Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Please note, this is not up for discussion, but rather a brief summary of what has been decided by Rob and the Elders regarding "instead." This has also been added to the "Instead ruling" post in the Official Updated Rulings Thread

Just a quick note...
We appreciate the efforts of those who respectfully discuss and debate rulings, and it is our goal to make rulings that are consistent and easy to understand. That being said, not every ruling will be simple because this is not a simple game, and there are many cards that are very "un-simple." While we would hope no one becomes frustrated with rulings, we know that is not always the case. Please remember that we as Elders love this game just as much as everyone else, and sometimes it's a difficult thing to balance the best interests of the game with the best interests of the players.

May God continue to bless this game and this community,
Justin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Instead"

If an ability is "insteaded" then that ability is considered to never have been carried out, for any reason. Only the ability that took place instead of the original ability is considered to have happened.

If a card is "immune" to or “protected” from the "instead" ability, then the original ability is carried out and considered to have happened.

All instead abilities have an implied "would" or "would be” before the ability. For example: "If an opponent's good dominant [would] rescue or [would] discard a card..." (Judas' Plot) or "If your N.T. human [would be] discarded by a special ability..." (Herod's Temple).
(Some cards already have this language, such as Chamber of Angels (“If your angel is being discarded…”).

Good rule, but I ask for one clarification: please include in the definition what happens if the original and "instead" abilities are any combination of "may do" with "cannot target", i.e. original ability cannot target while player may do "insteaded" ability but chooses not to.

I'm not sure I follow either...could you provide a game example where this arises?

Nevermind.  I'm not sure what I was thinking.   

I'm a little confused about something. Adding the "would" or "would be" clause to instead abilities would imply that they happen before the resolution of the ability they are trying to instead. Currently, abilities resolve before anything else can be played/used/etc. unless you interrupt them. Does this mean that all instead abilities with the "would (be)" clause inherently interrupt the ability being insteaded? That would seem to diminish the usefulness of insteads (as they couldn't instead CBI or CBN abilities, and Judas' Plot would be useless since Dominants can't be interrupted).

Also, doesn't this definition of "instead" break Redemption Commandment #3: "Cannot be Negated means Cannot Be Negated. Not directly, not indirectly, no way, no how. That puppy sticks." ?

Not trying to step on any toes (and before you ask, I don't have any broken combos I'm trying to get approved or anything, lol), just curious.

As Schaef said, there is no negating or interrupting going on with instead. That's the reason I posted the clarifications so that everyone understands the "how" and not just the "outcome." Judas' Plot does not interrupt a dominant and put it beneath deck, it simply triggers when a dominant targets a card and says to do something else "instead" of whatever would be done.

It seems to me that every instead ability is ongoing, or uses the instead as an option for the same ability.

So therefore, that rule wouldn't be broken so much, because cards that instead the ability of other cards are already active.

So are instead abilities officially breaking the "nothing can be activated/used/played until abilities resolve" rule, then?

Not really, because all of the instead abilities are always already active. For example, if I play AotL on your Crimson EC, you can't play Judas' Plot from hand to save your EC.

Anytime something triggers an instead ability, the instead ability must be completed first, then the other abilities can resolve.

Lambo beat me to it cuz my wireless was acting up for a few minutes...

It's really more to ensure total clarity.

Quote from: browarod on January 29, 2011, 02:24:46 PM

I'm a little confused about something. Adding the "would" or "would be" clause to instead abilities would imply that they happen before the resolution of the ability they are trying to instead. Currently, abilities resolve before anything else can be played/used/etc. unless you interrupt them. Does this mean that all instead abilities with the "would (be)" clause inherently interrupt the ability being insteaded? That would seem to diminish the usefulness of insteads (as they couldn't instead CBI or CBN abilities, and Judas' Plot would be useless since Dominants can't be interrupted).

Also, doesn't this definition of "instead" break Redemption Commandment #3: "Cannot be Negated means Cannot Be Negated. Not directly, not indirectly, no way, no how. That puppy sticks." ?

Not trying to step on any toes (and before you ask, I don't have any broken combos I'm trying to get approved or anything, lol), just curious.

As Schaef said, there is no negating or interrupting going on with instead. That's the reason I posted the clarifications so that everyone understands the "how" and not just the "outcome." Judas' Plot does not interrupt a dominant and put it beneath deck, it simply triggers when a dominant targets a card and says to do something else "instead" of whatever would be done.

In some games Ive played, we would call this a replacement effect. For example: if your character would be discarded, you could pay a cost and you character would go to territory instead of the discard pile. Its location of where it would go would be replaced with another. Herod's Temple says hello.