Author Topic: Choose the rescuer? (Read 5932 times)

browarod · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2012, 09:11:16 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on October 23, 2012, 01:26:15 AM

I just added one but it'll need the approval of my pears before I post it here.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2012, 02:04:59 PM »

I don't want this pear voting.

Redoubter · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2012, 06:41:28 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on October 23, 2012, 01:26:15 AM

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

megamanlan · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2012, 10:45:37 PM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #29 on:** October 25, 2012, 12:37:03 AM »

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.

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on October 23, 2012, 03:12:37 AM

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.

Quote from: Gabe on October 23, 2012, 01:26:15 AM

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.

Quote from: megamanlan on October 23, 2012, 10:45:37 PM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #30 on:** October 25, 2012, 09:21:04 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on October 25, 2012, 12:37:03 AM

....character's removal.......game ruled....

Just a couple grammatical fixes.

Redoubter · « **Reply #31 on:** October 25, 2012, 10:28:21 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on October 25, 2012, 12:37:03 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on October 23, 2012, 06:41:28 PM
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).

browarod · « **Reply #32 on:** October 25, 2012, 11:41:12 AM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #33 on:** October 25, 2012, 12:50:38 PM »

Quote from: browarod on October 25, 2012, 11:41:12 AM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #34 on:** October 25, 2012, 02:13:22 PM »

"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.

Gabe · « **Reply #35 on:** October 26, 2012, 12:41:03 AM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #36 on:** November 24, 2012, 12:50:37 AM »

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."

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #37 on:** November 24, 2012, 11:39:02 AM »

Sounds good, except "would leave" may be more clear than "leaves."

Gabe · « **Reply #38 on:** November 24, 2012, 11:41:18 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 24, 2012, 11:39:02 AM

Sounds good, except "would leave" may be more clear than "leaves."

Agreed

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #39 on:** November 24, 2012, 11:44:12 AM »

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

Gabe · « **Reply #40 on:** November 24, 2012, 11:48:21 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 24, 2012, 11:44:12 AM

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.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on November 24, 2012, 11:44:12 AM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #41 on:** November 24, 2012, 12:27:41 PM »

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

'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

Redoubter · « **Reply #42 on:** November 24, 2012, 02:45:33 PM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #43 on:** November 27, 2012, 11:33:43 PM »

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?

Redoubter · « **Reply #44 on:** November 28, 2012, 07:08:13 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on November 27, 2012, 11:33:43 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #45 on:** November 29, 2012, 01:02:34 AM »

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.

News:

Author Topic: Choose the rescuer? (Read 5932 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod