Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Proverbs 22:10 ('anti-ignore')
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: While you have only one evil brigade in play, negate all ignore abilities on O.T. good cards. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Proverbs 22:10


Let's say my opponent is using some other evil brigade other than yellow...(er, fine...evil gold...), maybe black for this example.  My opponent has the anti-ignore lost soul in their LoB.

May I use my provisioned Miriam to choose my evil gold EC to block?  Does my Miriam now ignore the blocking EC?

May I use my provisioned Miriam to choose my evil gold EC to block? 

Yes. Miriam's ability is negated at the time the blocker was chosen

Does my Miriam now ignore the blocking EC?

This I'm not sure on. I know that your = ownership + control, but I'm not sure if "you" works the same way. As in, are "the cards you have" = "your cards"? If so, Miriam would not ignore the EC.
If not, it really depends on what "the cards you have" does equal.

I'm a bit lost, but the lost soul says "in play", not "in territory".  Also, gained abilities CBN, so Provisions > anti-ignore ls.

You are lost. The anti-ignore LS isn't trying to negate Provisions, it's trying to negate Miriam. Also, the "in play" is why it's a question. Assuming the opponent has only one brigade in play before Miriam attacked, does adding an evil gold card add to your opponent's brigade count? If so, then Miriam would be ignoring the gold EC.

I think You=Your in this one, so no.

There must be some emendment, some codicil, some loophole, that we can find. I soooooooooooo want this to work.

new REG

GRRRRRR....   

at least 1 green hero to play the provisions on Miriam.  Both of these downsides make this combo potentially self-damaging that I don't think it will become a huge problem.

I bet Miriam would be up for the task of being the green hero...just sayin' 

However, this combo relies on either you being able to put the anti-ignore soul in their territory, or their deck having it to begin with.

That is another good point.  And thanks to both of you guys for pointing out the flaw in my thinking.  Corrected above