Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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

I know it's a late response, but you forgot the 'j' in my name.

We're talking about a completely different issue now: Can you set aside all the characters and then just choose not to start a new rescue so that no one ever comes back? Myself, I don't see why not.

Ambush the City:

Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • 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.

So here's what I think: After you set everything in battle aside, you have a choice on whether or not to begin another rescue. If you do, then when you finish the next RA, everything comes back as normal; if not, then the trigger (Once new rescue attempt is completed) never activates, and the cards that were set aside never come back. I believe that's what STAMP was saying, correct?

Wouldn't opting not to make the rescue attempt complete the act anyway?

But you've completed the option to have it or not.

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 still stand. If you play pentacost in battle on a hero with blue and purple(like paul, let's just say), and he had red dragon? Would red Dragon stay in battle? No, that's obserd. He won the ra, and therefore goes back to territory. But you played the long day. So now you make a new ra. Red Dragon doesn't stay cause he can't be removed, he goes back to territory and now they can block again.

This is just like Ambush the City. Abimilech won the ra, cause you can't target him. Then you start a new one and it's completely different. Then, once that is done, you take your guys back and resume your bc. There is no evil character left, so you are considered "winning" the battle challenge. Right? Can we get an official on that, Bryon, Mike?

@Galadywin(was it you?), you said that you can't have abimilech negate ambush the city since it can't be negated. But ignore I think would fall into the "protect" group, so he's not negated ambush, he's just protecting himself from the ability.

Bubbleboy:  ignore doesn't kick a character out of battle or stop a player from playing enhancements.  It stops a character from entering battle in the first place.  If the characters are already in battle then it protects both sides from hurting each other and gives the win to the player of the ignore ability.  The downside to ignoring is that since you are winning the battle then it gives endless initiative to the opponent.

@Galadywin(was it you?), you said that you can't have abimilech negate ambush the city since it can't be negated. But ignore I think would fall into the "protect" group, so he's not negated ambush, he's just protecting himself from the ability.

I know but thats not what I meant.  I was referring to what YMT said "I would rule that Ambush the City would fizzle."  I could be wrong here but it sounded like he meant that since you couldn't set Abimelech aside then you couldn't fulfill the ability and Ambush the City would do nothing.  I was saying that the idea of Ambush doing nothing means you're having it indirectly negated since there is nothing stopping the heroes being set-aside. 

To Schaef:  I don't know that side battles are the right precedent here.  I see the comparison but I think this may be its own thing.  Consider that you could have the first ability without the rest; it would set everything in battle aside except for protected characters like Nebby's Pride and then the battle would end.  It is a seperate ability (the original battle resumes as a battle challenge) that brings them back into battle.  I don't think there is any other ability that does this.  So it seems like Abimelech could legitimately be sitting in the field of battle or the territory until that battle resumes.  If he is in the territory and the heros are returned to the territory by the emperor during the second rescue attempt, are we sure that those characters would not come back into battle to fulfill the third ability?  There is already precedent (the pg panic demon) that a card can be sent somewhere and then its ability is triggered and that card comes back to fulfill the ability.  So I wonder if the third part of Ambush would take those characters from wherever and put them back in battle.

But you've completed the option to have it or not.

Yes, but the trigger is when the rescue attempt (an actual one) is completed not an option being completed.

So if you're right that the evil character waits in battle until the battle resumes and Stamp's option is legal then you would have an evil character left sitting in battle indefinitely.  That doesn't sound right.  So my guess is:

Abimelech is not set-aside and then returns to territory since that battle is over.  Then if the rescue attempt is completed the third sentence is triggered and the good and evil characters go into battle to resume their battle like it had never stopped.

But in this case, the card specifically mentions the option of starting a new rescue attempt, which would be initiated by a character being presented. If you don't present a character, then you never started a rescue.

BTW, what you just described as a battle sounded more like the battle phase to me. A battle can't start with you not presenting a character; that's silly.

And you decided not to; thus the RA never begins, so it can never end, and thus the "Once new rescue attempt is completed" is never triggered.

The r.a. did complete. It ended as soon as you opted to not make a r.a. In my battle phase I can make a r.a. if I don't make a r.a. am I stuck in the battle phase forever? I didn't go into battle :-p

The issue with Ambush the City was recently discussed in a similar situation.  My take (not sure there was consensus?): If you cannot set aside an EC from the battle in which AtC was played, then it stays in the Field of Battle, but cannot join the battle caused by AtC (or other battles that turn); then, it is placed back in the battle that returns from set-aside.  Just being in the Field of Battle doesn't mean it gets to join the new battle, it just sits there waiting for the rest of the battle to return from AtC.

So, Abimelech, being immune-through-ignore, stays in the Field of Battle and is not set-aside, but cannot block the new rescue attempt.  He rejoins the original battle when it resumes.  However, since his repel ability is still targeting the Field of Battle, no Judges-reference heroes could be used in subsequent battles.

I Am Holy has been ruled to be clarifying text.

And I'll be honest, I lost track of what else was being argued that wasn't resolved or would have a ruling debate now.  As this is over 5 years old, and we have a new rulebook, a new REG, and 5 years of updated rulings, I'm not sure that there is much here that would be solid to base any rulings on.

I'm interested in the set-aside until end of game effect. If you chose not to start a new ra, would youstill rue that the heroes and evil characters are stuck in set-aside indefinitely?

Doesn't work.  Someone pointed it out earlier in this thread, but here's from the new REG for reference:

If a set-aside ability does not specify a duration, the controller of the card(s) set aside may return
them during any of their preparation phases.

If you do not do the other RA, then there is no duration specified.  Therefore, the controller of each card set-aside may return them to his territory during their next prep phase.