Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: jbeers285 on October 21, 2012, 01:36:08 AM
-
how exactly does this ability work . . .
lets say for instance i go to block moses 8/8 FBTN with say a Taskmaster 6/6 and have the cbp LS and with Initiative i play lies SA "holder may choose the hero opponent rescues with" i can then push his moses out of battle and choose my hero who is a 2/2 and the battle remains FBTN?
-
Yes. Since Moses is not negated he'll still work, but CtR kicks all Heroes out of battle. Then you choose a Hero that was not originally in battle this phase. All abilities on Characters that were kicked still work, as well as all SA's on new Characters that enter battle.
But how can you band Armorbearer to Moses w/o Moses getting kicked out of battle? (Armorbearer isn't CBN, so once Moses bands in, he negates Armorbearer which kicks him back out of battle (again, he's not negated, but he leaves the battle)?
-
But how can you band Armorbearer to Moses w/o Moses getting kicked out of battle? (Armorbearer isn't CBN, so once Moses bands in, he negates Armorbearer which kicks him back out of battle (again, he's not negated, but he leaves the battle)?
what does this have to do with anything? lol
on a second note since i would be causing a losing condition for my opponent would he get Special Initiative to play something on moses or would he have to play on the hero i am giving him to use?
-
I thought you mentioned Armorbearer+Moses...
You could play an Interrupt/Negate on Moses via SI... But I still question if losing by Game rule counts as a way to trigger SI. As far as I can tell, it's never been resolved.
-
I thought you mentioned Armorbearer+Moses...
You could play an Interrupt/Negate on Moses via SI... But I still question if losing by Game rule counts as a way to trigger SI. As far as I can tell, it's never been resolved.
nope i didnt
hmm i would think that needs resolution . . honestly it could make CtR a realistic play if it does give SI to the opponent
-
It has been ruled on. An SA is causing you to lose the battle via removal (of Moses), so you get SI. Now, what exactly Moses plans to play to Negate Lies is beyond me.
-
Well rue on Moses but any other hero makes its tough if they are FBTN
-
It has been ruled on. An SA is causing you to lose the battle via removal (of Moses), so you get SI. Now, what exactly Moses plans to play to Negate Lies is beyond me.
Ehud's Dagger
-
It has been ruled on. An SA is causing you to lose the battle via removal (of Moses), so you get SI. Now, what exactly Moses plans to play to Negate Lies is beyond me.
Ehud's Dagger
Moses' Rod+Plague of Hail?
-
Sing with Stringed Instruments off of Musicians Chambers... Oh, wait, that doesn't happen... :P
-
It has been ruled on. An SA is causing you to lose the battle via removal (of Moses), so you get SI. Now, what exactly Moses plans to play to Negate Lies is beyond me.
Oh so they finalized that its not by the numbers? (I thought that part was stupid... How it makes sense is beyond me...)
-
It would still be FBTN they are saying Moses would get SI before conclusion of the SA on lies
-
It has been ruled on. An SA is causing you to lose the battle via removal (of Moses), so you get SI. Now, what exactly Moses plans to play to Negate Lies is beyond me.
Oh so they finalized that its not by the numbers? (I thought that part was stupid... How it makes sense is beyond me...)
Are you talking about losing by the numbers or fight by the numbers? It's true in both cases per the most recent rulings. If a SA causes you to be losing by the numbers (like the removal of Moses and replacing him with a smaller hero, in this case), it causes SI. If Moses was not negated, the battle is still FBTN.
-
If a SA causes you to be losing by the numbers (like the removal of Moses and replacing him with a smaller hero, in this case), it causes SI.
That's not what Polarius seemed to suggest, so now I'm confused again. Does Moses only get SI if the Hero you replace him with would be losing by the numbers, or does he get SI regardless of who the other Hero is?
-
The second one. SI is losing by removal. nothing more nothing less.
-
Yes, if the removing doesn't cause you to be dying, you don't get SI.
Consider: Attacking with Samuel and David. Block Lot's Wife and play Net on Samuel. You gain Special Initiative and can interrupt with Gold because the use of an SA caused you to be dying. However, with Samuel banded to King Saul in the same situation, you would not gain SI because you would not be dying following Net.
-
Pol explained it rather well there ;) If a SA causes a losing condition by the numbers as in those cases of removal, it has been ruled to cause Special Initiative.
However, the current version of the REG has no reference (at all) to special initiative. It doesn't even have the old wording of special initiative from the old REG (though of course that term was never used there).
What really needs to happen is for Special Initiative to be a defined term and added to the REG whenever is possible :) Then we can have an agreed-upon rule and not have this argument every couple of months, and I do know that at least one Elder had voiced a dissenting view of the current rule, so it would give the Elders the chance to make sure it is ruled correctly.
-
Why should it be it's own term? It doesn't exist. It's just losing by removal. which means it occurs when you are removed and dying. Nothing more nothing less and quite simple.
-
Why should it be it's own term? It doesn't exist. It's just losing by removal. which means it occurs when you are removed and dying. Nothing more nothing less and quite simple.
That's not true, and it hasn't been ruled that way. It has morphed into its own definition, like in the example above where it isn't simply your last character being removed from battle. It is not so simple, and you can see that by the following threads where it has more of a definition than you think and there is disagreement:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/regular-initiative-v-s-special-initiative/
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/special-initiative-30923/
Also, if you only had the REG, you could never interrupt or negate an ability causing removal. It literally does not exist in the current REG, which needs to be fixed at the very least.
-
Those rules are easily understood. Aka simple, not complex etc.
Not knowing the rules is different. Stop confusing ignorance and complexity.
-
Those rules are easily understood. Aka simple, not complex etc.
Not knowing the rules is different. Stop confusing ignorance and complexity.
Take a look at the arguments between everyone, and then read this:
First, there is no such thing as "losing by a special ability." There is only:
1. Regular Initiative (based on numbers according to the initiative table), and
2. Losing by removal (which has lately been called 'special initiative,' though that term does not appear in the rule book)
The part that is fuzzy is when 1 banded character is removed from battle but there is still another character remaining on that side of the battle. In the past, the rules have allowed an interrupt to be played on either of those characters (the remaining one or the one being removed), though I am not certain that needs to remain legal. It seems to me that as long as one character remains on your side of the battle, you can only ever have regular initiative.
It seems to me that you should only really be "losing by removal" if your last character in battle is being removed from battle.
Just to clear things up, this isn't an officially changing right now, is it?
No. I'm just voicing my support for a change.
Byron is not ignorant here, his post is an excellent example of why this needs to have a clear, concise rule and have it be in the REG, as there are differing views and even the Elders disagree. Even in this thread there is more confusion, despite previous rulings, as the wording is not clear (does removal mean any character or the last, as Byron advocates?). There's no reason to call people ignorant for disagreeing ;)
Again, this isn't in the new REG in any version, and so it needs to be added. Now is the perfect time to make sure that the Elders agree how it should be ruled.
-
The way bryon said is the way it ought to be ruled to be honest.
-
The way bryon said is the way it ought to be ruled to be honest.
I'm glad we agree that the question needs to be looked at and ruled definitively then ;)
-
Thanks for bringing up those good points. Apparently there has never been a definition for Special Initiative in the REG. I just added one but it'll need the approval of my pears before I post it here. The explanation exists on page 21 of the rulebook.
I'm fairly certain that going forward special initiative will only be given when you're last character in battle is being removed by a special ability. That is a change from the way it has been played. We discussed this prior to Nationals as an update to the new rulebook. Our intention was to announce this change after Nationals but it got overlooked until now.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
-
I'm fairly certain that going forward special initiative will only be given when you're last character in battle is being removed by a special ability. That is a change from the way it has been played. We discussed this prior to Nationals as an update to the new rulebook. Our intention was to announce this change after Nationals but it got overlooked until now.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
I know this isn't functionally any different (and you may not be using the full proposed definition), but it is at least as clear, if not more so, I think it should be: When your all the characters on your side of the battle are being removed by a special ability (or game rule caused by a special ability in the cases like decreasing characters to 0 toughness or less) controlled by your opponent.
If there is one thing I've learned from playing games is that its better to be clear and long than short and ambiguous.
The main difference I see is that "last" implies only one, whereas "all" could mean one or more simultaneously, secondly you have to include game rules triggered by special abilities otherwise decreasing to 0 toughness won't grant special initiative (since the game rule is removing the character not the special ability, and even though it may look the same on the surface, I'd rather close loopholes before they become problems and/or cause long and tedious arguments)
-
I just added one but it'll need the approval of my pears before I post it here.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tibilis.com%2Fsite%2Fuploads%2Fproducts%2F2ca8845e9959e5ef3052129eb5340982ef238544.jpg&hash=812183eb70fa333989ccffdfca9c59e8649a8c6c)
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F000%2F045%2Fn725075089_288918_2774.jpg&hash=a7c1c5fd3f435964cc9093d4362becf89619b19d)
I don't want this pear voting.
-
Thanks for bringing up those good points. Apparently there has never been a definition for Special Initiative in the REG. I just added one but it'll need the approval of my pears before I post it here. The explanation exists on page 21 of the rulebook.
I'm fairly certain that going forward special initiative will only be given when you're last character in battle is being removed by a special ability. That is a change from the way it has been played. We discussed this prior to Nationals as an update to the new rulebook. Our intention was to announce this change after Nationals but it got overlooked until now.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
I think that this definition would be easier to rule and learn, and may be more consistent. I would offer the following ideas to consider, however:
- Echoing what ChristianSoldier mentioned about the need to make sure that it is not just the SA causing removal that would grant SI, but also a game rule that came into play because of the SA.
- We need to have a definition either here or in Choose The Rescuer/Blocker to specify whether it applies. Unless someone in battle is protected from return, then a CTR/B ability is technically an SA that removes all characters from battle, even though it adds more. Would it result in SI before the completion? It would just need to be clear.
- Also echoing ChristianSoldier that the wording must be clear that if multiple characters are in battle and all are removed, SI would be granted and any brigade in battle could be used (unless that is getting ruled differently, but I'm not getting that perception from your post).
Thanks for considering our input, and I'm glad to get this ruled definitively no matter what :)
-
I would like all of what Redoubter said too, and also a clear note of if a special ability activates that removes a character from battle, thus causing the other player to lose the battle by the numbers (what Redoubter and I were disagreeing about when this came up before) if that situation causes SI.
-
This is what I'm suggesting we use as the finished definition based on your input. Please let us know if you see any flaws.
When you are losing the battle by removal you are granted special initiative to play an Enhancement that will interrupt or negate the card that is causing your characters removal. You are considered to be losing by removal when all characters on your side of the battle are being removed by an opponent's special ability or a game ruled that has been triggered by an opponent's special ability.
I know this isn't functionally any different (and you may not be using the full proposed definition), but it is at least as clear, if not more so, I think it should be: When your all the characters on your side of the battle are being removed by a special ability (or game rule caused by a special ability in the cases like decreasing characters to 0 toughness or less) controlled by your opponent.
The main difference I see is that "last" implies only one, whereas "all" could mean one or more simultaneously, secondly you have to include game rules triggered by special abilities otherwise decreasing to 0 toughness won't grant special initiative (since the game rule is removing the character not the special ability, and even though it may look the same on the surface, I'd rather close loopholes before they become problems and/or cause long and tedious arguments)
This is good input. Thank you. I see these as the same thing (if all three of your characters are being remove then your "last" character is being removed) but if "all" is more clear we'll certainly go with that. The idea of the REG is to use language that is clear and makes sense. :)
We need to have a definition either here or in Choose The Rescuer/Blocker to specify whether it applies. Unless someone in battle is protected from return, then a CTR/B ability is technically an SA that removes all characters from battle, even though it adds more. Would it result in SI before the completion? It would just need to be clear.
I believe that should be clarified under the rule entry for Choose Opponent. Feel free to make a suggestion based on the current entry in the PDF REG. Since we can now more easily and readily modify the REG we strongly value the input of Redemption fans, especially REPs.
I would like all of what Redoubter said too, and also a clear note of if a special ability activates that removes a character from battle, thus causing the other player to lose the battle by the numbers (what Redoubter and I were disagreeing about when this came up before) if that situation causes SI.
Losing by the numbers after removal will no longer cause special initiative. That is an intentional change.
-
....character's removal.......game ruled....
Just a couple grammatical fixes. :P
-
We need to have a definition either here or in Choose The Rescuer/Blocker to specify whether it applies. Unless someone in battle is protected from return, then a CTR/B ability is technically an SA that removes all characters from battle, even though it adds more. Would it result in SI before the completion? It would just need to be clear.
I believe that should be clarified under the rule entry for Choose Opponent. Feel free to make a suggestion based on the current entry in the PDF REG. Since we can now more easily and readily modify the REG we strongly value the input of Redemption fans, especially REPs.
I would personally feel that Choose Opponent (if all characters are returned) should cause Special Initiative, but I could see that going either way. I'll propose wording changes below for each option (though again I support the first one ;)).
I'll add wording that needs to go in there about a CTB ability being CBI if done before battle starts, but 2 questions:
1. If a returned character is generic, can that character be the chosen opponent?
2. If no legal targets exist to be added to the battle, is the CTO ability a battle-winner?
Assuming Yes to each question (not sure, can someone confirm or disprove?), and would further assume that regardless of the ruling on whether the whole ability causes Special Initiative, a case where no character could be added would result in SI regardless by the new definition.
General Description
A choose opponent ability allows you to select the character your opponent uses in battle against you.
How to Play
A choose opponent ability used before a blocker is presented forces your opponent to block with the chosen character, instead of allowing them to choose their blocker. If a choose opponent ability is used during the battle phase and before a blocker is presented by your opponent, it Cannot Be Interrupted.
A choose opponent ability used after a blocker is presented returns all characters your opponent controls to their owners’ territories and brings the selected character into battle. If any character in battle cannot be returned by the choose opponent ability, then no character can be added via that ability. A generic character capable of entering battle more than once in a turn that is being returned may be targeted as the chosen opponent (unique characters being returned may not be, as they may enter battle only once per turn). If all characters your opponent controls would be returned, then the choose opponent ability causes Special Initiative, resolved before they are removed from the battle. Target the character to be added via that ability before Special Initiative is resolved; if no legal target exists, the characters in battle are still removed after Special Initiative is resolved.
A choose opponent ability is instantaneous. A choose opponent ability targets both the character(s) to be removed from battle and the character to be added to battle (and the blocking player if no blocker has yet been presented, restricting them from presenting a blocker as normal).
General Description
A choose opponent ability allows you to select the character your opponent uses in battle against you.
How to Play
A choose opponent ability used before a blocker is presented forces your opponent to block with the chosen character, instead of allowing them to choose their blocker. If a choose opponent ability is used during the battle phase and before a blocker is presented by your opponent, it Cannot Be Interrupted.
A choose opponent ability used after a blocker is presented returns all characters your opponent controls to their owners’ territories and brings the selected character into battle. If any character in battle cannot be returned by the choose opponent ability, then no character can be added via that ability. A generic character capable of entering battle more than once in a turn that is being returned may be targeted as the chosen opponent (unique characters being returned may not be, as they may enter battle only once per turn). If no character can be added to battle via that ability and all characters in battle would be removed, then the choose opponent ability causes Special Initiative, resolved before the characters are removed from the battle.
A choose opponent ability is instantaneous. A choose opponent ability targets both the character(s) to be removed from battle and the character to be added to battle (and the blocking player if no blocker has yet been presented, restricting them from presenting a blocker as normal).
-
As far as I know, the same copy of a generic character has to go through a location that resets it before it can enter battle again, though you could pick a different copy of the same generic character.
-
As far as I know, the same copy of a generic character has to go through a location that resets it before it can enter battle again, though you could pick a different copy of the same generic character.
That's no longer true. Generic characters do not need to be reset (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-new-rulings-announcement-thread/msg480327/#msg480327).
-
"General Description:
A choose opponent ability allows you to select the character your opponent uses in battle against you.
How to Play:
A choose opponent ability used before a blocker is presented forces the defender to block with the chosen character and can never be interrupted.
A choose opponent ability used after a blocker is presented returns all characters your opponent controls to their owners’ territories and adds the selected character to battle. If any character is protected from that return, no new character is added. If all characters would be returned, then the choose opponent ability causes Special Initiative. Target the character to be added via that ability before Special Initiative is resolved; if no legal target exists, the characters in battle are still removed after Special Initiative is resolved.
A choose opponent ability is instantaneous. A choose opponent ability targets both the character(s) to be removed from battle and the character to be added to battle (and the blocking player if no blocker has yet been presented, restricting them from presenting a blocker as normal)."
Edited for brevity, removing redundancy, and broken into paragraphs.
-
browarod, thanks for catching the bad grammar.
Redoubter and Pol, I appreciate your input. I want to be sure the elders are on the same page with this before I say too much here so as not to cause confusion later if we do not all see this the same.
-
Gentlemen, thanks for your patience while I wasn't able to get back to this right away. The elders have decided that a choose opponent ability does not cause special initiative. When the entire ability has completed, it has withdrawn all Heroes from battle and presented a new Hero. At best you are losing by the numbers which does not warrant special initiative.
With that in mind, I need to go back on my initial statement that it would be best noted under the entry for choose opponent. For simplicity sake it should be found in the definition we use for special initiative. Does this change to that definition make it clear enough?
"When you are losing the battle by removal, you are granted special initiative to play an Enhancement that will interrupt or negate the card that is causing your character's removal. You are considered to be losing by removal when an opponent's special ability, or a game rule that has been triggered by an opponent's special ability, would leave you with no character in battle when the special ability has completed."
-
Sounds good, except "would leave" may be more clear than "leaves."
-
Sounds good, except "would leave" may be more clear than "leaves."
Agreed
-
Perhaps it could be clearer that you have to negate the direct cause of the removal. Reading that now, one may get the impression that you can attempt to interrupt Omri when Gates is killing your Hero.
And as a minor quibble, there should be a comma after "removal." XD
-
Perhaps it could be clearer that you have to negate the direct cause of the removal. Reading that now, one may get the impression that you can attempt to interrupt Omri when Gates is killing your Hero.
I'm not entirely sure that you can't. I know there has been discussion among elders on this (in person at Nationals) but I don't know of a consensus ruling. Thanks for bringing it up so that it can be addressed. If you know if a ruling already made on the boards I'd appreciate a reference.
And as a minor quibble, there should be a comma after "removal." XD
Grammer is not my strong point. One reason I ask for the input of others is that I rely on "grammar police" to help me get that right. ;)
-
I see what you did there.
As far as the search function was able to be useful (read: not much) I couldn't find a direct ruling on it. What I did find was a string of threads in which a non-elder posted the rule I am referring to and then elders either +1'd the rule or didn't disagree with it when they posted.
Ex: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/omri-and-gates/msg475257/?topicseen#msg475257
-
I like the wording, and agree with Pol's suggestion. However, I think that we do need to address the issue of the "source of removal". In that thread and any other I have seen regarding this issue, it has always been ruled that any card played must interrupt or negate the source of that removal, or it cannot be played.
There are many important reasons for this. The cascades that would be allowed would complicate the game horribly and lead to very unfortunate situations for judges. Also, if I can play any card that interrupts or negates like the original REG said, I could play a whole bunch of cards to blow things up that didn't cause SI. I could even play those cards against a CBI or CBN battle-winner, which has never been allowed from anything I've seen.
-
In my mind the wording is already perfectly clear, but I admit that sometimes things make a lot more sense when you already know them instead of looking at it from the perspective of someone new. What do you suggest we change to address the "source of removal" issue? What's unclear about the way it's worded now?
-
In my mind the wording is already perfectly clear, but I admit that sometimes things make a lot more sense when you already know them instead of looking at it from the perspective of someone new. What do you suggest we change to address the "source of removal" issue? What's unclear about the way it's worded now?
Well, now that I re-read it, I can see that it is a bit more clear than originally thought. However, if we are only allowing the interrupting/negating of the specific card that caused removal (which is how I always thought it was anyway), we should add a bit in there about being able to target those cards even when they have left play. Also, there was a lot of discussion between myself and Pol about the current ruling of Side-Battle cards and abilities played in those battles that would cause SI in the main battle. If this is going to be the rule, and those cards can now be targeted even though they are out of play, then I feel that we should have the rule that only those cards may be targeted for interrupt/negate (not the side-battle card).
In all, I see what you're saying now, and it looks good, but I think we just need a couple of clarifying bits yet.
-
In addition to the inertia argument, I can add that if we allow the negation of Omri to stop a Gates removal, we're allowing for a lot more convoluted negation. In the case of a ITB+Draw+Battle-winner, negating the draw would negate the battle-winner if it was one of the drawn cards, but it can't be known. Can you ask your opponent whether it was one of the ones drawn? Or just attempt to play the Negate to see if it's a legal play?
I understand that other example isn't perfect because there are unknowns involved, but what about this. You attack and are blocked by a Brown EC who plays Threatened Lives to put a Samaria beneath his deck, then plays Lurking to band in Omri who searches out the Site and plays it to cause a removal situation. Can the Hero play a "Negate an Enhancement" to negate Lurking? How about Threatened Lives?
Everything is a lot simpler if we keep it the way it is; SI only gives initiative to directly interrupt only the card that is actually causing your removal.