Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

MOD EDIT: This topic was split, this was originally a reply to this post.

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.

Are there any elder posts saying that the ruling has been changed? Because something missing from the REG could just be an oversight, lol. Unless there's specifically been a rule change I see no reason to change how it's been ruled, even if the new REG doesn't explicitly state that.

I don't think I ever said it was at all related to double ignore because it's not, so you're right there. It's more akin to Wandering Spirit versus Tartaros in that you have 2 things trying to control a game rule and only one of them is allowed to. First strike means initiative as well as winning a mutual destruction, but 2 characters with first strike can't both have initiative or both win a mutual destruction, so it makes perfect sense (to me) to have the first one active take precedence (which the rules DO say in regards to initiative). It DOESN'T make sense (to me) to just completely ignore the battle resolution component of first strike (which the REG's current definition does) just because both sides have it which is why it DOES make sense (to me) to continue the old ruling of "first active" conflicting ability takes precedence in the case of 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.

Quote from: browarod on January 07, 2014, 03:32:41 PM

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?

Thanks! Didn't mean to be spamming the other thread.

EDIT: Somehow I edited instead of quoting...silly mod powers, sorry, restored!

I don't mean a tie breaker in the rules for first strike specifically because (as we both agree) the only one there is for initiative. The tie-breaker I meant was the general one for cards with conflicting abilities (such as my WS/Tartaros example from earlier), which I feel opposed first strikes would fall under. Opposed ignores aren't conflicting per se because the one having it first is just protected from being affected by part of the second (which 1. fits with the rules of those abilities and 2. also actually fits with the standard tie breaker I am referring to as the first active ignore gets to fully take place whereas the second one can only partially affect its target).

I feel like having neither first strike affect battle resolution is inconsistent with every other resolution of abilities conflicting with each other, including ignore. 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)?

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)?

First, on Ignore, the first character with it is immune to the battle-winning component of the second character's ignore, that's the key.  They are both immune, but since the first one already had immunity, the battle-winning component cannot affect it.  That is where this is different, there is no protection or immunity, so you cannot have the exact same situation with first strike (and besides, there is no actual 'tie-breaker' there, as they both bounce).

The first first-strike is not negated, but the situation is still mutual destruction after their first strike is considered, as there are still characters in battle opposing each other that were not removed.

I understand your point YMT, and I'll amend my position to: 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 feel like both being discarded makes first strike not as effective since its effects can be disregarded so easily, though.

Well, first, we all know that keeping cards from being made less effective isn't a real part of the rulings

Second, I have yet to see a FS vs FS battle.  While possible, it's only going to happen in very, very limited situations.  25 total cards (with different-brigade duplicates included in the count); 7 heroes and 7 EC (again, duplicates in different brigades), of which only a handful get used; Rome, which is very narrowly used; a few random enhancements that don't see play.

Fwiw, FS vs FS in MtG results in both creatures dealing damage to each other simultaneously (effectively FS cancelling out FS).

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.

If they both survive, Ehud cannot win a 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.

If the characters are not discarded, then it is not the condition that leads to a rescue by mutual destruction.

I'd also like to point out that the rules for mutual destruction support the idea that both are discarded in this case, as the clarification for First Strike specifically states that the players may move the state from the Mutual Destruction condition.  If it ends in that condition, the rules say all characters are discarded.

The way I see it you have two options. Either They both die and the  is rescued because it resulted in MD, (think both parties using their First Strike Blow to kill the other resulting in both dying) or they both survive and no LS is rescued because it resulted in a stalemate (think they both get the first move and thus thwart the other's killing blow).

Quote from: TheHobbit on January 07, 2014, 11:31:24 PM

by 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.

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?