. From the REG:

When you set aside your opponent's card during a battle, after the battle you must put the set-aside enhancement with the card you set aside.  The character can return during any preparation phase, unless the set-aside card has a specified endpoint.  The set-aside card is then discarded.

I'm thinking that the abilities are seperate.  My guess is that they didn't mean the abilities to be optional but the second part does say "may".  I think it does have a specified endpoint and that is after the other new rescue is done.  So I think that Stamp's option is legal.

I would rule that Ambush the City would fizzle.

So because Abimelech is protected from the card then it negates Ambush the City's ability (which can't be negated) to set-aside the heroes?  That doesn't sound right at all.  I think the heroes have to get set-aside.  If that is true but the rest of your idea is right (meaning you can't fulfill the first ability so you can't do the rest) then you would have your heroes stuck in the set-aside area.  That doesn't sound right either.

Because the other sentences here are contingent upon completion of the first sentence. Game rules do not allow simultaneous rescue attempts. Since the first rescue attempt has not stopped (Abimelech is still in battle)

How can you say that the first rescue has not stopped?  There are plenty of examples where only one side is removed from battle but that definitely means that the battle is over (withdraw cards).  Regarding your examples: 

Yes there are cards with contigent abilities but there are also plenty without.  Cards that say "interrupt the battle, draw x cards, and play the next enhancement" have to use those abilities in order but if one of those abilities is prevented it doesn't affect the others.  You do as much as you can (or want).  So if the interrupt was prevented and you had 1 card left in your deck then you would: not interrupt, draw 1 card and play next.

If Ambush the City said "set all cards in battle aside to begin a new rescue attempt..." then YMT would be correct.  As it's worded they are two different abilities that aren't reliant on one another.  That leads me to believe that Abimelech would stay in battle to block the new rescue attempt since he's not a legal target to be set aside.

Based on the wording I would agree, but then it seems like we'd have the problem that the player would be able to make two rescues in one turn.

I think it does have a specified endpoint and that is after the other new rescue is done.  So I think that Stamp's option is legal.

If the claim is that the sentences are independent, then the last sentence has no bearing on the first. The set-aside has no endpoint, unless the rest is triggered.

So because Abimelech is protected from the card then it negates Ambush the City's ability (which can't be negated) to set-aside the heroes? 

I said nothing about negating. The rest of the SA is not triggered. That is not the same as a negate.

How can you say that the first rescue has not stopped? 

If the first sentence is not completed, then the rest of the SA cannot trigger. If the heroes in the first RA are removed from battle, but the EC is not, then Battle Resolution begins. If the second sentence should somehow go on anyway, then the third sentence would not be possible since the first battle has already gone through its Resolution phase.

Yes there are cards with contigent abilities but there are also plenty without.  Cards that say "interrupt the battle, draw x cards, and play the next enhancement" have to use those abilities in order but if one of those abilities is prevented it doesn't affect the others.  You do as much as you can (or want).  So if the interrupt was prevented and you had 1 card left in your deck then you would: not interrupt, draw 1 card and play next.

These are examples of SAs with independent abilities. Interrupt, draw and play do not require any of the others. Stop a battle, start a new battle and finish the old battle do require the others. They are not independent, but rather successive.