Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: Master KChief on August 26, 2008, 08:29:47 PM

from the REG:

Quote

abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal

If an ability causing you to lose by removal is instant, your logic says it cannot be interrupted.

If you allow the play for abilities that cause you to lose by removal, you must necessarily allow also the play for the last Enhancement if your opponent played it.

In other words, if you acknowledge that any one of those conditions is considered first, and then the last sentence to address cards outside that condition, you must give the same consideration to all those conditions.

Therefore, you can interrupt the battle to interrupt Gold Shield, provided you have a card in the appropriate brigade to do so.

you're being far too analytical with this.

the reg says i can interrupt the last enhancement, yes. however, it says i CANNOT interrupt special abilities that have already completed and are no longer pending.  as far as i know, cannot always trumps can in this game. therefore, using that logic, i am free to interrupt the last enhancement as long as its special ability has not yet completed.

John, Would you kindly listen to The Scheaf? He is not trying to be a big bad boogieman about this. He is just saying it how it is.

John, Would you kindly listen to The Scheaf? He is not trying to be a big bad boogieman about this. He is just saying it how it is.

schaef is not the 'end-all, be-all' when it comes to rulings. he has been wrong in the past. namely, he has been proven wrong in the very thread youre posting in.

i still keep my stance. im simply going by how the rules state i can play. yes, it says it DOES interrupt 3 specific situations: ongoing special abilities, removal, and the last enhancement played in current battle. thats not the problem; i can definately adhere to the rules of those situations. but you must ALSO adhere to the rule that says it DOES NOT interrupt special abilities that have already completed. again, as i have stated before, 'cannot/does not' trumps 'can/does' in the game of redemption. therefore, the situations that are interruptable and that also follow ALL of the precedents as set by the REG are as follows:

(a) all ongoing special abilities
(b) loss by removal
(c) the last enhancement played by opponent in battle, AS LONG AS it is not an ability that has already completed (and since B is also a rule, the instant ability must not be one that causes loss by removal).

Ok, do you not see that according to your definition C is completely pointless?  It adds nothing that A and B don't already cover.  There would be NO purpose to having C in the rules then.  We might as well add option D,E,F,etc. - abilities that ignore, abilities that protect, immune abilities, etc..  Sure we don't need to say any of these because A already covers that but let's add in extra words for fun.

Since it says that in fact you CAN interrupt the last enhancement as an ADDITIONAL option, then maybe you should think of the last enhancement's ability as still pending.  


instaposted

schaef is not the 'end-all, be-all' when it comes to rulings. he has been wrong in the past. namely, he has been proven wrong in the very thread youre posting in.

If you're referring to Gold Shield, I don't know how you equate having a ruling go against me with "being proven wrong".  For one to be "wrong", I would have to have said something contrary to a ruling already in place, and the whole point of this thread was that a ruling for Gold Shield did not yet exist.  I'll be the first to admit I've had rulings go againt me, and that I've been wrong as often as I've been right.  But you seem to be beating your chest needlessly in this case, and inaccurately to boot.

im simply going by how the rules state i can play.

No you are not, because the way you are reading those rules is contradictory in two different places.  You highlight both contradictions below.

but you must ALSO adhere to the rule that says it DOES NOT interrupt special abilities that have already completed.

There are many special abilities that can have already completed, the shuffling of a Lost Soul, for example, or an Evil Character brought into battle by Unknown Nation.  These abilities do not hold to any of the three conditions listed, and they are already completed, therefore, they are not stopped by an "interrupt the battle" ability.  That is what that phrase means.

By my reading, the rule is internally consistent and allows this interrupt to be played the way interrupts have been played for years.  Your reading causes a contradiction between the two paragraphs, and is therefore logically inconsistent.

(b) loss by removal
(c) the last enhancement played by opponent in battle, AS LONG AS it is not an ability that has already completed (and since B is also a rule, the instant ability must not be one that causes loss by removal).

This is the other place your logic falls down.  You say that since B is a rule, it trumps the phrase about special abilities already completed.  And yet C is also a rule, every bit as complete and valid as B, but you are not treating it the same.

If Loss by Removal can be interrupted, then the last Enhancement can be interrupted.
If Loss by Removal cannot be interrupted, then the last Enhancement cannot be interrupted.

In fact, laying this out in such a manner has unveiled yet a THIRD place your logic falls down.
- If the last Enhancement played is ongoing, then it is already covered by condition A
- If the last Enhancement played causes loss by removal, then it is already covered by condition B
So if all abilities are either ongoing or instant, and all instant abilities either cause a loss by removal or do not, then the only kind of ability not covered by A or B is an instant that does not cause a loss by removal.  So if we were to take your version, and make the second paragraph a (contradictory and inconsistently applied) restriction on the first, and not an extension of it, then there is no possible Enhancement that could EVER satisfy condition C by itself, and therefore, no reason for the rule to exist.  The rule DOES exist, and therefore MUST be applied to the last Enhancement played before you apply the restrictions of the second paragraph to OTHER cards.

Was there ever a definite ruling given on this? Does Gold Shield transfer initiative or not?

Quote from: BrianGabe on August 13, 2008, 02:26:58 PM

What we're talking about here is a new precedent since Golden Shield is the first card to convert a Hero but allow it to keep it's Hero status.  In the past convert cards removed the character from battle which caused initiative to be passed.  Since Golden Shield doesn't cause the character to leave battle and the SA does not (directly) cause them to lose, I would rule that the Hero does not get initiative to play an interrupt/negate in their prior brigade, only in the new brigade that is chosen by Golden Shield.

This is correct.  I'm playing catch-up on 4 pages of ruling questions, so I'm going to pass on reading beyond the first page on this thread. 

The rules give a player a chance to play a negate based on "prior state" in only one case: Losing By Removal.  Gold Shield does not remove the hero from the battle, so the hero does not get the chance to use a negate based on prior state.  The player may only play a negate of the new brigade color.

Yes.  This is official.  It doesn't pass initiative.

Well then, that could be quite useful. Thank you.

Gold Shield could also be useful as a converted weapon.