Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Josh on April 18, 2013, 12:28:04 PM
-
Suppose player A is attacking with a Teal hero (ability not important) and is blocked by the small Brown evil character of player B (special ability also not important). The hero is winning by the numbers, so player B plays Korah's Rebellion. Player A responds by playing Jehoida's Strength with special initiative. How does the battle resolve?
A. All cards in battle except the Teal hero are removed from the game, because the hero is immune to Brown via JS.
B. All cards in battle are removed from the game, since when Korah's Rebellion reactivates, it interrupts the battle again and therefore interrupts JS's ongoing immunity.
Korah's Rebellion - "Interrupt the battle and remove all cards in battle from the game."
Jehoida's Strength - "Interrupt the battle and band any number of O.T. human Heroes into battle. All Heroes are immune to brown brigade."
-
The Brown EC would be removed from game and all heroes would not. Korah's Rebellion's interrupt does not reactivate - the rest of the ability just finishes. So it does not interrupt the immunity provided by Jehoiada's Strength.
-
The Brown EC would be removed from game and all heroes would not. Korah's Rebellion's interrupt does not reactivate - the rest of the ability just finishes. So it does not interrupt the immunity provided by Jehoiada's Strength.
Why does the "Interrupt the battle" portion of K's Rebellion not reactivate? The entire enhancement was interrupted.
-
The Brown EC would be removed from game and all heroes would not. Korah's Rebellion's interrupt does not reactivate - the rest of the ability just finishes. So it does not interrupt the immunity provided by Jehoiada's Strength.
This is how I've seen it played, but I'm not entirely sure that that is how it should be. ItB should interrupt the entire ability of the last enhancement, which includes the interrupt, so when the enhancement reactivates, I think the interrupt should reactivate too.
I'd wait for other elders to chime in, but I think everything should get removed (although, like I said, I have seen it played where that is not the case, which is why I'd like to see some other opinions).
-
The Brown EC would be removed from game and all heroes would not. Korah's Rebellion's interrupt does not reactivate - the rest of the ability just finishes. So it does not interrupt the immunity provided by Jehoiada's Strength.
This is how I've seen it played, but I'm not entirely sure that that is how it should be. ItB should interrupt the entire ability of the last enhancement, which includes the interrupt, so when the enhancement reactivates, I think the interrupt should reactivate too.
I'd wait for other elders to chime in, but I think everything should get removed (although, like I said, I have seen it played where that is not the case, which is why I'd like to see some other opinions).
I was just going off of how I've seen it played. This makes more sense, though.
-
If the interrupt is interrupted and reactivates then you'd have a cascade of interrupts re-interrupting each other endlessly and I don't think anyone wants to have to think about that.
-
Except that in this case there is no cascade of interrupts because Korah's Rebellion would finish before Jehoiada's Strength could reactivate.
-
Interrupt does not change targets after being interrupted, nor does ITB change what it interrupts upon reactivation. This is also supported by the definition presented in the REG and prevents infinite interruption. The relevant portions are:
Interrupting an ability only undoes the completion of that ability's activation. It does not undo the beginning of the ability's activation or the declaration of targets for the ability. The interrupted abilities go back to being pending abilities until they reactivate.
The phrase “interrupt the battle” includes interrupting the following:
- all active ongoing abilities
- abilities that are defeating one of the characters you control in battle
- The last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent.
Interrupt the battle only includes such abilities if they were activated on cards in the current battle.
After an interrupt ability completes, the suspended abilities that were interrupted attempt to reactivate. They attempt to reactive in the same order they were originally activated. In order to reactivate the suspended abilities, the following conditions must be met:
- the card on which the ability exists must still be in battle
- if the ability is on an enhancement there must still be a character in battle on which it can activate
- the ability was not prevented while it was interrupted
- the targets of the ability are still legal targets
The rules are very specific that ITB has specific targets when played. If it is interrupted and reactivates, it may not have new targets, due to the reactivation rules.
In the case above, for example, Korah's Rebellion interrupts nothing (the last card played was not by the opponent). It then becomes interrupted, and is suspended. Upon reactivation, it may not have new targets for interruption, otherwise (as pointed out), we will have cascading interrupts and negates. For instance, if it worked as Prof A suggested, and we add another layer of ITB, then they will ITB each other ad infinitum.
-
So the ItB in Korah's Rebllion's SA does not re-interrupt, which would mean only the EC and KR are removed from the game, correct?
-
So the ItB in Korah's Rebllion's SA does not re-interrupt, which would mean only the EC and KR are removed from the game, correct?
And Jehoida's Strength. The target for the RFG part of the ability is all cards in battle, which also includes the GE by the time of reactivation. The target has not changed, only the cards eligible for RFG.
-
Redoubter's explanation matches my understanding as well.
-
If the interrupt is interrupted and reactivates then you'd have a cascade of interrupts re-interrupting each other endlessly and I don't think anyone wants to have to think about that.
That's a good point. After thinking about it more, Redoubters explanation is correct. I figured there was a reason why it is played the way it has been, I just couldn't think of it.
-
I also agree with Redoubter and Gabe, and now the "other Prof" too :)
-
Thank heaven. If the ruling were otherwise, think of all the battle interrupters in the game. Scary...
-
Thank heaven. If the ruling were otherwise, think of all the battle interrupters in the game. Scary...
I'm more concerned about the fact that my post was immediately followed by 3 Elders agreeing with me... I'm...I'm justnot sure what I'm supposed to do now...who do I disagree with?! ;)