Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
1. If my opponent decreases my EC to /0 with Gates of Samaria, but I have a protect fort (such as Headquarters at Riblah) which is keeping it alive in territory, when that EC enters battle do I have initiative to play anything at all (I assume not, but I'd like clarification) and does the EC's ability activate (I think it does)?Gates of Samaria....When you play a Samaria Site, increase your evil King of Israel 6/6 to decrease a character 6/6.Headquarters at RiblahProtect Babylonian Evil Characters in your territory from discard.....2. Can I deactivate Magic Charms on my Magician during Prep Phase and then reactivate it on a different Magician?Magic CharmsProtect your Magicians from capture and conversion. You may discard this card from your Magician during battle to capture up to two human Heroes. • Identifiers: May be activated on your Magician
1. The character's ability activates, but then the character immediately gets discarded. You do not get initiative to play anything.
2. No. This seems to follow the same logic as deactivating Lampstand, playing an evil dominant and then reactivating Lampstand. An art can not be deactivated and reactivated during prep phase to my knowledge.
postcount.add(1);
2.) Yes, as long as it's instantaneous. Allowed: Deactivating Lampy on artifact pile, and then immediately activating it on a temple. Not allowed: doing the above, but adding anything in between.
Redemption® Rulebook > Situation Descriptions > Winning the Battle Winning by Removal Because of a Special AbilityYour Hero is winning a battle by removal if a special ability removes the blocking Evil Character from battle. Your opponent has initiative, but your opponent may only play an enhancement that has “interrupt” or “negate” ability.
@STAMP - Technically yes, technically no. I'm being physically removed by game rule, but my opponent's special ability led to that game rule triggering.
Well, I like your thinking, lol. So I assume you're saying I can play something that either negates Gates or interrupts the battle in general?
It's been established quite recently that ITB cannot be played in regards to Gates. Also, negating Gates wouldn't do anything because the decrease happened in an earlier phase.
Agreed.Also, a */0 or less character's ability will activate when he enters battle, and it can play an enhancement if it has a play ability (like Proud Pharisee, The Jeering Youths, etc.) but otherwise it does not get initiative to play.
Two problems with that: First, GoS is not ongoing. Ongoing decreases like Crown of Thorns or PwD are only ongoing because they are Artifacts that by necessity only activate once (so that you don't have EC's decreasing 0/3 each turn). Gates of Samaria's decrease is instant, in that it is a one-time permanent decrease. Second, even if GoS was ongoing, ItB was recently clarified to only be able to interrupt cards played in battle, of which GoS is not one. Unfortunately, the REG wasn't updated on that point apparently, but I will find the thread where the rule was established (hopefully it is at least in one of the REG corrections threads). This thread includes the change to ItB, but says it expands the definition, so it might still be unclear. However, I don't think it was ever intended that ItB should interrupt ongoing abilities outside of battle, else protection forts/sites would be pointless vs. Reach/AoCP. So it might still need further clarification, but hopefully it is obvious that interrupt the battle should only interrupt abilities in battle.
Everything seems to be reactive these days regarding rulings. It's like we're building our house on sand. I'm really saddened by this.
Quite the opposite. We're moving away from reactive rulings for the most part and moving toward definitions which can be applied to any scenario. That's why the "can Joseph Before Pharaoh negate Unholy Writ" type questions are so crucial; right now, all of the rulings are reactionary. I and quite a few others a pushing for a definition, so that individual questions can be answered with a uniform rule.
Quote from: STAMP on January 05, 2012, 12:31:39 PMEverything seems to be reactive these days regarding rulings. It's like we're building our house on sand. I'm really saddened by this. STAMP, it sounds a lot like you don't like the ruling more than you think it's inconsistent. The house was built on sand 20 years ago when the game first started, before anyone had any idea how expansive and strategic the game would become, and it's only been in the last couple years that the Elders have attempted to hammer down distinct definitions. The evidence of this is that we finally have a definition for the word "play". The ruling that Prof A gave is quite consistent: The decrease is an instant ability and that's it. Saying it's ongoing doesn't make any sense, because the decrease isn't dependent on Gates of Samaria being there, the way it would be if Crown of Thorns was there instead. Thus, negating Gates of Samaria doesn't mean anything if the decrease happened in a later phase, because that's how the game has always been played.
Dynamically conditional increase or decrease abilities are ongoing. Dynamic abilities are typically designated by a “*” or “x” on the card. All other increase or decrease abilities are instantaneous. Increase or decrease abilities target the card(s) whose abilities are changed.
It's not about like or dislike. Prof A's explanation now gives us a more complex view of ongoing abilities of cards outside battle that impact cards in battle. And FYI, increase/decrease is categorized as an ongoing ability - whether you look at the old REG or new REG, so your statement is incorrect. I'm not sure why GoS is tripping everyone up and causing an issue of "oh, we must deal with arts and forts" differently. Seriously, if the verbiage is confusing allow me to generalize.
Quote from: Chronic Apathy on January 05, 2012, 12:22:59 AMnegating Gates wouldn't do anything because the decrease happened in an earlier phase.Agreed.Also, a */0 or less character's ability will activate when he enters battle, and it can play an enhancement if it has a play ability (like Proud Pharisee, The Jeering Youths, etc.) but otherwise it does not get initiative to play. You can switch the magician holding Magic Charms on the same turn, just as, as some have said, you can switch Lampstand from a Art pile to a temple.
negating Gates wouldn't do anything because the decrease happened in an earlier phase.
I'm sorry you feel that way STAMP, especially because I know that I (along with several others) have a very high regard for you and your input. I would absolutely encourage you to continue hosting tournaments, especially if everyone involved is enjoying themselves. For low level tournaments like locals and districts, having a very high percentage of accurate rulings simply isn't as important as it is in higher level tournaments, and even then, mistakes get made (NE Regionals). I admit that sometimes we get a little bit legalistic, but honestly, I think that that's necessary. Part of the responsibility for those of us who contribute to the Ruling Questions board (especially the Elders and Playtesters) is that everything is as fair as possible. In this case, that means trying to make sure that every ruling that comes across our path is ruled consistently. One of the inevitable side-effects to this is that things get a bit complicated, and people tend to disagree (which is ironic in it's own way). However, I don't believe you should let that discourage you from hosting your own tournaments and having fun with the people in your playgroup. Maybe you should just take what goes on here a little less seriously? Just a thought. I hope and pray you'll rethink your proclamation to give up officially sanctioned play.
Author
Topic: Gates and Protection from Discard, also Magic Charms (Read 3911 times)
