Author Topic: "If block is successful..." (Read 1924 times)

Professoralstad · « **on:** August 21, 2015, 09:36:15 AM »

Had a question come up in a game last night:

I RA with Red O.T. Warrrior Dude. Opponent blocks with King Tiglath Pileser III ("If block is successful, you may capture an O.T. human Hero in a territory.") I play Bravery of David without David in play. Opponent plays Rabshakeh's Threats ("Interrupt the battle and return X human Heroes in battle to owners' territory. Cannot be prevented unless Isaiah is in play.")

My contention is as follows: KTP3s ability is interrupted as an ongoing ability (delayed trigger) by Threats. Once Threats completes, and KTP3 reinstates, he is no longer blocking (since there is no Hero in battle). So the future tense "if block is successful" doesn't apply, since the block already happened.

My opponent obviously thought differently, arguing that "if block is successful" refers to the completed block, a viewpoint which I could understand, but still disagree with. It probably didn't matter overall in the game, but it does have applications in this and other "if block is successful" situations, so it should be addressed.

wyatt_marcum · « **Reply #1 on:** August 21, 2015, 10:03:44 AM »

From what I have been told, as long as he stopped you from getting a lost soul, than the block was successful.

Redoubter · « **Reply #2 on:** August 21, 2015, 10:46:11 AM »

Very interesting question. I can see both sides of it and am curious on hearing more opinions on this.

My ruling would be that he could capture, and here is why:

Quote from: REG 3.0.0 > Glossary > Successful Block

A successful block occurs when the Hero(es) in battle do not accomplish their goal. This can mean different things for Rescue Attempts and Battle Challenges. If at any point, the battle was a Rescue Attempt, then a successful block occurs anytime no Lost Soul is rescued during Battle Resolution. If the battle began as a Battle Challenge and never became a Rescue Attempt, a successful block can happen in any of the following ways:
● All attacking Heroes are removed from the Field of Battle before Battle Resolution by a special ability.
● The battle ends in a stalemate.
● The battle ends with the blocking Evil Character(s) defeating the Hero(es) by total strength and toughness comparison.

The first bolded section applies to the situation you gave, and the other to a BC only. In both cases, there is a 'check' during Battle Resolution, which is after the character's suspended ability has reactivated. Also in both cases, the 'game' is checking to see if either condition is true. KTP3's ability is not checking throughout the battle, only in Battle Resolution; at that time, it determines that the condition is true (there was an RA at some point and no LS is being given in Battle Resolution, or it was always a BC and all heroes were removed before Battle Resolution).

Therefore, by the time this checks, it is in the Battle Resolution and the ability is active. It finds the condition is true, so the effect happens.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #3 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:07:28 PM »

That seems pretty clear. It is probably easier to rule it that way, as it is cleaner, but it does get somewhat convoluted when you try to balance a variety of principles that are true in English and in other aspects of the game. Essentially it says that a character can be involved in a block even when there is currently no one to block, as long as there was someone to block at some point in the same battle. Just one of those idiosyncrasies that make people who try to reconcile wording on cards with English a little crazy...but like I said, its probably better that way.

FWIW, "If block is successful..." is up there with "fought earthly battle" in terms of phrases that I most hope to not see on future cards.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #4 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:19:39 PM »

I find nothing really strange about this situation and how it works. I'd actually find it very strange if it worked the way Professoralstad suggested, rather than the way it is ruled. Because it's not that the information of it being a rescue attempt was lost during the interrupt.

The Guardian · « **Reply #5 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:29:53 PM »

I agree with Dayne and your opponent.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #6 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:30:33 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 21, 2015, 01:19:39 PM

I find nothing really strange about this situation and how it works. I'd actually find it very strange if it worked the way Professoralstad suggested, rather than the way it is ruled. Because it's not that the information of it being a rescue attempt was lost during the interrupt.

To clarify my original position, the way interrupt functions, it essentially makes the abilities that get interrupted as if they never activated while the interrupt and associated abilities resolve. So during the interrupt, the ongoing trigger is not active. When it reactivates, it looks for a block that may or may not be successful. However, since the EC is in battle by himself, he is not technically blocking at that moment, so my contention was that when the ability activated, there was no block to be successful.

That said, the REG does seem to address it, and it's probably better for it to be that way overall.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #7 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:31:11 PM »

Were you his opponent?

Josh · « **Reply #8 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:32:57 PM »

KTP III ought to work. His ongoing ability kicks in after OT Red Dude is removed from battle, yes; but characters leaving battle, even if an entire side of battle is removed, doesn't end the battle (that's when cards like Madness, GoH, Boaz' Sandal, etc. get used to continue a battle). A battle ends when both players essentially "agree" it ends (because they can't change the cards in battle), or by special ability.

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 21, 2015, 01:30:33 PM

When it reactivates, it looks for a block that may or may not be successful. However, since the EC is in battle by himself, he is not technically blocking at that moment, so my contention was that when the ability activated, there was no block to be successful.

Don't forget, an EC in battle by himself who removed all rescuing heroes from battle has not necessarily made a successful block. He might not be opposed by a hero, but he's still blocking. Boaz's Sandal would continue the rescue, for example.

The Guardian · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:40:19 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on August 21, 2015, 01:31:11 PM

Were you his opponent?

Irrelevant.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2015, 01:44:32 PM »

I think the Prof's hangup may be with the definition of "block" rather than "successful block." Once the EC enters the Field of Battle in response to a hero entering the Field of Battle during the Battle Phase, that is considered a "block," regardless of what happens next.

As an aside, I find it disturbing that I have to watch a preview of the horror movie "Sinister" when I want to look up information on the Redemption Wikia.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2015, 02:02:25 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on August 21, 2015, 01:32:57 PM

KTP III ought to work. His ongoing ability kicks in after OT Red Dude is removed from battle, yes; but characters leaving battle, even if an entire side of battle is removed, doesn't end the battle (that's when cards like Madness, GoH, Boaz' Sandal, etc. get used to continue a battle). A battle ends when both players essentially "agree" it ends (because they can't change the cards in battle), or by special ability.

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 21, 2015, 01:30:33 PM
When it reactivates, it looks for a block that may or may not be successful. However, since the EC is in battle by himself, he is not technically blocking at that moment, so my contention was that when the ability activated, there was no block to be successful.

Don't forget, an EC in battle by himself who removed all rescuing heroes from battle has not necessarily made a successful block. He might not be opposed by a hero, but he's still blocking. Boaz's Sandal would continue the rescue, for example.

Which is my point: The REG suggests that it is true, however, in other cases where an EC is in battle not opposed by a Hero, such as side battles, they are not blocking. In my mind, no Hero=no block. The English verb "to block" requires an object, something that is blocked. Redemption does not require that, which I find unfortunate, but perhaps necessary. Boaz' Sandal is another compelling reason why it should be the way it is ruled, though IMO it should have probably been worded by saying "if an Evil Character is in battle..."

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on August 21, 2015, 01:44:32 PM

I think the Prof's hangup may be with the definition of "block" rather than "successful block." Once the EC enters the Field of Battle in response to a hero entering the Field of Battle during the Battle Phase, that is considered a "block," regardless of what happens next.

As an aside, I find it disturbing that I have to watch a preview of the horror movie "Sinister" when I want to look up information on the Redemption Wikia.

FTR, my only hangup is that Redemption defines block/blocking in a somewhat counterintuitive way. That may be how it has to be, and I'm not going to argue with a clear ruling, I just feel the need to defend my position once in awhile, especially when people say things like it being "strange." It makes sense in my head, so it can't be that strange, right?

As for the Wiki, I had thought there was a way to restrict the types of ads that popped up to those appropriate for the audience using it, as I seem to recall other issues previously that were resolved. Maybe contact Lambo Diablo to see if he might have an idea how to fix that.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2015, 02:17:54 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 21, 2015, 02:02:25 PM

I just feel the need to defend my position once in awhile, especially when people say things like it being "strange." It makes sense in my head, so it can't be that strange, right?

He meant "strange" in the good way, like Dr. Strange (the superhero). We can call you Professor Strange.

Quote from: Professoralstad on August 21, 2015, 02:02:25 PM

As for the Wiki, I had thought there was a way to restrict the types of ads that popped up to those appropriate for the audience using it, as I seem to recall other issues previously that were resolved. Maybe contact Lambo Diablo to see if he might have an idea how to fix that.

The images for that particular movie were quite disturbing, since it appears to involve the murder of children.

Gabe · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2015, 04:50:10 PM »

Dayne explained my thoughts on the matter. Tig gets his man.

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: "If block is successful..." (Read 1924 times)

Professoralstad

"If block is successful..."

wyatt_marcum

Re: "If block is successful..."

Redoubter

Re: "If block is successful..."

Professoralstad

Re: "If block is successful..."

ChristianSoldier

Re: "If block is successful..."

The Guardian

Re: "If block is successful..."

Professoralstad

Re: "If block is successful..."

Red Dragon Thorn

Re: "If block is successful..."

Josh

Re: "If block is successful..."

The Guardian

Re: "If block is successful..."

YourMathTeacher

Re: "If block is successful..."

Professoralstad

Re: "If block is successful..."

YourMathTeacher

Re: "If block is successful..."

Gabe

Re: "If block is successful..."