Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: galadgawyn on May 28, 2010, 07:22:22 PM
-
Where are the cards that Ambush sets aside? I thought it was obvious they were in the set-aside area until they come back but someone recently told me they are just on the side of the Field of Battle.
Also I don't remember any official answer to what happens to the blocking evil character when you play Ambush while your hero is being ignored?
-
A question ive asked myself several times...answer please.
-
Please post abilities on little used cards.
In this case the SA is: "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 it says to "set all cards in battle aside", I would say that they all go to the "set aside" area. It would seem that any blocking evil characters would be set aside as well (due to the "regardless of immunity" part of the SA).
-
Sooo.... could you use Ambush the City, then make the second RA with Watcher, and shuffle an EC from the first battle into the owner's deck?
Watcher: If an Evil Character was or is currently set aside, shuffle that Evil Character back into Owner's draw pile. Discard the set-aside card(s).
-
Sooo.... could you use Ambush the City, then make the second RA with Watcher, and shuffle an EC from the first battle into the owner's deck?
Watcher: If an Evil Character was or is currently set aside, shuffle that Evil Character back into Owner's draw pile. Discard the set-aside card(s).
Yes. Watcher is little used, but he has some sneaky ninjastic moves (like this one, as well as getting your demon you discarded back from Tartarsauce).
Also, playing AtC vs. an ignoring character has the same effect as playing it against an immune character. When both characters are in battle already, ignore essentially means: "I am immune to you, you are immune to me, but instead of a stalemate, I am winning." Since AtC doesn't regard immunity as a good enough excuse for the EC to stay, ignoring, as a "specialized immunity" as it were, is also not a good enough excuse. Thus, even if your EC is ignoring me, I can still set you aside with AtC.
-
Cite. That seems highly suspect since Ignore and Immune are two totally different abilities.
-
I would cite it but the idea comes from "that which should not be cited until it becomes official".
At any rate, it would be an awkward situation to have it not work like that. Everything in battle except for the ignoring EC is set-aside, then what?
-
No more awkward than playing ANB against an Immune character. Come to think of it, there's not really a good explanation of that one either.
-
No more awkward than playing ANB against an Immune character. Come to think of it, there's not really a good explanation of that one either.
Valid point. I guess since the hero left the battle, he lost the battle (similar to withdrawing or playing a normal set-aside). Then a new rescue could be made, but the same EC couldn't block again (since no character can enter battle twice in one turn).
Either way, I think my point remains if ignore is defined as mutual immunity + winning condition, as Tim currently has it in the New REG. Until then, let's hope it doesn't matter much. Who uses Evil ignores anyway?
-
*Slowly raises hand*
-
(since no character can enter battle twice in one turn)
But...it isn't the same turn...???
As to the original question (if it even matters anymore), yes, the AtC'd characters are in set-aside area, where they may be targeted until they return.
-
(since no character can enter battle twice in one turn)
But...it isn't the same turn...???
Um, yes it is. If I play AtC in an RA in my turn, my next RA is still my TURN. It is not the same PHASE, but it's definitely the same turn.
-
(since no character can enter battle twice in one turn)
But...it isn't the same turn...???
Um, yes it is. If I play AtC in an RA in my turn, my next RA is still my TURN. It is not the same PHASE, but it's definitely the same turn.
Sorry, I got confused with ANB for a sec. :P
-
Aren't ignore and repel the same thing and doesnt repel mean "to force out of battle" so would ignore force you out of battle
-
Ignore and Repel are the same thing (repel is in general the "evil" version of ignore). However, neither ability ever kicks anyone out of battle. It only serves to a) keep ignored/repelled characters out of battle and b) makes it so that the ignoring character cannot be affected by the ignored character, and vice versa.
-
Hoping for a solid, official answer on both questions here.
At any rate, it would be an awkward situation to have it not work like that. Everything in battle except for the ignoring EC is set-aside, then what?
I agree it is awkward but according to the current rules I don't think the EC would get set-aside.
-
Hoping for a solid, official answer on both questions here.
Both "the other Prof" and I agree that all characters in battle (including the ignoring EC) would go to the set-aside area. That is official unless other Elders post that they disagree. If that happens, then we'll discuss it and report back what the official answer is. But for now, I would rule this according to what Prof A and I have already posted.
-
Heres another question:
Do the abilities of ECs that activated in the first battle, remain active in the second battle?
Example:
I block with an orange panic demon, and my opponent plays Ambush the City, would their N.T. forts still be negated, and would my evil banding abilities still be semi-CBN?
Same question applies to stuff like FBTN.
-
Beginning a new rescue attempt means a new battle phase begins, if I remember correctly.
-
I remembered distinctly that not being the case for Ambush the City, only Grapes and Stillness.
-
I assume you mean The Long Day rather than Stillness. Do you remember why were they ruled differently?
It seems to me they should all be the same.
-
How could the original battle "resume" if its a completely new battle phase? I always thought AtC works like a side battle card.
So, if Ambush the City is more like The Long Day than a Side Battle, Could you play several copies of it during one turn?
*EDIT*
Also, what happens if My evil character was protected by Jeroboam's Idolatry?
Set aside your human Evil Character to decrease 0/2 per turn. Protect your Evil Characters in battle from the first good Enhancement opponent plays each battle.
ATC says regardless of immunity.... protect and immunity are different abilities aren't they?
-
How could you "START a NEW rescue attempt" if the old one is still active?
It seems to me that you pause the current battle phase, set aside the cards in the current battle, begin a whole new battle phase and complete it (including resolution), then resume the original phase.
However, it is similar to a side battle, so I can certainly see your side of the argument as well.
-
Yeah, side battles fit the entire list you just made as well don't they?
you pause the main battle, push the original battle to the side of the field of battle, begin a new battle, albeit with CTB/CTR powers to set up the characters in battle, fight, theres a battle resolution at the end, and then the original battle resumes.
Also, my other question still stands. If ATC is ruled to start a new battle phase as you say it does, could I play five copies of ATC in a row, since each new battle started by ATC is a rescue attempt?
I almost had a combo that won the game in one turn, but i realized ATC had to be played in a RA. Still, can I play five copies in a row and have five battles going on at the same time?
-
Since I am not an Elder, this is how Younger STAMP sees it:
Ambush the City will be abused if it is categorized with The Long Day and Grapes of Wrath. It should remain in the side battle category but with the extra caveat that it also switches the RA from one to the next. In other words, AtC starts a side battle then changes it to be the main battle, and changes the main battle to be a side battle. Furthermore, the original battle does get put in the set-aside area so they can be targeted by cards such as The Watcher. Finally, as pertains to EC that are either ignoring or protected from the hero's actions, they do not go to the set-aside area but rather return to territory, a la ANB.
So in summary:
1) You can only play one AtC per turn.
2) AtC does not start a new Battle Phase.
3) Cards in original battle are in set-aside area.
4) ECs that ignore or are protected from AtC return to territory.
-
Since I am not an Elder, this is how Younger STAMP sees it:
Ambush the City will be abused if it is categorized with The Long Day and Grapes of Wrath. It should remain in the side battle category but with the extra caveat that it also switches the RA from one to the next. In other words, AtC starts a side battle then changes it to be the main battle, and changes the main battle to be a side battle. Furthermore, the original battle does get put in the set-aside area so they can be targeted by cards such as The Watcher. Finally, as pertains to EC that are either ignoring or protected from the hero's actions, they do not go to the set-aside area but rather return to territory, a la ANB.
So in summary:
1) You can only play one AtC per turn.
2) AtC does not start a new Battle Phase.
3) Cards in original battle are in set-aside area.
4) ECs that ignore or are protected from AtC return to territory.
I Agree with all but 4. What happens when the ATC battle finishes? The original hero would be unblocked.
-
But it is not a side battle card. It is a set aside card and a begin a new rescue attempt card. A side battle card does neither of those things.
You can only use the card if you are making a rescue attempt, so I don't see how this would be abused. You are allowed to play more than one in a turn.
-
Ok, new question then if its not a side battle card.
What happens if I play grapes during an ATC battle? Do I get to make a new battle with grapes and just forget about the original battle, or does the original battle come back?
-
Which AtC battle? The new rescue attempt, or the subsequent battle challenge?
-
I'll be more specific.
I RA, and play Ambush the City.
Then, during the second RA caused by AtC, I play Grapes, and I do not have the most redeemed LS.
What happens?
-
But it is not a side battle card. It is a set aside card and a begin a new rescue attempt card. A side battle card does neither of those things.
You can only use the card if you are making a rescue attempt, so I don't see how this would be abused. You are allowed to play more than one in a turn.
Bryon, I agree with you. I only mentioned the other interpretation because AtC WILL be abused, and most assuredly lead to an errata this way.
Will I build an AtC-abuse deck? Absolutely. The player in me strives to find great combos.
Will I feel bad if T1 players are impacted by another errata created by an abused combo in T2? Absolutely.
So why create the deck in the first place? Because maybe a solution will be found to "fix" abuse in T2 without impacting T1 players.
-
Will I build an AtC-abuse deck? Absolutely. The player in me strives to find great combos.
Oh believe me, I've already started working on combos.
-
+1
-
we should all know by now lambo never asks a question on here unless it has to do with some new elaborate evil combo he's concocting. ;)
-
Naw, often times I'll argue a ruling on here and realize it can be abused. :D
-
Still waiting for my ATC vs Grapes question to be answered, but I have a new question:
According to Bryon, a new RA means a new phase. Wouldn't this cause all sorts of logistics issues with artifacts?
Example:
Say I discarded, but not negated Holy of Holies in the initial battle with an enhancement, and I was blocked by KoT. I play ATC, finish the second battle, and come back. Technically HoH has been gone for two phases now. So, would KoT negate the art negation and cause the infinite negate loop they tried to avoid?
Also:
What happens to the original character abilities from the first battle, do they reactivate, or do they just "resume"?
-
Hey,
The resumption of the original battle as per Ambush the City is a triggered effect. Grapes of Wrath played in the 2nd battle causes the trigger to be tripped, but the triggered effect has to wait until the currently resolving abilities are resolved before it can kick in. The currently resolving abilities are the ones on Grapes, which includes the battle caused by Grapes. So the battle caused by Grapes happens and after that battle the original battle concludes.
"A new Rescue Attempt means a new phase" in the case of Grapes of Wrath and The Long Day creates consecutive battle phases, in the case of Ambush the City it creates concurrent (or nested or overlapping) battle phases. I don't like the idea of two phases happening at the same time, thus I have always been against this rule but it is the status quo.
This means any ongoing effect from the original battle applies to the new battle (because the original battle phase hasn't ended yet), but ongoing effects in the new battle will not generally affect the original battle (because they end when the new battle phase ends which is just before the original battle resumes). So if Ambush the City is played on Moses, both the original battle and the new battle are by-the-numbers, but if Ambush the City is played on someone else and Moses starts the new battle, the new battle is by-the-numbers but the original battle is not.
Ambush the City does (according to the status quo) move the cards from the original battle to the set-aside area. If a card cannot be set aside it would remain in the Field of Battle and wait for the other cards to return. Of course this creates an issue with the "no character can enter battle twice in one turn" rule. When the characters from the original battle are set aside they leave the Field of battle, to resume the battle they would have to enter the battle a second time...which they are not allowed to do.
I have been trying to get Ambush the City, The Long Day, and Grapes of Wrath categorized as Side Battle cards in the new REG, which I believe would eliminate a lot of the sticky situations that these cards create, but I haven't had much luck winning the other PTB over to my side...yet :)
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
"A new Rescue Attempt means a new phase" in the case of Grapes of Wrath and The Long Day creates consecutive battle phases, in the case of Ambush the City it creates concurrent (or nested or overlapping) battle phases. I don't like the idea of two phases happening at the same time, thus I have always been against this rule but it is the status quo.
This means any ongoing effect from the original battle applies to the new battle (because the original battle phase hasn't ended yet), but ongoing effects in the new battle will not generally affect the original battle (because they end when the new battle phase ends which is just before the original battle resumes). So if Ambush the City is played on Moses, both the original battle and the new battle are by-the-numbers, but if Ambush the City is played on someone else and Moses starts the new battle, the new battle is by-the-numbers but the original battle is not.
That's going to be awfully confusing for new players.... :o
It seems strange to me that two phases happen at once. Something tells me theres probably some artifacts this would cause some problems with. I need to go take a look...
Ambush the City does (according to the status quo) move the cards from the original battle to the set-aside area. If a card cannot be set aside it would remain in the Field of Battle and wait for the other cards to return. Of course this creates an issue with the "no character can enter battle twice in one turn" rule. When the characters from the original battle are set aside they leave the Field of battle, to resume the battle they would have to enter the battle a second time...which they are not allowed to do.
So, lets make an example to see if I understand how this works:
I have an EC who is protected from Ambush the City (with say, Jeroboam's Idolatry)... My opponent plays Ambush the City. My EC is unable to be targeted to be sent to the set aside area, and remains in battle. During the second battle phase.... is he still part of the battle, and does his SA activate again since its a new phase?
-
Hey,
I have an EC who is protected from Ambush the City (with say, Jeroboam's Idolatry)... My opponent plays Ambush the City. My EC is unable to be targeted to be sent to the set aside area, and remains in battle. During the second battle phase.... is he still part of the battle, and does his SA activate again since its a new phase?
His ability does not activate again, abilities activate when the card enters battle, he was already in battle so his ability reactivated.
Just like a side battle causes two separate battles within one field of battle, Ambush the City creates two battles within one field of battle (typically one of those battles is empty because all of the cards were set aside). The new battle is a different battle from the original battle, so even if a character is protected from being set aside out of the first battle, he would not participate in the second battle.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
However, I thought Ambush the City was not a side battle card...
Also, would cards such as Hidden Treasures activate in both the original battle and the ATC battle, since its two separate phases?
-
Hey,
However, I thought Ambush the City was not a side battle card...
It's an aspect of the Field of Battle not the special ability. And the same Field of Battle is used for both types of cards.
Also, would cards such as Hidden Treasures activate in both the original battle and the ATC battle, since its two separate phases?
Hidden Treasures says "Once per turn..." thus you could not use it in both phases, but something like Philistine Outpost can be used more than once when Ambush the City (or more commonly Grapes of Wrath) is used.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hidden Treasures says "Once per turn..."
Whoops.... ;D
*edit*
Another question regarding the dual phases. Say I have Household Idols active, and I discard the artifact without negating it. I know it would stay active during that first battle. However, if I was to play ATC after discarding HHI, would it still be active, or would the "new phase" effectively cancel its effect?
If yes, I would be able to put banding heroes into battle correct? Now comes the real kicker... if its effect has ended in the second phase, what happens back in the original battle? are banding heroes no longer ignored, or does its ability somehow stay active for that battle?
-
Hey,
Another question regarding the dual phases. Say I have Household Idols active, and I discard the artifact without negating it. I know it would stay active during that first battle. However, if I was to play ATC after discarding HHI, would it still be active, or would the "new phase" effectively cancel its effect?
If an artifact is discarded but not negated it remains active until the end of the current phase. So if it's discarded during the first battle it remains active until the end of the first battle. The entire second battle happens before the end of the first battle so the artifact remains active for the entire second battle.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly