Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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?

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.

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

Well rue on Moses but any other hero makes its tough if they are FBTN

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 21, 2012, 01:07:39 PM

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?

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...)

Quote from: Minister Polarius on October 21, 2012, 01:07:39 PM

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.

The second one. SI is losing by removal. nothing more nothing less.

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.

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.

Take a look at the arguments between everyone, and then read this:

Quote from: Ring Wraith on June 18, 2012, 07:47:51 PM

Quote from: Bryon on June 18, 2012, 02:12:37 PM

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.

I'm glad we agree that the question needs to be looked at and ruled definitively then

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)