Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Kirk, the thread you referenced was more in relation to negates than special initiative. We did rework the definition of SI last year though. Here is what it says.

When you are losing the battle by removal, you are granted special initiative to play an Enhancement that will interrupt or negate the card that is causing your character's removal. You are considered to be losing by removal when an opponent's special ability, or a game rule that has been triggered by an opponent's special ability, would leave you with no character in battle when the special ability has completed.

I believe "losing the battle by removal" in the first sentence only applies to the current battle. Therefore if you removea character in another battle, even if it would leave no other character on that side of the battle, the controller would not get SI because the character being removed is not the current battle.

Would it make a difference if the card played ended both battles? (Deceit of Sapphira/Rizpah's Sackcloth)

In that situation you would have SI to play an interrupt/negate on your character in the side battle.

Kirk, the thread you referenced was more in relation to negates than special initiative. We did rework the definition of SI last year though. Here is what it says.

Quote

When you are losing the battle by removal, you are granted special initiative to play an Enhancement that will interrupt or negate the card that is causing your character's removal. You are considered to be losing by removal when an opponent's special ability, or a game rule that has been triggered by an opponent's special ability, would leave you with no character in battle when the special ability has completed.

I believe "losing the battle by removal" in the first sentence only applies to the current battle. Therefore if you removea character in another battle, even if it would leave no other character on that side of the battle, the controller would not get SI because the character being removed is not the current battle.

Gabe, can we reconcile with the rulings in this thread that apparently you gain SI to negate the side-battle card when the original battle resumes?

Redoubter is correct.  Side battles confuse most of us but we must remember that it is initiated due to an instant special ability.  In Kirk's scenario, special initiative in the original battle is not determined until King Rehoboam's special ability completes, as Redoubter infers.  Then at that point the opponent may play an interrupt or negate that targets the special ability that causes the removal, which in this case is King Rehoboam's special ability.

This is identical to my old trick where I used In the Clouds in the side battle off Rehoboam to remove my opponent's hero in the main battle. It was ruled on several occasions that the hero in the main battle could not negate it after the side battle completed.

See this thread where Sir Nobody confirms that (but also posts about being able to indirectly negate it, which is not correct):
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/another-side-battle/msg235638/#msg235638

Kirk

If this is not the case due to some new rule, then a hole has opened in the dike so you better line up a bunch of Dutch boys.

This isn't so much a case of new rules rather than it is a case of only a couple cards being able to do what I am talking about. In the Clouds and Drawn Sword are the only two good enhancements that can be played in a side battle and target another hero in another battle (the main battle).

If the situation is reversed - meaning a good card causing a side battle - then there are more evil cards that can target another evil character in another battle.

I could be wrong on the rationale for why In the Clouds/Drawn Sword cannot be negated from the main battle but I had my ItC combo ruled on several times and it came out the same each time.

Kirk

I'm not arguing this regarding any particular cards, but the whole class of cards, if that helps at all with what you were saying

Our definition of Special Initiative that was being worked on stated that only the ability that caused the removal could be targeted.  Rehoboam causing a side battle did not cause the removal, just like playing an ITB+D3+Play did not cause the removal.  Only the card that did cause the removal caused the removal.

This used to be an issue with SI when it wasn't determined that you could negate a card that ended up out-of-play during SI, but you now can.  There is no extra combo-breaking ability that wasn't there already, since you can still target the actual source.  And since you can target the source, we should treat this like every other similar case (Draw+Play, Omri + Gates, Play First) which has been ruled to be that you must target the actual ability, not the ability that triggered or allowed it.

I am truly sorry.  Gabe is correct that I have been playing it wrong, but shockingly not in the way he and others may think.  In fact, we've all been playing it wrong.  Looking at the side battle ability more closely I am amazed at the things that have been played incorrectly.  It's like reading Scripture several times before it finally makes sense.

A side battle ability is an instant ability.  It is not "interrupt-and-insert-abilities".  As such, here are some other things that have been played incorrectly over the years:

1. Dominants can be played during a side battle but their ability cannot be carried out until the side battle completes.

2. Optional abilities that were put in play prior to the side battle cannot insert their abilities until the side battle completes, e.g. artifact such as Unholy Writ.

That leaves us with triggered abilities.  To be honest, I don't know a lot of cards off the top of my head so I'll have to review the different types of triggers when I'm not at work.  Be that as it may, it will depend on when the trigger is put in play (before/during side battle) and when the trigger is tripped.

Quote from: STAMP on February 21, 2013, 12:30:23 PM

A side battle ability is an instant ability.  It is not "interrupt-and-insert-abilities".  As such, here are some other things that have been played incorrectly over the years:

1. Dominants can be played during a side battle but their ability cannot be carried out until the side battle completes.

2. Optional abilities that were put in play prior to the side battle cannot insert their abilities until the side battle completes, e.g. artifact such as Unholy Writ.

I don't agree with this.  What about a second battle created by Grapes of Wrath?  It was created by a special ability, so do the same rules apply?

Grapes of Wrath sets a trigger for an optional ability to start a new battle phase (I believe that's how I've seen it ruled), so it's not the same.  The Long Day is along these same lines.  Ambush the City is a nested battle phase.

Fight Each Other cards that I can tick off in my mind: King Rehoboam, Sword of the Lord, Cup of Wrath, Idle Gossip, Joseph's Brothers' Scheme, Sword Against Sword.

Sing and Praise, Troops Discharged and Visions have a little caveat in that an ongoing ability is placed on the side battle, and isn't a separate ability that's activated after the side battle.

Bottom line: unless it's interrupted, no ability may be inserted into an instant ability.  And dominants have always needed to wait until all pending abilities complete anyway.

Within the side battle itself, the order of abilities are still followed and ongoing abilities that impact the side battle/field of battle are active, e.g. protection.  But outside of the side battle, everything in the side battle appears to happen all at once.

I apologize for being the bearer of bad news, but hey let's face it, if anyone plays the part of Murphy it's usually me. 

If that were true then you would not be able to play any enhancements in a Side Battle, unless they were attached to the character entering battle (i.e. play next, or placed by Agur).

Actually the opposite is true.

It seems to me that the initiation of the Side Battle is instant,

That may be the route that the Elders go to get the thorn from their side, but that will doubtless create its own issues.

but the rest of the battle follows the normal rules of a battle, in which SAs can be inserted and dominants can be played.

The side battle does indeed follow all the rules of a battle up to and including battle resolution.  But the entire battle is under the umbrella of an instant ability.  It's somewhat similar to the ITB+play next, which allows for specific cards/abilities to be inserted.

It's been played wrong.  Hopefully there won't be any knee-jerk reactions and a full regression analysis can be administered.

Quote from: STAMP on February 21, 2013, 04:46:15 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 21, 2013, 02:08:53 PM

If that were true then you would not be able to play any enhancements in a Side Battle, unless they were attached to the character entering battle (i.e. play next, or placed by Agur).

Actually the opposite is true.

I'm afraid I don't follow. Please explain, and use small words so that I am sure to understand. 

I agree with YMT that I'm not following the logic in this thread, nor what anyone is arguing anymore...can we have clarity as to where we are in the discussion, because at this I'm not even sure what the "rule" is and what the "change" is...if there is one?   It'd be helpful if we boil down the discussions as YMT said.  Here goes my effort for my point:

The card causing SI must be interrupted or negated directly during SI for a card to be played.  Draw+Play, Omri, Play First, etc. cannot be independently targeted to stop a different ability that resulted and caused SI, and the same should apply to Side Battle cards.

Just because chicken little says the sky is falling does not mean we need to bring in "dutch boys" or administer a full regression analysis. All I've seen so far in Stamp's posts is a misrepresentation of the rules as they pertain to side battles. I can't even call it a misinterpretation because I haven't seen any rules referenced in the related posts, in or out of context.

Okay so...what is the current ruling then?  I'm assuming what you originally ruled, but I want to make sure, because this thread got very confusing and I want to make sure that when it is searched out in the future it's crystal clear (and I rule correctly this Saturday)