Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Master Q on February 13, 2020, 11:42:54 AM
Title: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: Master Q on February 13, 2020, 11:42:54 AM
New Bethlehem: "If opponent plays a multi-brigade evil card, you may draw 1 (or reserve your Hero to negate that card this turn)."
Provided you have a Hero in play to reserve, this can negate things like Wages/Confusion/Invoking/etc, right?
Bethlehem
For reference, the evil cards in Q all remove themselves from play:
Wages
Confusion
Invoking
Title: Re: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: Gabe on February 13, 2020, 12:13:39 PM
Targets must be in play at the time the negate attempts to target them. With the examples you provide they could all be out of play making this ineligible targets for Bethlehem's negate.
Title: Re: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: Bobbert on February 13, 2020, 01:28:09 PM
I'm not sure I follow that. Not being able to play a negate like Woes against those cards makes sense, but given that "negate last" still works on cards that remove themselves from play, why wouldn't a triggered ability that specifically targets that card? To my mind the fact that it's specifically "that card" would allow it to still be a valid target.
Title: Re: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: RedemptionAggie on February 13, 2020, 01:47:11 PM
I think the logic is "this card" doesn't override the default targeting of in play (Overcome! and the like), so "that card" doesn't either. "Negate last" is kind of a one-off for targeting out of play.
Title: Re: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: Sean on February 13, 2020, 02:14:15 PM
I think the logic is "this card" doesn't override the default targeting of in play (Overcome! and the like), so "that card" doesn't either. "Negate last" is kind of a one-off for targeting out of play.
Is it an option to eliminate the one off in favor of consistency? Just thinking out loud, I've no idea what positive or negative effects this would have.
Title: Re: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: Master Q on February 13, 2020, 03:40:48 PM
It just seems more intuitive to me that you would have some kind of window to insert Bethlehem's negate, since it is a triggered ability, and since it does (to me) implicitly imply that it is targeting the evil card in Q regardless of where it ends up. But it does make sense regarding the defaulting to play why you would not be able to do that.
I'm pretty sure I was thinking of how Dust and Ashes works regarding Job, in that since it references him by name it doesn't matter if he's in play or not to carry out that optional trigger (to me, in Bethlehem's case 'that card' is shorthand for 'specific name of the card that triggered this ability'). But, D&A is also an instead ability, so that's likely got something to do with it too.
Title: Re: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: TheJaylor on April 09, 2020, 02:13:31 PM
Sorry, I missed this when it was brought up initially, but does this mean that Bethlehem would not be able to negate any Territory Class EE played outside of battle that doesn't place itself somewhere in play? The REG states that TC enhancements played outside of battle "are discarded when their abilities are complete". And then under Effects, "the completion of an effect includes carrying out the effect on the targets, if that has not already been done". Plus, it looks like Negate can only target abilities that are active or complete and only ongoing abilities can be active without completing right away.
It does look like Instead has the clarification that a triggered Instead ability can insert itself before the completion on another effect, but I don't think Negate has the same clarification.
Title: Re: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: RedemptionAggie on April 09, 2020, 02:46:03 PM
Bethlehem can't negate TC EEs that are no longer in play. Negate doesn't have the same clarification as instead, because it undoes (or stops, in the case of ongoing abilities) abilities, instead of replacing them like an instead.
Title: Re: Bethlehem vs Wages
Post by: TheJaylor on April 09, 2020, 07:55:22 PM
Darn. Guess I should've worded it differently, but it's fine. Mourn and Weep got banned anyway and it's still pretty good.