Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Red on July 31, 2012, 11:38:33 AM
-
Can I use Cov of Noah to negate one of the discard and protect/shuffle EEs?
Covenant of Noah
Type: Covenant • Brigade: Blue • Ability: 2 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: Use as an enhancement or an Artifact. Interrupt and prevent one evil enhancement. Discard after use. • Errata: At any time, you may discard this card to interrupt and prevent one evil enhancement. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Genesis 9:1 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Common)
Death of Unrighteous (Pa)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Pale Green • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Shuffle all Lost Souls and sites in holder's Land of Bondage into owner's draw pile. Discard all Evil Characters in battle. • Play As: Shuffle [return] all Lost Souls, sites, and evil cards in sites in your Land of Bondage into your deck. Discard all Evil Characters in battle. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Genesis 7:23 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Rare)
I used Dou as an example.
-
No. CoN can only target in-play cards.
-
No. CoN can only target in-play cards.
I agree that it cannot be used in this case, but would question if it could be used in certain cases of cards leaving play. I honestly do not know if it has been ruled whether a card being used as an artifact could interrupt/negate a card causing Special Initiative (such as Invoking Terror), but I assume it could without any evidence to the contrary. Even if the card is removed from play, it can be targeted with Special Initiative per recent rulings.
However, it certainly couldn't be used in the case of DoU unless it remains in battle and initiative passes (in a case perhaps where not all EC are discarded by it and it is not discarded as a result).
-
I believe that it can be used for Special Initiative. The answer was just related to this scenario, which does not pass initiative.
-
wouldnt CoN be able to be used though? It says at any time, not when player has Initiative.
-
wouldnt CoN be able to be used though? It says at any time, not when player has Initiative.
By the time you could play it, however, it would be out of play. The card has to complete before you could interrupt it. Therefore, if it discarded all EC in the battle, it too would be discarded. By the time you could do anything about it, it's in discard. You cannot target a card out of play with an interrupt/negate unless you do so with Special Initiative (not the case here).
-
ok. I see now. would you be able to negate a territory class enhancement with CoN if its used in territory?
-
ok. I see now. would you be able to negate a territory class enhancement with CoN if its used in territory?
...Hm. That is actually 2 questions, both good.
1. Can it negate a TC EE that is played and would be discarded? (Beheaded, for example)?
2. Can it negate a TC EE that has a 'place' ability to negate the 'place' in the same phase?
As far as the first...I honestly don't know. I could see a ruling either way on this, as TC enhancements are discarded immediately after use. This is actually distinct from the DoU question above, as DoU discarding all EC in battle triggers a game rule that discards all enhancements in battle without a character of corresponding brigade. This is why DoU could not be targeted. However, would you be able to target a TC EE that is also then discarded by game rule? I would lean towards "no" but would see it either way.
For the second, there is a distinction to the 'place' rule that the 'place' part is CBN starting in the phase after it triggers. You could always negate the ability of an EE (say, Large Tree) that is placed as a TC EE for that phase, but the placement is CBN if it is not negated in that phase. The negated part of the ability would reactivate in the next phase. However, as 'place' can be negated in the phase it is played, I would say that if you used CoN on a card like Large Tree in the phase it was played, it would negate the place. Now, does that mean that since the 'place' was negated, it is discarded or goes to hand? Another good question. I would argue it is discarded, as it would still be "played" (as it is due to the rules on TC that it is played, not 'place'), with the 'place' being negated, it would be discarded (it no longer 'sticks' to the card it was placed on).
That's what I'd say, but I introduced some complications to your question to answer it fully, and for that, I apologize ;)
-
its fine. i think I get what your saying. pretty much, if it a place, it can be negated when played, otherwise, it will just reactivae the next phase.
If it is not a place, it could go either way, just depends on the tournement host. is that kinda what your saying?
-
its fine. i think I get what your saying. pretty much, if it a place, it can be negated when played, otherwise, it will just reactivae the next phase.
If it is not a place, it could go either way, just depends on the tournement host. is that kinda what your saying?
No, the rules should never be up to a tournament host, unless the Elders dispute it and haven't come out with a temporary ruling. I would say that it cannot be used against non-placed TC enhancements, but would not be surprised if I were ruled against.
-
ok, I see.
-
I'm fairly sure that Covenant with Noah cannot negate a territory class enhancement that is discarded after use, this came up in a tournament we had, and even though it became irreverent in that situation (the territory enhancement in question was cannot be interrupted anyway) I looked it up and there was a ruling on the boards that TC enhancements that are discarded after use can't be targeted by Covenant with Noah.
The default for TC enhancements is that they are discarded after use (unless used in battle) so it would be similar to the DoU situation.
-
1. CoN cannot be used during special initiative. Special Initiative allows one very specific thing to be done, the playing of an Enhancement that can interrupt the ability causing the removal.
2. CoN cannot Negate a normal TC card for the same reason it cannot negate DoU, it has no provisions for targeting out-of-play cards.
3. CoN can negate a TC card that gets placed the same phase it gets placed. Without the place ability to keep it around, it defaults to the rule for TC Enhancements and is Discarded.
(All answers assume Artifact form)
-
1. CoN cannot be used during special initiative. Special Initiative allows one very specific thing to be done, the playing of an Enhancement that can interrupt the ability causing the removal.
2. CoN cannot Negate a normal TC card for the same reason it cannot negate DoU, it has no provisions for targeting out-of-play cards.
3. CoN can negate a TC card that gets placed the same phase it gets placed. Without the place ability to keep it around, it defaults to the rule for TC Enhancements and is Discarded.
(All answers assume Artifact form)
So one cannot use CoN to negate a EE that is removing a hero? It says at anytime.
-
I agree with Redoubter and Pol. I would like to say that I have been impressed lately with the thought process that Redoubter has been using lately regarding rulings. Pol and I have been around forever so it's more expected. Redoubter by comparison is much newer to the boards, but as far as I'm concerned has already attained REP status. Keep up the good work both of you :)
-
I agree with Redoubter and Pol. I would like to say that I have been impressed lately with the thought process that Redoubter has been using lately regarding rulings. Pol and I have been around forever so it's more expected. Redoubter by comparison is much newer to the boards, but as far as I'm concerned has already attained REP status. Keep up the good work both of you :)
You should see what happens when we both play against each other, let's just say it's not a good game unless there is some bizarre play that we both argue about logically for 5 minutes and then have Marti or Shawn or Blake make a ruling ;D
-
I agree with Redoubter and Pol. I would like to say that I have been impressed lately with the thought process that Redoubter has been using lately regarding rulings. Pol and I have been around forever so it's more expected. Redoubter by comparison is much newer to the boards, but as far as I'm concerned has already attained REP status. Keep up the good work both of you :)
On the other hand, don't listen to YMT, since even though he has been around for a long time, he still has no idea what he's talking about. :o
-
I agree with Redoubter and Pol. I would like to say that I have been impressed lately with the thought process that Redoubter has been using lately regarding rulings. Pol and I have been around forever so it's more expected. Redoubter by comparison is much newer to the boards, but as far as I'm concerned has already attained REP status. Keep up the good work both of you :)
+1
-
1. CoN cannot be used during special initiative. Special Initiative allows one very specific thing to be done, the playing of an Enhancement that can interrupt the ability causing the removal.
Does this mean that you can't use The Silver Trumpets during special initiative either? Its not an enhancement, or does "When your priest has initiative" allow it to get around it?
The Silver Trumpets (Pi)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: When your Priest has initiative during a rescue attempt, you may band a human O.T. Hero from your territory into battle or interrupt the battle and return your Heroes in battle to hand. May be used twice.
-
On the other hand, don't listen to YMT, since even though he has been around for a long time, he still has no idea what he's talking about. :o
Didn't mean to leave you out there buddy. You've also been around a long time and have really become good at interpreting rules as well so I'm not surprised when you get a tricky one right now-a-days either. I've just been surprised at how well Redoubter is catching on so quickly.
-
Thanks for the compliments Prof U, though Pol and YMT will be more than happy to tell you that there are plenty of times I'm wrong, and my logic is not always sound ;)
As far as the ruling here, I disagree with Pol's assertion that only abilities on enhancements can be used during special initiative, especially given the example of Silver Trumpets by ChristianSoldier. I'm looking at the rules on Initiative in the REG, and all it says is that Initiative (regardless of the 'type', of course, since the REG doesn't reference 'special' initiative per se) only restricts what you play to enhancements. It specifies in the case of removal that the enhancement must target the card causing removal if played, but it does not say that other abilities cannot be activated.
Basically, Initiative only tells you when you may play enhancements, and when you may play other types of cards, but it does not say that other abilities (already activated, like Artifacts) cannot be used. Nowhere in the rules or rulings I can find is that declared. Link to Determining Initiative in the REG (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/REG/default.htm?turl=Master%2Fdetermineinitiative.htm). Link to Losing by Removal in the REG (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/REG/default.htm?turl=Master%2Fdetermineinitiative.htm)
We also have the precedents in rulings regarding cards like The Silver Trumpets. It has always been ruled that its "interrupt and return" ability could be used during special initiative, since it interrupted the ability. Those have not been overturned, to my knowledge.
Therefore, since there is no restriction to using only SA on enhancements during Special Initiative, cards like CoN may target cards that cause Special Initiative (even if they leave play like Invoking Terror, per recent rulings), and cards like The Silver Trumpets may be used during Special Initiative to return the heroes to your hand. You may not play cards that are not enhancements per the rules (no Doms, characters, artifacts, forts, etc.), but you may activate abilities already in play.
-
Silver Trumpets specifically allows for activation during special initiative, as does The Name of the Lord. Granted, they are from more recent sets than CoN, so it may have just been left off CoN since wording hadn't been standardized yet. However, wording was standardized by Priests, and the same specification was also used in the Angel Wars set, leading me to believe by implication that you cannot use something not specifically allowed by the initiative clause.
-
I agree that The Silver Trumpets is an example of a precedent of an artifact being able to affect a "special initiative" situation.
I agree that The Name of the Lord is an example of a precedent of a fortress being able to affect a "special initiative" situation.
The question is whether Cov of Noah (or Unsuccessful) can ALSO be used without the specific language on them stating that they work when "your priest" or "you" have initiative. It seems to me that the whole idea of "special initiative" is that the next card played MUST be interrupt what is causing the removal. So if there is already a precedent of artifacts being able to interact at that point, then why NOT allow Cov of Noah to interrupt what is causing the removal.
I can see that the language doesn't spell it all out, and I'd understand if another elder wants to rule this differently. But it seems to me that the intuitive ruling here would be to allow Cov of Noah to work in this situation. Any other thoughts?
-
I see the intuitive ruling as not allowing it. It is bad practice to allow plays that aren't specifically disallowed by the rules. It's true the guidelines for special initiative do not explicitly exclude cards other than Enhancements, but they only make provision for Enhancements. The non-Enhancement cards that are currently allowed to work during special initiative specifically say so. I'd be ok with changing the rule to allow anything that would interrupt the card causing removal, but that's not the way it's set up currently.
-
I'd be ok with changing the rule to allow anything that would interrupt the card causing removal,
This seems to go along with the recent decision to allow any type of negate to work (instead of separating "negate last" etc.) which is another reason why I feel like this is the more intuitive way to go.
-
Regardless, that is not the way it is now.
-
I'd be ok with changing the rule to allow anything that would interrupt the card causing removal,
This seems to go along with the recent decision to allow any type of negate to work (instead of separating "negate last" etc.) which is another reason why I feel like this is the more intuitive way to go.
Agree all around, but I certainly see Pol's point. Without a change of the language of the rules on Special Initiative (which, frankly, needs an overhaul anyway), it does lead to a bad practice to allow things just because they aren't specifically disallowed.
-
quick question then back on topic:
I attack with gold hero, opponent blocks with black EC. Opponent plays Joseph in Prison. Am I allowed to play Deborah's Directive if it doesnt target the card causing removal? question based on quote below and trying to understand interrupt pertaining to todays gamerules...
As far as the ruling here, I disagree with Pol's assertion that only abilities on enhancements can be used during special initiative, especially given the example of Silver Trumpets by ChristianSoldier. I'm looking at the rules on Initiative in the REG, and all it says is that Initiative (regardless of the 'type', of course, since the REG doesn't reference 'special' initiative per se) only restricts what you play to enhancements. It specifies in the case of removal that the enhancement must target the card causing removal if played, but it does not say that other abilities cannot be activated.
-
DD does indeed target JiP for interruption.
-
DD does indeed target JiP for interruption.
Agreed, and to show why, you just have to look at Interrupt the Battle (http://cactusgamedesign.com/REG/default.htm?turl=Master%2Fspecialconditions8.htm). ITB specifically interrupts all ongoing abilities, any abilities causing the defeat/removal of your character in battle, and the last enhancement played (if played by an opponent). JiP meets the second and third conditions, and so Deborah's Directive does interrupt it.
So in most situations, you can either interrupt/negate the specific ability or interrupt the battle when you have special initiative (in fact, if multiple abilities are causing removal, you may only have ITB as an option).
-
I thought of another situation that confirms my desire to rule this the way that we are discussing:
Any big hero attacks with Cov of Noah as an active artifact.
Herodias defends with a Herod in territory.
Herodias has initiative and plays Herod's Treachery which places it on the Herod in territory. Since it has no numbers (and leaves battle anyway) it doesn't pass initiative.
The defender immediately discards HT thus causing the hero to withdraw from battle.
This is the exact thing that Cov of Noah intuitively seems to exist for. Canceling an EE that is causing the hero to lose the battle. And if HT can affect the battle as an EE from territory, then it seems fair that CoN can negate it from the artifact slot.
-
I know that you like CoN and would like it to be better. At first I thought I'd be ok with changing it to work like that, but now I realize I oppose it for these reasons:
1. It would make offense better by a lot. Right now, very few things remain to defense as a way to block the meta offense; Herod's Treachery is one of them and would not be if activated abilities were allowed to take place during special initiative.
2. It would complicate future card design. The way it is now, you don't need to worry about whether triggered abilities can be used during special initiative; if it's designed to be that way, it will say so.
3. We should definitely not change any ruling with the intent to make a card more powerful (or less powerful for that matter, looking at you, Temples). If a ruling is to be changed, it should only ever be because it's more simple and better.
-
1. It would make offense better by a lot.
I like how you appeal to my defense-loving nature with this reason. However, I don't see speed decks using up their art slot for Cov of Noah, so I don't think this will really make much difference.
2. It would complicate future card design.
Again, I don't think this will really be a problem. I think in the future that we would either: word a card that stays active with an ability like TST or TNotL, or else we wouldn't put "interupt" in it's ability to begin with. I think this is really only going to affect CoN and Unsuccessful.
3. We should definitely not change any ruling with the intent to make a card more powerful
I agree with you completely on this point. However, I'm not looking at this from a standpoint of making any card more powerful. I really think that it makes the most sense to rule it this way. If someone uses an EE to win a battle (ie. HT), then a player with CoN active is going to assume that they can negate that EE, since that's what their card says. And I really like letting cards do what they say unless it breaks the game (which this doesn't).
-
I'm not so sure about that. For years we've been assuming you can't use CoN in special initiative, which kind of robs the statement that people would assume you could of its credibility. You're not disallowing the card from doing what it says by continuing to only allow the playing of an Enhancement that will interrupt during Special Initiative.
-
For years we've been assuming you can't use CoN in special initiative, which kind of robs the statement that people would assume you could of its credibility.
For years we didn't really have a very clear idea of "special initiative" to begin with. But players who are learning the game today and are being taught that when you are suddenly losing a battle due to a SA, then you have to interrupt or negate the card that caused that, will intuitively assume that CoN would work to negate an EE causing that situation. And my statement's credibility is backed up by the fact that a player in my own playgroup who is learning the game today assumed that in a recent game. They were angry when I told them that there were some people who believe that they couldn't use their CoN to negate the EE that caused them to lose that battle.
I think this is the most logical ruling at this point unless some other elder feels differently.
-
Be careful of your terminology. Right now, the ruling must and only can be that CoN cannot be used in Special Initiative. Again, it is bad practice to allow something just because it is not specifically disallowed. The rule, however, could be changed if more people agree with you that it would be better for the game.
-
fwiw, Covenant of Noah should be able to negate any evil enhancement that has been played regardless of whether or not the EE is still in play to be targeted. I don't understand why it wasn't able to target DoU, BB, or the like. When we got the card in Patriarchs, I treated it like a negate that could be played "AT ANY TIME" since it used an artifact slot. I don't have to have initiative for Writ or Charms, so why do I have for CoN? I'm choosing to use as an artifact slot for a negate, it should be able to be negated anytime. There's a reason you haven't seen it in top decks since before Priests....because we keep changing the definition of what could be negated and when...
-
I agree with TechnoEthicist.
-
fwiw, Covenant of Noah should be able to negate any evil enhancement that has been played regardless of whether or not the EE is still in play to be targeted. I don't understand why it wasn't able to target DoU, BB, or the like. When we got the card in Patriarchs, I treated it like a negate that could be played "AT ANY TIME" since it used an artifact slot. I don't have to have initiative for Writ or Charms, so why do I have for CoN? I'm choosing to use as an artifact slot for a negate, it should be able to be negated anytime. There's a reason you haven't seen it in top decks since before Priests....because we keep changing the definition of what could be negated and when...
I think it should be able to be played at any time like writ or charms, but I do NOT think it should be able to negate DoU, BB or the like, because it should not be able to insert itself during their abilities, and by the time they complete they are out of play and give no initiative.
-
I'm curious if we could get some feedback from Bryon or the playtesters of that era (fully aware that few if any are even on the boards anymore) to understand more the intent of that card, was it meant to be played as a negate last? Because that's how it should be played. it negates the last enhancement that is played, regardless of whether or not it's in play. It's not inserting in between abilities, it is nullifying the entire evil enhancement (the discard and the protect)...
-
I'm curious if we could get some feedback from Bryon or the playtesters of that era (fully aware that few if any are even on the boards anymore) to understand more the intent of that card, was it meant to be played as a negate last? Because that's how it should be played. it negates the last enhancement that is played, regardless of whether or not it's in play. It's not inserting in between abilities, it is nullifying the entire evil enhancement (the discard and the protect)...
Except the wording is not like a negate last, its worded as a negate an EE, so negate last rules do not and should not apply here. Also you should know as well as anyone that the intent of how a card was to work does not matter as much as the actual wording on the card.
-
Language has changed many times during the course of the game. Some prevents have become protects based on new definitions. Some protects are now restricts based on new language, I'm just making sure that CoN doesn't need an updated definition as well, that's all. It's just interesting that the first negates (Ehud's Dagger, Flaming Sword) stated last enhancement played while CoN printed three sets later had no destination (which at the time I took it to mean was it was able to negate any evil enhancement played, first, last, or whatever). I realize that the game today is not the same game as it was during Patriarchs (the simplicity of Rock, Paper, Scissors is dead and gone sadly), just was wondering if it was time to look at it again...
-
There are no grounds for changing the nature of CoN's ability without an errata. And with regard to the discussion Prof and I are having about what it should be able to target, neither of us is saying it could work on DoU-like cards.
-
I understand that, what I still don't quite understand is why, and you might be able to remind me Pol. When did it change that negating a a card required that card to be in play when it happened? Why isn't the fact that the card was in battle enough to be a target? That's the part I never quite understood (even back when the arguments were made about Invoking Terror/Herod's Treachery prior to the introduction of special initiative). If something was played and I have a negate active, why can't I play it? Because I could have sworn in Pittsburgh Nationals that players were using Covenant of Noah to negate DoU...but that was almost 10 years ago and my brain's a little fuzzy...
-
All effects default to targeting in-play, and Negate is not an exception. There's really nothing complicated about it; no card can target a card that's not in play unless it specifically says so.
-
Be careful of your terminology. Right now, the ruling must and only can be that CoN cannot be used in Special Initiative. Again, it is bad practice to allow something just because it is not specifically disallowed. The rule, however, could be changed if more people agree with you that it would be better for the game.
Pol, the rule on Defeat is that only the EC being discarded or the hero winning the battle constitutes defeat. However, you have argued that a Remove from Game ability that the EC uses (not the hero) constitutes defeat. That directly contradicts the actual wording of the rules, and allows something that is not there.
There can certainly be a ruling without an actual change to the 'rule', even if that is not preferred. Again, these are outdated terms (heck, the rules we're discussing are for 'Special Initiative'...which isn't even a term in the rules!), and rulings can be made without changing the wording. Not in favor of it, but I disagree with your assertion that there is only one way to rule this currently.
Otherwise, SSS would not place Survivor in opponent's LoB and cards in hand or deck could enter battle even if ignored (and I'm sure other examples we could come up with).
-
heck, the rules we're discussing are for 'Special Initiative'...which isn't even a term in the rules!
This is where the distinction lies. The "defeat" ruling is old and has been established as incorrect. It hasn't been changed in writing, but we have a new ruling on it.
The rules for Special Initiative are very recent and are agreed to be correct.
I agree it's weird that new rules take forever to be written, but one mustn't suppose only that which is written is the newest, most correct rule. That's a problem with the accuracy of the written REG, not to be applied to all rules that have been made since it was last updated.
-
The rules for Special Initiative are very recent and are agreed to be correct.
They're actually not codified and there is still some disagreement (even in recent threads). If you go by what it is actually written, Defeat cannot include an evil RFG ability. That doesn't mean that it cannot be ruled otherwise. Just like in this case Special Initiative can be updated to include what Prof U is describing. There is no written rule that would stop you from using CoN, and since all of it is based on rulings like this one, there is absolutely no reason it could not be updated as such.
-
Sorry, you're getting hung up on what's written with regard to Redemption rulings. That's where you err.
It could indeed be updated as such, a rule change like I said, but it hasn't been yet.
-
Sorry, you're getting hung up on what's written with regard to Redemption rulings. That's where you err.
Sorry, but that did not come off well at all. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, on it, but it sounds like you're implying I have no idea what I'm talking about, which is not true.
What's written is in the REG and in the (many) rulings on these boards. What is written in the REG versus what's written in rulings is what I'm actually saying you're having trouble differentiating.
It could indeed be updated as such, a rule change like I said, but it hasn't been yet.
Then I'll point you to your quote that I referred to and have an issue with:
Be careful of your terminology. Right now, the ruling must and only can be that CoN cannot be used in Special Initiative. Again, it is bad practice to allow something just because it is not specifically disallowed. The rule, however, could be changed if more people agree with you that it would be better for the game.
You're saying that he can only rule your way, and that is what the 'rules' say. However, rulings on these boards override the REG all the time. If he says that is the ruling and has no dissent (which I see in the last part of your quote, which is why I included that) then it is the ruling. But your post seems to be implying that Prof U can't say that CoN can be used in SI, when he certainly can. That's the nature of the boards and the updating of old rules (which SI is a perfect example, since it has been defined almost entirely on the boards).
I'm not getting hung up on anything. I'm taking issue with your statement that Prof U can only rule one way, which is not true.
-
Hold on. I'm a little confused. I was always told that CoN can be used at anytime, after an enhancement has been used. But, what I'm getting from this is that CoN can't be used When a person has special initiative in battle, when you would play a normal Negate, like flaming sword, is this correct?
-
That's what we're trying to figure out Wyatt :)
Redoubter is correct that I could just make a ruling on this thread that CoN works in situations of special initiative. Pol is also correct that it would better if a ruling like this was a consensus of the elders rather than just me. Realistically if this were happening 3 months ago, I probably would just make the ruling. However being so close to Nats causes me to be more hesitant.
I have sent a PM to our elders who are most active regarding rulings. Hopefully at least one of them will join in the conversation here to share their thoughts.
-
Awesome. Thanks Mr.Underwood.
-
If he says that is the ruling and has no dissent ... then it is the ruling.
This is not true. One elder rulings that change what has been the status quo are not official rulings. There needs to be elder support. This case, in particular, seems to have multiple different status quos, depending on where you live. We need a concensus elder ruling on this issue so that we can all have piece of mind, rather than continue the back-and-forth that seems to be getting a bit personal.
-
If he says that is the ruling and has no dissent ... then it is the ruling.
This is not true. One elder rulings that change what has been the status quo are not official rulings. There needs to be elder support. This case, in particular, seems to have multiple different status quos, depending on where you live. We need a concensus elder ruling on this issue so that we can all have piece of mind, rather than continue the back-and-forth that seems to be getting a bit personal.
There is no 'written' rule that contradicts what Prof U was suggesting to be ruled in this case, which Pol was suggesting, and I'd challenge anyone to find that ruling. Prof U agreed with me, and you, and Pol, all in different ways, so I'm really not sure why you want to keep arguing :o
-
Prof U agreed with me, and you, and Pol, all in different ways, so I'm really not sure why you want to keep arguing :o
This is not about arguing, but about uniformity. Based on Wyatt's response (and I am assuming others would fall into his category), some REP's (possibly elders) are ruling that CoN can be used even against cards like DoU. This is a problem that cannot be addressed by four people that post regularly, only one of which is an elder. It is the people who are not on here much that concern me.
This is not a new problem. Having hosts on the west coast rule differently than hosts in the midwest was the primary reason that the elder system was created (so I thought).
We need elder concensus; otherwise we need new elders.
-
This is not about arguing, but about uniformity. Based on Wyatt's response (and I am assuming others would fall into his category), some REP's (possibly elders) are ruling that CoN can be used even against cards like DoU. This is a problem that cannot be addressed by four people that post regularly, only one of which is an elder. It is the people who are not on here much that concern me.
Agreed completely. I am trying to argue for simplicity, and as we see based on a newer player's response, our current argument is not very simple at all...
-
Ok, YMT. I think I see where we are having a problem. I was referring back to the CoN in Special Initiative, responding specifically to Pol's assertion that there can only be one ruling on that issue, and Prof U seemed to respond to that one issue as well.
Prof U's post was specifically about using CoN during Special Initiative, not about 'anytime you want', and he said as much. And that's all I had been talking about as well.
Sorry for the confusion, but it looks like we should all be on the same page now ;)
-
Hey,
The rules for Special Initiative are very recent and are agreed to be correct.
Can someone share a link to where this was established for me? I remember discussing it with John Earley in person a couple times, but I didn't participate in the discussion about it on the boards.
My initial response is that Covenant with Noah can be used during special initiative and cannot be used to negate Death of Unrighteous and the like. But I'd like to review whatever we agreed on about special initiative before sharing more of my thoughts on the matter.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
So what are the Elders saying the ruling here is. I need to know for the tournament so I know if I should have it in my deck or not.
-
My understanding is that ALL negates can be used in SI ( regardless of what they are) and CoN is just a really old Negate, and my question is if this one doesn't work like a proper negate, then when do any of the others?
I would argue that all negates (or prehistoric Interrupt/Prevents) should be treated the same. Either all of them can Negate their target regardless of where it is or none of them do.
Why make the game anymore confusing?
-
That's what I'm thinking. but people are saying it cant be used for SI so I don't know.
-
My understanding is that ALL negates can be used in SI ( regardless of what they are) and CoN is just a really old Negate, and my question is if this one doesn't work like a proper negate, then when do any of the others?
I would argue that all negates (or prehistoric Interrupt/Prevents) should be treated the same. Either all of them can Negate their target regardless of where it is or none of them do.
Why make the game anymore confusing?
The argument is not being made that interrupt/prevents are not as valid as negates, which would be silly since "Interrupt and Prevent" means "Negate" in current terms. It's not the 'age' of the terms in question.
Rather, the question is whether it can been used during Special Initiative while activated as an artifact. It was being presented that only enhancements can be used at all during Special Initiative, and that cards activated as artifacts (like CoN) could not therefore be used.
The two Elders who posted have agreed that it can be used in Special Initiative while activated as an artifact, but both are looking to make sure there isn't dissent from other Elders.
So the argument you're putting forward isn't being argued, and the consensus so far is that it can be used in SI. We don't have a hard-and-fast ruling currently, but that is where we stand.
-
I just hope that it's solved before Nationals. Otherwise, I don't know weather to take CoN out or not.
-
Considering that SirNobody's initial ideas about this ruling are the same as mine, I think it is likely that CoN and Unsuccessful will be ruled at Nats to be able to work in cases of special initiative.
As for your deck Wyatt, I would recommend that if you are used to playing with it in, then leave it in. But also bring a backup card that you could replace it with at Nats if the ruling ends up going the other way. You can ask me which way things ended up before T1-2p starts, so you'll be good to go either way.
-
Awesome Mr.Underwood. thanks. I just didn't wanna do to many last minute changes you know.
-
I don't personally use it in my main Deck, but I just thought I may as well just toss that out there, that is what I understood was that SI jumps to before the effect triggers/completes so DoU would be able to be stopped by CoN and it would be the same for TC Enhancements. But it may have changed since I've been online last (a month ago)
-
I don't personally use it in my main Deck, but I just thought I may as well just toss that out there, that is what I understood was that SI jumps to before the effect triggers/completes so DoU would be able to be stopped by CoN and it would be the same for TC Enhancements. But it may have changed since I've been online last (a month ago)
No special Initiative is given by DoU because it does not cause a losing condition for the hero.
-
Drrek is correct. The whole idea of "special initiative" is that it is that state where your character is being removed from a battle by your opponent and causing you to be losing.
DoU is a card that removes yourself from battle, causing your opponent to "win" the battle (even though they don't get any LSs anymore, unless they play Harvest Time). So it's a completely different situation than "special initiative".
-
Oh, wrong thing... I meant more of cards like Invoking Terror.
-
My initial response is that Covenant with Noah can be used during special initiative and cannot be used to negate Death of Unrighteous and the like.
This is how I would rule on this matter as well.
-
My initial response is that Covenant with Noah can be used during special initiative and cannot be used to negate Death of Unrighteous and the like.
This is how I would rule on this matter as well.
Considering that SirNobody, Gabe, and I all see this the same way then I think we can now declare this official. I expect that Covenant of Noah and Unsuccessful will be ruled at Nats to be allowed to affect "special initiative" (but not cards like DoU that never switch initiative at all).
-
I agree with Tim; I initially agree with the other Elders who have posted here, but if the discussion of special initiative specified that it allows only for the playing of an enhancement, then that either needs to be clarified or changed to reflect the way it is being ruled.
I don't really mind either way how it is ruled, although I have seen it used in Special Initiative situations ever since it was released, so in my mind, that is the status quo.
-
then that either needs to be clarified or changed to reflect the way it is being ruled.
This. PLEASE don't just issue a bottom-up ruling, we've come so far!
-
if the discussion of special initiative specified that it allows only for the playing of an enhancement, then that either needs to be clarified or changed to reflect the way it is being ruled.
I disagree with Pol on this point, because there never was a rule or ruling that disallowed the use of abilities on cards like CoN being used as artifacts. Instead, it restricted the type of card played to enhancements, but that was only in the REG, where of course SI is not up-to-date, and cards like CoN are not played at that time.
Never in discussion of SI has I seen it stated that only enhancement SA can be used, and it has never been ruled in opposition to this ruling, so there really is no problem.
The only issue would be that the whole of Special Initiative needs to migrate over to the REG as soon as possible, since it is still incorrect. Otherwise, there is no 'top-down' rule that this ruling goes against, Pol, unless you'd like to link to it.
-
This isn't bottom-up, the Elders agree that all these are able to be used to Negate EE's that are ending the battle.
-
This isn't bottom-up, the Elders agree that all these are able to be used to Negate EE's that are ending the battle.
To clarify, they cannot be used on cards that are ending the battle. Cards that "end the battle" are CBN. Causing special initiative, yes. Ending the battle, no.
-
Yea, I was saying Battle-Ender as in a card that causes a losing condition that gives SI.
-
Yea, I was saying Battle-Ender as in a card that causes a losing condition that gives SI.
"EE's that are ending the battle" does not have the same meaning. You should say the second part of your statement there instead in the first place, since what you said meant something completely different ;) No need to make these rulings more convoluted than they already are :)
-
Sorry, that's more of just how I put them in my mind, a Battle-winner/battle-Ender means any card that if it completes wins the battle, whereas ETB/end the battle is the actual end the battle effects.