Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Okay; please excuse my ignorance. It has been a while since I have played Redemption in the community. I have reviewed many posts and would like to clarify my understanding on a few things:

1) Special initiative (SI) may not have been an actual ruling previously but I recognize it as intuitive. The one significant change I am gleaning is that SI must negate the actual card initiating the SI as opposed the last card played in the battle.

For example, assuming a stalemate; no special ability battle. Having initiative, my opponent played a remove all cards from the game card, I then play a negate an evil enhancement card, my opponent plays a negate a good enhancement card and I play yet another negate card but it states "negate the last evil enhancement played in battle." Since the final negate card didn't target the remove from the game card it would not prevent the removal. Is that right?

2) You can no longer use your Son of God and/or New Jerusalem on you own lost souls. :O That's a big change! Any history as to why? Just curious (I am a curious person).

3) The clay brigade - Is it essentially just an additional good brigade or is there something I have missed? It feels like there should be more to it, seeing how all humans are jars of clay.

4) Card effects resolve before dominants take effect. For example, I enter battle with Samson 12/6 (Gold; no special ability; warrior class) and my opponent blocks with King Menahem 7/5 (Gray; "When using King Menahem to block, discard a card at random from opponent's hand; warrior class). If I understand it right, my opponent's discard effect resolves before I can play a dominant from my hand.

Thanks!

#1 appears to be correct according to the current definition. I hadn't realized this. I've learned something from an "old guy".

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 charact’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.

#2 Also correct. The reasons for the change are two fold. First, it's what new players automatically assume so it lowers the barrier to learn the game. Second, it slows down ultra fast decks because they have to wait for the opponent to draw Lost Souls and can't just draw all of their own plus rescue 3 from the opponent.

#3 It's just a new brigade, however it's reserved for all believers since the coming of the Holy Spirit.

#4 Correct on all counts! You can play a Dominant "at any time" but you must allow any active, instant abilities (like your random discard example) to complete first.

I think I am confused by what people are saying about #1. Are you saying that you cannot play the second negate (since it does not target the "remove all" card), or that the second negate would not stop the removal?

I don't see how either would be true in this case.

FWIW, I would think you could just play the "negate last enhancement" card first, then play the "negate an evil enhancement" second, but I don't see why this would be necessary.

I'm in agreement with YMT. This ruling make ZERO sense. If you are negating your opponents removal with SI and he then plays a negate, you have SI to negate his negate which would reactivate you negating his removal.

Speaking of SI, is there any hope on getting the requirement for the negating/interrupting card to be played from hand removed?

That completely changes the way initiative works in generally and adds complexity without a real cause.  It is just not impactful to the game (there are literally a handful of times it matters).  It doesn't make sense to do a complete rework just for those really rare cases where nothing is currently broken.  We recently had this discussion, so please post in that thread if you want to continue that, so any questions the returning player has can be addressed in particular (so as to avoid a derailment).

Is this you presenting what was decided by the PTB or restating your opposition to the simplification?

I am giving the current ruling as was given by consensus from the Elders when we gave SI an overhaul this past November (when just about everything possible related to SI was discussed) and which was discussed further as part of the ongoing REG update.  Again, please do not derail the topic at hand for the one who started it.