Author Topic: CBP vs CBN? (Read 5649 times)

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #25 on:** April 24, 2011, 02:34:57 PM »

I would rule that you could play Korah's Rebellion to help win the game.

browarod · « **Reply #26 on:** April 24, 2011, 03:17:58 PM »

Does that even work, though? Does the speed bump Lost Soul's protection fall off between when you put SoG/NJ on the table and when they activate and try to rescue? I didn't think anything could interrupt the ability of a dominant.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #27 on:** April 24, 2011, 03:22:41 PM »

According to the rulebook (on the REG) you can play a card with an interrupt or negate ability, it says nothing about whether or not its being negated or not, also it doesn't even say it has to interrupt the ability that is removing you.

everytribe · « **Reply #28 on:** April 24, 2011, 03:28:54 PM »

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

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #29 on:** April 24, 2011, 03:40:11 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 24, 2011, 02:34:57 PM

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 could see these going either way, I for one say that the elders should rule this in favor of the most intuitive outcome. That is Thomas being able to play a negate. I don't like seeing things not working based on technicalities.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #30 on:** April 24, 2011, 03:47:50 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on April 24, 2011, 03:40:11 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 24, 2011, 02:34:57 PM
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.

Redemption® Rulebook > Situation Descriptions > Losing the Battle > Losing by Removal because of a Special Ability
A Hero is losing by removal if the Hero is being captured, discarded, returned to territory, or otherwise removed from battle by an opposing special ability. You have initiative, but you may only play an enhancement that has an “interrupt” or “negate” special ability.

My ruling would be based on the Rulebook, since Korah's Rebellion is "an enhancement that has an “interrupt” or “negate” special ability."

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #31 on:** April 24, 2011, 04:04:16 PM »

I understood what your reasoning was, but I think you have to look at the intention of the rule.

STAMP · « **Reply #32 on:** April 24, 2011, 05:44:13 PM »

Quote from: everytribe on April 24, 2011, 03:28:54 PM

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

I'll give Gabe the benefit of the doubt. Once "cannot be prevented" no longer meant "cannot be prevented", you can start to question whether "cannot be negated" really means "cannot be negated". You can even start to question whether bratwurst from MN or IA is better

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #33 on:** April 24, 2011, 09:24:26 PM »

Based on what the rulebook says, I would say you can play an interrupt.

Quote from: everytribe on April 24, 2011, 03:28:54 PM

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

That's true, but his question wasn't newbie. The question was really if you could even play an enhancement at that point.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #34 on:** April 25, 2011, 12:18:00 AM »

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.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #35 on:** April 25, 2011, 01:52:21 AM »

I agree with Pol there.

I've always understood the rule to be - If you're being removed from battle, the next card you play, must make it so that you're not being removed from battle anymore. In other words, you must negate/interrupt the card removing you.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #36 on:** April 25, 2011, 08:02:59 AM »

I'm with YMT that the cards are, by nature, interrupts and negates purely because they have the words "Interrupt" or "Negate" in the title.

Gabe · « **Reply #37 on:** April 25, 2011, 08:36:59 AM »

Pol and RDT are correct. Under special initiative your interrupt/negate must target the card removing you.

crustpope · « **Reply #38 on:** April 25, 2011, 08:49:03 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 25, 2011, 08:36:59 AM

Pol and RDT are correct. Under special initiative your interrupt/negate must target the card removing you.

at the ohio nationals, I had this ruled against me. I was defeating them via special ability and htey interrupted to d/c my protect fort. I said they could not do that but a judge ruled against me. I think it was BRyon who said that as long as it was an iterrupt they could play it, and then keep playing interrupts until they ran out. It eventually won them the game because they were able to wreck my defense by d/cing a protect fort.

It was frustrating.

Gabe · « **Reply #39 on:** April 25, 2011, 09:27:22 AM »

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.

crustpope · « **Reply #40 on:** April 25, 2011, 09:33:44 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 25, 2011, 09:27:22 AM

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.

That is what was happening, but how is that different from what pol is describing?

Professoralstad · « **Reply #41 on:** April 25, 2011, 09:46:45 AM »

What Pol was describing is using a card that says: "Negate and discard an evil card in play" (MLaMG) to negate something other than what is removing me. For example, Thomas is blocked and gets captured, and you try to play MLaMG on your opponent's Raider's Camp instead of the capture card. That is illegal, because in order to use your special initiative, you need to interrupt/negate the capture. However, you can always play a card that says interrupt the battle when granted special initiative, even if you then perform an action that does nothing against the removal of your Hero. For example, if Judas used Coliseum Lions against your Priest, you can still interrupt the battle with Zeal and discard two other EC's, even though you can't use Zeal to stop the discard.

crustpope · « **Reply #42 on:** April 25, 2011, 09:57:28 AM »

oh I see the difference, thanks

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #43 on:** April 25, 2011, 10:13:51 AM »

I'm not sure the original question has been answered yet. "A card that would interrupt the removal" How do we define potential interruption? Is it dependent on the hero? (Reach would interrupt the removal if played on Thomas, but not on Matthew). Or is it dependent on the situation? (Reach would interrupt the removal (no matter who it's played on), but Bringing Fear is negating it). Or is it how YMT described and it's just an interrupt card that targets the removal?

Noah · « **Reply #44 on:** April 25, 2011, 10:44:06 AM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on April 24, 2011, 02:00:16 PM

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.

I just thought I would point out that Ehud can't choose Gomer to block.

Ehud (RA)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 7 / 4 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: Interrupt Wall of Protection and choose a male Evil Character from opponent's territory to block. Ehud has first strike. • Play As: Interrupt Wall of Protection and choose a male Evil Character from opponent's territory to block [choose opponent]. Ehud has first strike. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Judge, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Judges 3:15 • Availability: Rock of Ages booster packs (None)

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #45 on:** April 25, 2011, 12:43:14 PM »

I love how we're all too interested in the questions at hand to make sure our examples even work.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #46 on:** April 25, 2011, 12:53:31 PM »

Okay, so he doesn't CTB, and I decide to block Gomer + Nebuchadnezzar.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #47 on:** April 25, 2011, 02:43:06 PM »

What, looks like a man to me.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #48 on:** April 25, 2011, 05:16:49 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on April 25, 2011, 12:18:00 AM

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.

It would help if this were written somewhere that it would be remembered.

News:

Author Topic: CBP vs CBN? (Read 5649 times)

browarod

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

Warrior_Monk

Lamborghini_diablo

Warrior_Monk

Lamborghini_diablo

Warrior_Monk

TheHobbit13