Author Topic: Cov with Noah question. (Read 8959 times)

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #1 on:** July 31, 2012, 02:11:12 PM »

No. CoN can only target in-play cards.

Redoubter · « **Reply #2 on:** July 31, 2012, 06:45:40 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on July 31, 2012, 02:11:12 PM

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).

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #3 on:** July 31, 2012, 06:53:24 PM »

I believe that it can be used for Special Initiative. The answer was just related to this scenario, which does not pass initiative.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:01:23 PM »

wouldnt CoN be able to be used though? It says at any time, not when player has Initiative.

Redoubter · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:10:06 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on July 31, 2012, 07:01:23 PM

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).

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:14:11 PM »

ok. I see now. would you be able to negate a territory class enhancement with CoN if its used in territory?

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:28:36 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on July 31, 2012, 07:14:11 PM

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

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2012, 07:39:40 PM »

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?

Redoubter · « **Reply #9 on:** July 31, 2012, 08:52:38 PM »

Quote from: wyatt_marcum on July 31, 2012, 07:39:40 PM

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.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2012, 09:01:34 PM »

ok, I see.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2012, 10:57:46 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #12 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:02:41 AM »

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)

Red · « **Reply #13 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:48:58 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 01, 2012, 09:02:41 AM

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #14 on:** August 01, 2012, 09:49:59 AM »

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

TechnoEthicist · « **Reply #15 on:** August 01, 2012, 10:07:17 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 01, 2012, 09:49:59 AM

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

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #16 on:** August 01, 2012, 01:43:33 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 01, 2012, 09:49:59 AM

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.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #17 on:** August 01, 2012, 01:49:55 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 01, 2012, 09:49:59 AM

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

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #18 on:** August 01, 2012, 02:44:10 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 01, 2012, 09:02:41 AM

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #19 on:** August 01, 2012, 05:18:11 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 01, 2012, 01:43:33 PM

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.

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #20 on:** August 01, 2012, 06:55:47 PM »

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. Link to Losing by Removal in the REG

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #21 on:** August 02, 2012, 09:56:44 AM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #22 on:** August 02, 2012, 10:56:51 AM »

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?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #23 on:** August 02, 2012, 11:03:08 AM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #24 on:** August 02, 2012, 11:20:04 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 02, 2012, 11:03:08 AM

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.

News:

Author Topic: Cov with Noah question. (Read 8959 times)