Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RedemptionAggie on September 17, 2011, 07:40:26 PM
-
From the REG:
If there are first strike abilities on both sides of battle, then the side that activated a first strike ability first gets the first opportunity to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state. If that side of battle is unable to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state, the other side of battle then gets a chance.
Rome:
Your emperors have first strike and may use N.T. Enhancements of any evil brigade except orange.
If a hero with first strike is blocked by a emperor from a player that already has Rome in their territory, which first strike takes precedence?
-
Whoever enters battle first (Hero)
-
Two characters with first strike act just like two characters that don't. The two cancel each other out.
-
"Cancel each other out" is not correct. They both retain the defintion of First Strike - in a mutual destruction, that character will survive. If both characters have first strike, then it is a stalemate. The REG quote from Aggie then applies - the first character to activate First Strike (the hero in this case) has initiative.
Aggie, I agree with Knot. Although Rome is active before the hero enters, First Strike is not granted until the Emperor enters battle.
-
Whoever enters battle first (Hero)
+1
A character can't really have 1st strike in territory, therefore Rome must trigger when an emperor goes into battle and then adds that ability to the defender. In this case, the hero would already have activated their own 1st strike at that point.
When 2 characters have 1st strike, whichever one activated it first counts, and the other one doesn't.
instaposted...
-
When 2 characters have 1st strike, whichever one activated it first counts, and the other one doesn't.
Is this true? Is that in the REG?
-
When 2 characters have 1st strike, whichever one activated it first counts, and the other one doesn't.
Is this true? Is that in the REG?
I thought it used to be. However, the new REG has a different take on things:
If there are first strike abilities on both sides of battle, then the side that activated a first strike ability first gets the first opportunity to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state. If that side of battle is unable to move the battle away from the mutual destruction state, the other side of battle then gets a chance.
This indicates that if both characters have 1st strike in a mutual destruction scenario, that both would be destroyed. I'm curious to have another elder chime in and confirm that I am reading that correctly.
-
This indicates that if both characters have 1st strike in a mutual destruction scenario, that both would be destroyed.
That's what SomeKittens was saying, but I disagree. I don't think the quote is saying that the battle returns to Mutual Destruction. I think that it is just referring to the state of the battle at the time First Strike was considered, since FS is not relevant unless it is a Mutual Destruction. I see that quote as just a clarification of who has initiative.
-
When 2 characters have 1st strike, whichever one activated it first counts, and the other one doesn't.
Is this true? Is that in the REG?
http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/Master/gloss_firststrike.htm (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/Master/gloss_firststrike.htm)
-
If opposing characters in battle both have first strike ability, the character who gained it first takes precedence.
That doesn't say the second one doesn't count. In the scenario presented in the new REG (check the first one activated, if it doesn't resolve the mutual, check the other), the first one still takes precedence. Without that clarification, I think most people would interpret the glossary entry like Prof U did. (I did, until I looked up First Strike as an ability instead of in the glossary in the REG.)
-
If opposing characters in battle both have first strike ability, the character who gained it first takes precedence. - Glossary
First of all, why is this not in the First Strike entry for Ongoing Abilities?
Second, I still don't see this as saying anything other than "has initiative." If the intent is otherwise, then the REG needs to be clear. These silly semantics are annoyingly vague for this iteration of the REG.
So is this the ruling:
First strike abilities prevent opposing characters' first strike abilities.