Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Just looking for a final definitive ruling here with Coliseum and CBN enhancements such as Samuel's Edict:

Coliseum is in play.

In a special initiative situation can Samuel's Edict be played with special initiative while Coliseum is not being negated from hand to toss for 3/3? Or is it only considered a 3/3 toss which may only be played with normal initiative?

From the REG:

When a player is controlling character(s) in battle and an opponent's special ability, or a game rule
that has been triggered by an opponent's special ability, would leave that player with no character in
battle when the special ability has completed, they have Special Initiative.
When this occurs, all abilities are paused and suspended (including additional abilities on cards
played or any triggers) and the player with their character(s) being removed has the opportunity to
play an Enhancement that will interrupt or negate the ability that is causing the removal (or that
triggered the corresponding game rule). The enhancement played must be able to interrupt or
negate the removing ability. If the card with the removing ability was already removed from play
due to its ability, it may still be targeted during Special Initiative by an enhancement that specifically
targets its card type.

The bolded and italic part is perhaps earthshattering in terms of the rules not lining up with how everyone plays (e.g. currently everyone knows you can't play an interrupt that's being prevented, but this rule actually says the prevent is being suspended so you could), the underlined part is what allows you to play a card during special initiative, and the stricken through part contradicts the rest of the rule if it's results-based rather than intent-based. This entry is extremely ambiguous and needs to be clarified before we can know for sure how a tossed card with an interrupt works. As is, different interpretations could lead to opposite answers: either SA gives you the ability to play the interrupt, then a different set of rules takes over once the card has been played and it gets tossed (which is already the ruling, that toss targets a played card not the cards in hand); or, the strikethrough part is horribly worded but means to say you can't play an interrupt that is prevented or tossed under current circumstances. Until we get clarification on this entry, it could be either one.

the player with their character(s) being removed has the opportunity to
play an Enhancement that will interrupt or negate the ability that is causing the removal (or that
triggered the corresponding game rule).

this is where my understanding is that you could only toss edict for 3/3 in regular initiative since the interrupt/negate portion would not activate during special initiative

in situations with peace, foreign spearman, and roman spearman where it is exclusively a toss battle i've never seen someone be able to play an enhancement with special initiative after being decreased to /0 , which i'm pretty sure is how it's intended to be played out

now a card like forest fire is understandable to negate and dc coliseum assuming the rescuing hero has been tossed down to /0 with special initiative because it would negate coliseum and the toss effect

but i'm feeling like a cbn card would be treated the same way as in a toss battle with roman spearman where the edict would only be tossed for 3/3 with normal initiative and therefore could not be played during special initiative in a toss battle with coliseum or spearman/peace etc.

maybe this is only an interpretation of the wording, but that is why i asked the elders and community for input here

both

it's pretty much if sam's edict can effectively be played as a last ditch effort in a toss setting caused by coliseum..

after talking to multiple elders and considering other toss circumstances i'm still convinced the answer is no, it cannot be played with special initiative to be tossed as any other enhancement without an interrupt or negate cannot be either

What I really want to know is whether redoubter will still insist on following the rules exactly as written no matter how ridiculous now that it's come to light the rules say all SA's are suspended during Special Initiative.

Drawing attention to an inconsistency in the rules is one thing, making snide remarks about how one specific person will deal with it is entirely another. The former is okay, the latter is not.

Per the actual topic of this thread, I would have originally said that Samuel's Edict would not be playable during SI with Coliseum active as it would be tossed. However the REQ quote Polarius mentioned does have some inconsistencies that should be addressed/clarified.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if we knew how special insh and toss timing works.

I believe kariusvega is accurate in his assessment of how it is to be played.

Mr. Pol is also accurate in his assessment that there is some wonky wording going on with SI.

I believe kariusvega is accurate in his assessment of how it is to be played.

Mr. Pol is also accurate in his assessment that there is some wonky wording going on with SI.

So this is an official ruling that the striken through part is to be followed but not the bolded and italicized part?

So this is an official ruling that the striken through part is to be followed but not the bolded and italicized part?

I don't think it's as simple as that. We've added this to the agenda for our call tomorrow, but we have a couple dozen topics to discuss so I cannot guarantee we'll get to them all... unless we pull an all nighter.

We'll give an answer as soon as we have something official. In the meantime I'm fairly certain that a Sam's Edict cannot be played under SI if Coliseum is active.

It does mean that. All it says is "all abilities are suspended." We were just shoved a terrible Heal rule change that was reported as not a rule change because we just found out the rules said something we didn't think they did and now we have to follow them. We just found out the rules say that all abilities are suspended during SI, and I'm going to play like that until either this rule is changed or heal is reverted. Otherwise you're cherry-picking.

There is no inherent problem with the wording as-is in terms of consistencies in current rulings, but there certainly could be more clarity there, I don't think anyone could argue otherwise (like it has always been with SI).

As Guardian noted, while SI does suspend abilities, it is missing a key component if you are trying to make it cause everything else to no longer work: interrupt.  An interrupt undoes an ability and then suspends it.  SI does not undo anything; any ability that already activated and is completed or is currently ongoing is still in effect.  This includes prevent, protect, triggers, and so on.  The suspension, though, makes it so that everything that has not completed must wait until the SI is resolved; a trigger sees a condition (as Cherubim does in Guardian's example) during SI, but it cannot actually complete at that time (the rest of it is suspended), but a protect or prevent is still active during SI.

The part that was stricken out of that quote is actually essential to the current definition of SI.  It clarifies that the card you play must interrupt or negate the source, not through a convoluted cascade negate, and that you also can't just play anything with "interrupt" or "negate" in the special ability.  Removing that component substantially changes SI, so it cannot simply be discarded without changing the entire meaning of the entry.

As to Coliseum itself and whether you can play something that would be Tossed, this is again a great question that pops up due to a new card, and as noted by the other Judges in this thread, we are hoping to release an official ruling on that ASAP.

Redemption definitions do not always use the dictionary for keywords (most card games are similar in this respect; what does "poisoned" mean to an inanimate card if we just use the dictionary?), and 'suspend' means something specific in Redemption: it refers to the completion of an ability (or battle, also used in Side Battle) being postponed while something else is occurring (such as during interrupt effects or as a result of SI for an ability, and during the side battle for Side Battle).  It is specifically referring to the completion of something, and doesn't interrupt (undo) anything in the current framework of Redemption.