Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
Another member of my playgroup asked this question, and they asked the same question on the forums, and the answer was that since it is removing the Hero from battle, your opponent would have initiative to interrupt. I do not agree with this ruling, but eh, it is what it is.
Quote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on September 25, 2011, 08:35:33 PMAnother member of my playgroup asked this question, and they asked the same question on the forums, and the answer was that since it is removing the Hero from battle, your opponent would have initiative to interrupt. I do not agree with this ruling, but eh, it is what it is.You cannot play a card that says negate/interrupt an evil enhancement, but you can play an interrupt the battle card, since interrupt the battle interrupts abilities causing you to be removed from the battle, which Invoking Terror is.
Quote from: Professoralstad on September 25, 2011, 09:10:41 PMQuote from: I am Knot a Blonde! on September 25, 2011, 08:35:33 PMAnother member of my playgroup asked this question, and they asked the same question on the forums, and the answer was that since it is removing the Hero from battle, your opponent would have initiative to interrupt. I do not agree with this ruling, but eh, it is what it is.You cannot play a card that says negate/interrupt an evil enhancement, but you can play an interrupt the battle card, since interrupt the battle interrupts abilities causing you to be removed from the battle, which Invoking Terror is.See, that's even a different answer than I got last time. I asked about this and the answer that ended up being given is that any time you are losing by removal, special initiative takes place during the state of the battle as you are being removed. This would allow even a normal negate. Both rulings are different from the ruling I got last year for Herod Phillip II. The elders need to get on the same page with this question.
My understanding at this point is that it could work that if a card is played that removes a character from battle (capture, discard, convert, whatever), then (assuming that there isn't a banding situation such that the character who played the first card still has initiative) the character being removed gets special initiative to play a negate of whatever is causing that removal. This would include a card that negates an enhancement or artifact or site or character ability or whatever else is causing that removal.Therefore, if I rescue with Jephthah and my opponent blocks with Egyptian Warden and tries to use his SA to capture me by discarding an EE, then I could play "Might of Faith" to negate EW's SA. Then he could play that EE that captures a hero if used by an Egyptian, and I could play "Holy Ground" to negate that EE. Then he could use his Unholy Writ that is active to capture me, but I could play "Foreign Sword" to negate the neutral artifact.This seems to be consistent, and makes things probably a bit more simple than perhaps they have been in the past regarding whether something was a "negate" or a "negate last" or an "interrupt the battle". It seems to me that we could just treat all those the same at this point regarding whether how they treat instant SAs that cause removal of a character from battle.I do think this is probably a bit of a chance from the traditional ruling, so don't consider this an official ruling as much a me thinking out loud and seeking input on whether this could work.
postcount.add(1);
Can this card be played on a captured Hero (by placing it below deck)?
