Author Topic: Dominant initiative during phases? (Read 6393 times)

Jeremystair · « **Reply #50 on:** July 06, 2018, 04:34:01 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 06, 2018, 04:10:37 PM

Quote from: Jeremystair on July 06, 2018, 03:22:00 PM
Okay I get it it's just one of those mom and dad things because I said so.

I'm just trying to help, and if my explanations (and those of others) don't make sense to you, then I'm sorry that's the case. There's no need to be petty though.

I know man it's all good!

The Guardian · « **Reply #51 on:** July 07, 2018, 02:13:30 AM »

Quote from: Josh on July 06, 2018, 04:30:56 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on July 06, 2018, 03:05:12 PM
This scenario is not actually a cascade negate situation, which is why at the end I clarified that it doesn't matter if the ability is CBN or not.

I agree, and I make the same claim that GEs played via Reach stay in battle and are not negated when the Draw ability of Reach is negated.

The two scenarios are exactly the same, which is why I'm glad you've taken the stance you have in this thread

Ability A (Hypocrisy/Reach) takes cards in one location (territory/deck) and puts them in another location (hand/hand). Ability B then does something to a subset of those cards (shuffles heroes in hand/plays a GE from hand). Ability C then tries to negate Ability A. Ability A can't be negated - or at least, not all of the cards in the new location can be returned to their original location, since Ability B moved those cards somewhere else. Therefore, the cards moved by Ability B remain where they are.

Seems to me that saying "The GE you played off of Reach stays in battle but is negated" makes no sense based on current Redemption rules. This thread is evidence of that. In fact, it no longer matters that Play abilities are CBI - all that matters is that a different ability moved that card somewhere else.

* And no, the fact that there is a rule that states the GE in this exact situation is "Cascade-negated" does not support the position. The only reason this rule was created is either that the rules were misapplied in the past, or they've been changed/reinterpreted since then. Either way, that rule cannot defend itself, as that is circular reasoning (the conclusion is in the premises), akin to asking a company to audit their own books

The scenarios are not exactly the same. This one is about where cards end up. The one you bring up is about whether cards are negated or not.

kariusvega · « **Reply #52 on:** July 07, 2018, 12:51:13 PM »

FWIW I have always felt a protected hand should not be able to have heroes added to it via an opponent's Hyprocrisy.

I've heard dozens of explanations why it "works the way it does" but still feel the same way about it - save your explanations.

Self Control does protect us from Hypocrisy in reality!

Now referring to the OP dominant initiative is determined by both players just as phase changes are as well. If someone plays a hero into the next phase for example, you can tell your opponent to rewind to the previous phase and play a dom as they have passed initiative by moving to the next phase on their own.

SEB · « **Reply #53 on:** July 10, 2018, 11:02:59 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 07, 2018, 02:13:30 AM

Quote from: Josh on July 06, 2018, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: The Guardian on July 06, 2018, 03:05:12 PM
This scenario is not actually a cascade negate situation, which is why at the end I clarified that it doesn't matter if the ability is CBN or not.

I agree, and I make the same claim that GEs played via Reach stay in battle and are not negated when the Draw ability of Reach is negated.

The two scenarios are exactly the same, which is why I'm glad you've taken the stance you have in this thread

Ability A (Hypocrisy/Reach) takes cards in one location (territory/deck) and puts them in another location (hand/hand). Ability B then does something to a subset of those cards (shuffles heroes in hand/plays a GE from hand). Ability C then tries to negate Ability A. Ability A can't be negated - or at least, not all of the cards in the new location can be returned to their original location, since Ability B moved those cards somewhere else. Therefore, the cards moved by Ability B remain where they are.

Seems to me that saying "The GE you played off of Reach stays in battle but is negated" makes no sense based on current Redemption rules. This thread is evidence of that. In fact, it no longer matters that Play abilities are CBI - all that matters is that a different ability moved that card somewhere else.

* And no, the fact that there is a rule that states the GE in this exact situation is "Cascade-negated" does not support the position. The only reason this rule was created is either that the rules were misapplied in the past, or they've been changed/reinterpreted since then. Either way, that rule cannot defend itself, as that is circular reasoning (the conclusion is in the premises), akin to asking a company to audit their own books

The scenarios are not exactly the same. This one is about where cards end up. The one you bring up is about whether cards are negated or not.

I agree with the principal that Josh is using here for his logic, in that, when you cascade negate a GE, it could make people think that all game mechanics work that way, which is why this thread went to where it went. Basically, if undoing an ability cascades through all abilities used after the undone ability, most people would guess that you would bring cards back from the deck in the Hypocrisy/Mayhem example, BECAUSE the game has a precedent to allow things to worm through. The location vs negation isnt really the issue on this principal - it's how much of the game state gets undone (read "fix") after an ability is negated - logically, if things get "fixed" due to cascade negation (ability B targets A but affects N), then logically things getting "fixed" due to moving zones would follow (ability B targets A and affects N) essentially.

I would rather it all be consistent like Josh mentioned because it makes logical sense that shuffled heroes would not be returned. </insert two cents here>

Josh · « **Reply #54 on:** July 10, 2018, 11:06:51 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 07, 2018, 02:13:30 AM

The scenarios are not exactly the same. This one is about where cards end up. The one you bring up is about whether cards are negated or not.

If you take a step back, you can see they are actually identical.

First, entertain the thought for a second that the "Enhs played by Play abilities that were drawn via a Draw ability are cascade-negated when the Draw ability is negated" rule does not exist. Set it aside for a moment.

Second, think about what is happening in the Reach scenario. Reach moves cards from one location to another (deck to hand). Then the Play ability moves cards from that location somewhere else (moves a GE from hand to battle).

Then, the opponent tries to negate Reach's Draw ability. Just like with Hypocrisy, you go to the location that Reach's Draw ability moved cards to (which was to hand) and find all cards that Reach moved to that location. You find 2, since Reach put the 3rd in play and it isn't in hand anymore. So those 2 cards to back to deck.

At this point, the discussion should end. Everything is exactly like the Hypocrisy/Mayhem scenario. The fact that the GE was played in battle (as opposed to going to some other location, like Reserve, Discard, etc) is completely irrelevant. It's not in the location that the Draw ability put it, so when the Draw ability is negated, the GE stays where it is.

This is why the Cascade-negate ruling on enhancements played by Play abilities is an antiquated artifact of olden days. We know better now. The Hypocrisy/Mayhem scenario is exactly the same - the only thing that seems to be throwing us for a loop is the fact that the GE moved to a new location actually activates. If we slow down and take a look at the situation assuming that "Cascade negate of the GE" doesn't exist, then you realize it shouldn't exist. Our existing rule structure handles the situation perfectly.

The Guardian · « **Reply #55 on:** July 10, 2018, 03:29:29 PM »

I see what you're saying, but the difference is that Reach has two abilities (well three, but we're not worried about the ItB right now), one of which is negatable (the draw) and one of which is not (the play).

Ergo Reach is actually moving the card twice (deck to hand and hand to play) whereas Hypocrisy is only moving cards once (play to hand), which is why these scenarios are not the same.

Because the "deck to hand" is negatable, the GE is cascaded even though it remains in play due to the "hand to play" being CBI.

SEB · « **Reply #56 on:** July 10, 2018, 05:11:44 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 10, 2018, 03:29:29 PM

I see what you're saying, but the difference is that Reach has two abilities (well three, but we're not worried about the ItB right now), one of which is negatable (the draw) and one of which is not (the play).

Ergo Reach is actually moving the card twice (deck to hand and hand to play) whereas Hypocrisy is only moving cards once (play to hand), which is why these scenarios are not the same.

Because the "deck to hand" is negatable, the GE is cascaded even though it remains in play due to the "hand to play" being CBI.

Im not trying to be silly...

I followed Josh's logic pretty easily, but I really do not understand what you are saying. Could you repeat it in different words? It may be the way I learn or communicate, but Im having a hard time seeing the difference of principal, which makes me "feel" confused by your statement.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #57 on:** July 10, 2018, 05:24:32 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on July 10, 2018, 03:29:29 PM

I see what you're saying, but the difference is that Reach has two abilities (well three, but we're not worried about the ItB right now), one of which is negatable (the draw) and one of which is not (the play).

Ergo Reach is actually moving the card twice (deck to hand and hand to play) whereas Hypocrisy is only moving cards once (play to hand), which is why these scenarios are not the same.

Because the "deck to hand" is negatable, the GE is cascaded even though it remains in play due to the "hand to play" being CBI.

I am not quite understanding what you are getting at either. It seems like JM found (basically) an identical situation. Yes reach has two abilities, but in the hypocrisy mayhem scenario there are also two distinct abilities vs a negate.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Dominant initiative during phases? (Read 6393 times)

Jeremystair

Re: Dominant initiative during phases?

The Guardian

Re: Dominant initiative during phases?

kariusvega

Re: Dominant initiative during phases?

SEB

Re: Dominant initiative during phases?

Josh

Re: Dominant initiative during phases?

The Guardian

Re: Dominant initiative during phases?

SEB

Re: Dominant initiative during phases?

TheHobbit13

Re: Dominant initiative during phases?