Redoubter is correct on all counts except #6. In the case of mutual first strike, the one that is active first takes precedence. In your example, Simon's first strike would overrule Goat's and Goat would lose by the numbers and be discarded.
If there are first strike abilities on both sides of battle, then the side that activated a first strike ability first gets the first opportunity to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state. If that side of battle is unable to move the battle
away from the mutual destruction state, the other side of battle then gets a chance.
Which thread was that? The last time I saw an elder post on this issue they agreed with what I said, that the initial first strike would keep that character alive.
Just as you said, first strike doesn't target the other opponent to stop their first strike, so there's no rule basis for the battle resolution aspect not applying just because the opponent's character also has first strike.
Just as you said, first strike doesn't target the other opponent to stop their first strike, so there's no rule basis for the battle resolution aspect not applying just because the opponent's character also has first strike.
And on the same token, there is no reason why the second character's should not apply, since the first does not have a monopoly on their ability applying.
I'm making this another thread, hold on.
But since both can't work you have to have some kind of tie-breaker, which there's already a provision for in the rules. Why should this have a special case with a different tie-breaker?
EDIT: Added link. Also, note YMT's case, which I share, that precedence only refers to initiative, just as made clearer in the current rules.
With ignores, the first one still gets the battle winning aspect of ignore even though the second one grants immunity to the ignored character (I think that's how it works?) so then why does a second first strike negate the battle winning aspect of the first first strike (lol, first first)?
Either both characters are discarded or they both survive. There can be no middle ground by the rules (where only the first one survives), but by the rules one of those two things should occur.I still think that there IS grounds in the rules for the first one to take precedence, but both surviving also makes sense to me as that way the "survives mutual destruction" clause of first strike still functions. I feel like both being discarded makes first strike not as effective since its effects can be disregarded so easily, though.
I feel like both being discarded makes first strike not as effective since its effects can be disregarded so easily, though.
So If I choose Goat with Ehud and nobody can play enhancements I would say, based on this definition of first strike they both survive and Ehud wins the lost soul.
Mutual Destruction by Numbers
The battle ends in a mutual destruction by numbers if both the Hero(es) and the Evil Character(s) have enough strength to defeat each other. In this case both the Hero(es) and the Evil character(s) are discarded. All enhancements played during the Battle Phase are discarded to each player’s respective discard pile. JUST AS CHRIST LAID DOWN HIS LIFE TO REDEEM US, THE HERO IS WILLING TO LAY DOWN HIS LIFE TO RESCUE A LOST SOUL. Therefore, in a mutual destruction by the numbers, the rescue attempt is successful. Your opponent must select and surrender to you one available Lost Soul from his Land of Bondage. This is considered a defeat of the Evil Character because the Hero was able to make a successful rescue even though the Hero was discarded.
by the definition on wiki
+1by the definition on wiki
First, the wiki is not the rulebook. Go by the rulebook and the REG themselves, which lay out that they are discarded in the case of mutual destruction, and that when they are both discarded by mutual destruction by the numbers, a soul is rescued.
Second, "In this case" refers to a situation where there is mutual destruction. In First Strike, it specifies that when both sides have the ability each has a chance to "move the battle away from the mutual destruction state" (exact quote from the REG), meaning it is still in that state. So, if we end the battle, then "In this case" they are both discarded.
First, the wiki is not the rulebook. Go by the rulebook and the REG themselves, which lay out that they are discarded in the case of mutual destruction, and that when they are both discarded by mutual destruction by the numbers, a soul is rescued.The wiki is copied directly from the REG for cases of special ability definitions so you needn't really be splitting hairs like that. :P
That's not logically intuitive then. The reason a first strike character survives in mutual destruction is because that character is 'hitting' before the other character has a chance to assign lethal damage back. What is intuitive about letting two characters that are hitting each other first both survive the battle?MtG first strike =/= Redemption first strike, there is no "hitting first" in Redemption, lol. The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?
The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?
Surviving in mutual destruction because of first strike is just another way of saying one character hits another character first at battle resolution. It's not hard to make that logical leap.
The rules also state that when both sides have it, each side has the opportunity to "move the state away from mutual destruction," meaning that is still the state. The rules for mutual destruction says if the battle ends in that state, both sides are discarded. You can also say that, following the rules logically, both are discarded.I'm not denying, nor have I ever denied, that it says that. I fully agree that it says that (I can read, you know :P). First strike only applies in mutual destruction scenarios so obviously it's still in a mutual destruction state if we're discussing first strike, and the part I quoted above (which is the part I've always been referring to) also states the same. We're not in disagreement on that point, haha.
I can understand where you're coming from based on a strict reading of the ability which can cause some workarounds and exploits, but I have a strong feeling that is not what is intended with the ability.
If more than one character in a battle has a First Strike ability, only the first character [to activate that ability] in that battle will not be discarded in a Mutual Destruction. All other characters will be discarded regardless of their First Strike ability.
I have had the traditional view that "First Strike" means that a character strikes first in a mutual destruction situation and therefore discards the other character and survives. I have also always played by the "first person with First Strike wins" caveat.
O we could resolve it with a shot and sweet addition. If both sides of a battle have first strike, it is resolved with all dying. Keeps things simple. No funky math, no worrying about whose was negated and reactivated or anything similar. If both sides have an active first strike ability both sides die. Easy, clear, no misunderstandings.
If there are first strike abilities on both sides of battle, then the side that activated a first strike ability first gets the first opportunity to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state. If that side of battle is unable to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state, the other side of battle then gets a chance.
MtG first strike =/= Redemption first strike, there is no "hitting first" in Redemption, lol. The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?
MtG first strike =/= Redemption first strike, there is no "hitting first" in Redemption, lol. The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?CorrectI misread browarod's last sentence. Since there is no advantage if both have first strike then in a mutual destruction both characters are discarded. When I re-read it today, I saw that it sounded like I was saying both characters survive in a mutual destruction.
First strike adds an advantage if one character has it and the opposing character does not. If two opposing characters each have first strike neither has an advantage as it relates to First Strike.
Using rulings on a things like protection, I can understand how players could assume that "first in" might apply to First Strike. But, with First Strike it does not matter.
Should this ruling that Cactus Rob just said , should be added to the REG in the First Strike Definition asap? The if two opposing characters each have first strike part of it?
I edited my post above.Thanks for the clarification! :)
I have also always been under the impression that the "first" First Strike takes effect and all future First Strike abilities are essentially ignored. I don't see the need for an overhaul simply because that is what I always believed the rule to be, and I thought that it was stated in the rulebook and/or REG. I'm like 99% certain I've read that rule in the REG before--though it was likely an old version of the REG.
If opposing characters in battle both have first strike ability, the character who gained it first takes precedence.
Ok,That's not logically intuitive then. The reason a first strike character survives in mutual destruction is because that character is 'hitting' before the other character has a chance to assign lethal damage back. What is intuitive about letting two characters that are hitting each other first both survive the battle?MtG first strike =/= Redemption first strike, there is no "hitting first" in Redemption, lol. The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?