Baalam negates achan's sin so it would matter
I see no reason why he couldn't. What's the big deal?Because it only gains CBN status when played on Thomas. It cannot be played on Thomas because he's being removed from the battle, and the interrupt cannot work because it's being prevented. You can't play something that's not an interrupt in this situation.
+1I see no reason why he couldn't. What's the big deal?Because it only gains CBN status when played on Thomas. It cannot be played on Thomas because he's being removed from the battle, and the interrupt cannot work because it's being prevented. You can't play something that's not an interrupt in this situation.
I was about to say it should be the other way, but now that I type it out, I'm siding with it needing to be CBN/CBP before being played.
I still don't see the issue. You are losing by removal, so you can play an interrupt card by game rule. Thomas is still in battle when the interrupt is played. If not, then every "remove from game" SA would be CBN. There is nothing that is preventing the playing of a card, only preventing the SA on said card. However, once the card is used by Thomas, the SA is CBN.By preventing the SA of the card, it is not an interrupt, and it's not CBN until it's played by Thomas. Imagine it isn't Thomas. Can you play the interrupt? No. So why would you be able to play it on Thomas? It's not CBN until it's played by Thomas, so you shouldn't be able to because it's not an interrupt, since the interrupt is prevented.
Imagine it isn't Thomas. Can you play the interrupt?
By preventing the SA of the card, it is not an interrupt, and it's not CBN until it's played by Thomas. Imagine it isn't Thomas. Can you play the interrupt? No. So why would you be able to play it on Thomas? It's not CBN until it's played by Thomas, so you shouldn't be able to because it's not an interrupt, since the interrupt is prevented.
I would say no, you would not, because it's not CBP/CBN until it's played, and it cannot be played because it doesn't interrupt. That's not the way it's looking like it'll be ruled though (and I'm not too surprised either).By preventing the SA of the card, it is not an interrupt, and it's not CBN until it's played by Thomas. Imagine it isn't Thomas. Can you play the interrupt? No. So why would you be able to play it on Thomas? It's not CBN until it's played by Thomas, so you shouldn't be able to because it's not an interrupt, since the interrupt is prevented.If it were Ehud You would be able to play Ehuds dagger(gold version) and interrupt and discard JIP right? so you should be able to play any interrupt/negate card on Thomas.
The more I think about it and look at everyone's answers, I have a feeling the answer is, yes you can play an interrupt. People never do when it's being prevented/negated because it wouldn't help the situation.Working on a situation where it would help...
I would say no, you would not, because it's not CBP/CBN until it's played, and it cannot be played because it doesn't interrupt. That's not the way it's looking like it'll be ruled though (and I'm not too surprised either).
Game rule says that only an interrupt card can be played. There is nothing preventing the playing of an interrupt card. I play an interrupt card. Whether that interrupt card actually does anything is dependent upon the interaction of all cards in play. In this case, the card's SA is not read until after it hits the table, at which point it is being used by Thomas.
I would rule that you could play Korah's Rebellion to help win the game.It is assumed that a negate sa actually has to negate to be considered for the purposes of playing the enhancement in a removal situation. This doesn't neccessarily mean that Thomas could not play reach. You could argue that, since this negate would be cbn if played than it cbp and therefore would break through the phillies negate.
I would rule that you could play Korah's Rebellion to help win the game.It is assumed that a negate sa actually has to negate to be considered for the purposes of playing the enhancement in a removal situation.
Gabe, I am suprised that you posted such a newbe question. I always knew that you advanced in redemption quite quickly, maybe you have crossed over into the old timers catagory and joined Countfount and MJB362436.
An enhancement played on Thomas can not be negated
cannot be negated can not be negated
cannot be negated can not be negated
cannot be negated can not be negated
cannot be negated cannot be prevented can not be interuppted
cannot be negated cannot be prevented can not be interuppted
cannot be negated cannot be prevented can not be interuppted
Cannot be negated cannot be negated
Gabe, I am suprised that you posted such a newbe question. I always knew that you advanced in redemption quite quickly, maybe you have crossed over into the old timers catagory and joined Countfount and MJB362436.That's true, but his question wasn't newbie. The question was really if you could even play an enhancement at that point.
An enhancement played on Thomas can not be negated
cannot be negated can not be negated
cannot be negated can not be negated
cannot be negated can not be negated
cannot be negated cannot be prevented can not be interuppted
cannot be negated cannot be prevented can not be interuppted
cannot be negated cannot be prevented can not be interuppted
Cannot be negated cannot be negated
Pol and RDT are correct. Under special initiative your interrupt/negate must target the card removing you.
I'm not sure if this is what happened at OH Nats, but if you use an "interrupt the battle + play next" card you can target whatever you want with the play next. The interrupt the battle card puts the removal on hold, satisfying the requirement of special initiative. Then, when you get to play next you're not required to target the card that's removing you.
Okay, here's the situation:
Sauce versus Wraith. T2.
Sauce has three lost souls in a Babylonian Banquet Hall, one being the speed bump. I have the */4 out.
Sauce rescues with Ehud, who has been set aside with Training in Righteousness and can play Red as well. He chooses Gomer (TexP), and I band to Nebuchadnezzar and search and play Dream followed by another Dream. I draw Son of God and New Jerusalem, and could win the game, but I have 13 cards in my hand and Speed Bump is out. I don't play another enhancement (thinking that I can make him waste one by playing Korah's Rebellion later), and Sauce plays The Battle is the Lord's and negates brown, (knowing that I have a Korah's Rebellion in my hand). He then plays Capturing Canaan to capture both of my characters.
With what you guys are saying, I can play Korah's Rebellion anyway, getting my hand down to 12 cards, then being able to play Son of God and New Jerusalem FTW. Otherwise, Sauce could play Threatened Lives (off of High Places), putting BBH to the bottom, preventing me from winning on my turn. He then draws FBTN soul and plays his Son of God New Jerusalem (responding to his own action) and wins the game. This could be important.
Hasn't that rulebook quote been amended to "a card that would interrupt the removal" or some such like 30 times? It seems like every few months it gets clarified and then people forget again and try to play MLaMG to Discard an Evil Fort in response to an Evil Battle-winner.