Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I want to revisit this thread concerning the Serpent.

If the Serpent is still in play after the paralyzation occurs, a card like Moses, if placed in territory in a later phase/turn while the restrict is still active, or if in the next battle phase a card like Job’s Wife is played can negate the restrict but not the paralyzation? But if the Serpent is no longer in play (barring it is in set-aside and can be targeted by Golden Censer like how Guardian mentioned; and maybe I played Death of Unrighteous on it during the battle phase when Serpent’s ability activated) then the restrict cannot be negated?

There’s an upcoming tournament that I’m sure Serpent will be used at so I want to make sure I understand how the restrict can and cannot be negated.

If an ability lasts over a phase, it becomes CBN.  After the battle the serpent's ability activates is over, it becomes CBN if hasn't been negated during battle.  All you can do to lift the restrict at that point is wait it out or get rid of the hero that's paralyzed

This isn’t entirely accurate. You cannot negate abilities that completed in a previous phase. Similarly you cannot negated the activation of an ongoing ability of it activated in a previous phase. However you can negate an ongoing ability (restrict) even if it was activated during a previous phase. Playing 3W on The Serpent or simply pushing a FBTN character into battle will negate the ongoing restrict and allow you to play good Doms.

If an ability lasts over a phase, it becomes CBN.  After the battle the serpent's ability activates is over, it becomes CBN if hasn't been negated during battle.  All you can do to lift the restrict at that point is wait it out or get rid of the hero that's paralyzed

This was what I basically thought too (see my original posts) but we’re obviously wrong.

Quote

Thanks Gabe. And confirming that the negation can still occur whether or not the Serpent is still in play?

No, the negation can only happen if The Serpent is in play (or in set aside with a negate like Golden Censer).

So it’s best to get rid of the Serpent as soon as you use him. Got it. Thanks

Luckily, He can use DoU, SSS, and BB, so it's pretty easy to get rid of him. 

I have him in my orange deck. A combo I pulled off one game was block with serpent > Persistent Pestering under decks their stuff and under decks itself > Evil armor grabs PP > PP again and under deck > SSS. Opponent was mad.   

Yeah I love using DoU and SSS on him.

Nice combo!

What is BB?

Quote from: Watchman492 on June 04, 2018, 11:56:16 AM

Quote from: Ironisaac on June 04, 2018, 11:40:28 AM

Luckily, He can use DoU, SSS, and BB, so it's pretty easy to get rid of him. 

I have him in my orange deck. A combo I pulled off one game was block with serpent > Persistent Pestering under decks their stuff and under decks itself > Evil armor grabs PP > PP again and under deck > SSS. Opponent was mad.   

Yeah I love using DoU and SSS on him.

Nice combo!

What is BB?

Belshazzar's Banquet.

It’s always obvious once the question is answered lol.

TBF, BB isn't exactly a very commonly used acronym, so that was my bad, just making up acronyms on the fly because I didn't want to type out "Belshazzar's Banquet"

I can never remember how to spell Belshazzar. 

That's why I just call him Nerg...

1. The serpent's restrict. Is the serpent's restrict tied to him or to the paralysis? If it is tied to him, could it be negated in territory? If so, why?

2. High priest ananias. If he blocks, then he restricts someone from playing enhancements with a brigade not in battle. Does a multi-color site provide brigades for this purpose? Also, would that restrict DAEs or do they drop the evil brigade when played as good?

2. Restricts "enhancements with a brigade..." a Site is not an enhancement. So, i don't think it would block adding a Site, regardless of the brigade discussion about a site.

He doesn't restrict adding Sites, but the question was whether putting a Site in battle allows the player to play enhancements with the brigades that the Site has (since Sites have neutral brigades).

For example, if HPA blocks a Clay Hero, that Clay Hero cannot play a Clay/White enhancement. However, if the player added a Site that included White (or was a rainbow Site), then the question was if the Clay/White enhancement could be played at that point.

I c. so how do you say that Works, TG?

I've had it ruled that adding a multicolor site to battle does allow playing enhancements around Ananias.

Quote

While High Priest Ananias is blocking, restrict opponent from playing good Enhancements with a brigade not already in battle.

Even though sites have neutral brigades, they are still the same as good brigades. Once the site has been added to battle, that brigade is in battle, allowing the enhancement to be played.

That's a great point Bobbert, but due to the ambiguity of this discussion, it would be really nice to have an Elder give official ruling.

If you don't know the answer, Guardian's post comes across more as restating the original question than providing an answer.

That being said, Bobbert is correct.

Quote from: SEB on June 05, 2018, 11:44:18 AM

That's a great point Bobbert, but due to the ambiguity of this discussion, it would be really nice to have an Elder give official ruling.

Justin is an elder and gave the ruling as well an an explanation and an example. What more do you need?

Quote from: The Guardian on June 05, 2018, 11:31:23 AM

He doesn't restrict adding Sites, but the question was whether putting a Site in battle allows the player to play enhancements with the brigades that the Site has (since Sites have neutral brigades).

For example, if HPA blocks a Clay Hero, that Clay Hero cannot play a Clay/White enhancement. However, if the player added a Site that included White (or was a rainbow Site), then the question was if the Clay/White enhancement could be played at that point.

I apologize Gabe, but it seemed that TG (Justin) was helping me understand the topic correctly (as I only partial understood the total ramifications), I didnt think that he had actually given a definitive ruling.