Cactus Game Design Message Boards

  that's tough. i think Sapphira would have negated the battle winner.

Doesn't Sapphira also negate Lurking, indirectly negating TAS, kicking herself out of battle?

My take is the the battle is John+Reach+battle winner (negated) vs. Claudius in a FBTN battle.

I'm fighting a cold and not thinking clearly though. Please feel free to tell me what I'm missing.

TAS never searches. John (I) is still negating evil characters.

But doesn't the interrupt end once the band is complete? Or is the EC ability considered to be a part of the band ability?

Quote from: Sam on February 24, 2016, 06:18:50 PM

But doesn't the interrupt end once the band is complete? Or is the EC ability considered to be a part of the band ability?

The entire chain of events triggered by the band will fall under the interrupt umbrella. Band > banded character abilities(TAS) > abilities caused by banded character abilities(Sapphira) and so on. Lurking is not considered to be complete until all of those things complete.

FTFY...if anyone has never beaten Gabe in Redemption before, now might be the time to try while he fights off this cold of his...

Get well soon, Gabe! 

So then if TAS was banded into battle from hand and then the band which brought him into battle is negated, does he go to hand or territory?

I was taught that the character goes to territory. A quick search of the REG doesn't turn up anything to support that though.

I think that TAS gets Sapphira, which negates everything, which then kicks TAS and Sapphira to territory. she wouldnt go to deck, just like the card that was drawn and played wouldnt go back. I am not 100% sure if TAS would go back to territory, but I am sure Sapphira would. but I think it would just be a FBTN battle between John and Claudius.

however, isn't TAS' search a implied play ability?

Agree with the general consensus here, as far as I read it.

Sapphira's ability cannot be cascade-negated by itself (we have that so that this doesn't turn into an infinite loop).  Funny thing is that she actually cannot negate TAS directly, either (since TAS is no longer a "character" but a "captured character"), but yes, in this case she would negate Lurking, which undoes the whole chain, including TAS.  TAS goes to territory (agree with Gabe, this is how it has been played, there is nothing explicit either way), and the search/band is undone so Sapphira goes back to deck.  The draw from Reach is undone, cards go back to deck.  The "play" ability is CBI by definition, so the battle-winner stays in play.

Claudius and Lurking are in battle against John, Reach, and a negated battle-winner.

If there is no explicit way to play it either way, then inevitably people will play it either way. So what would a justification for the TAS going to territory sound like within the rules?

Generally, once something is in play, another ability or effect must act on it to make it leave play again.  Having the character leaving battle go to territory is something we already see; having it leave play altogether once it enters play is a little more messy, hence how it has been ruled to present.

Quote from: Redoubter on February 25, 2016, 05:24:00 PM

Generally, once something is in play, another ability or effect must act on it to make it leave play again.  Having the character leaving battle go to territory is something we already see; having it leave play altogether once it enters play is a little more messy, hence how it has been ruled to present.

If Sapphira goes back to deck when the Search that brought her to play is negated, I would argue that TAS should go back to its prior location if the Band that brought TAS into battle is negated.  If Lurking brought TAS into battle from hand, why wouldn't TAS go back to hand if Lurking is negated?

While I get the essence behind what you are trying to say, it's not really the same when comparing Search (which only looks in one location) to Band (which this is, since it adds to a side where there already is a character in this case, and where it can come from two locations).  Negating the search undoes going to that original location, whereas undoing the band only undoes bringing the character in, and in that case the character is going back to territory.  There's not a rule that anyone can point to that would say it absolutely happens either way, but this is where the current ruling originates.

I agree with the logic behind the ruling of this situation. I will say that I think there should be a change on actions that are difficult to or cannot be undone in their entirety. I feel it would be better for the game seeing as the full ability which includes the shuffle cannot be undone. Rulings would have to be made about things like revealing or looking at a hand, anything that has a shuffle, and a look at opponents deck ability. Things of that nature. I don't have a huge problem with it all together but for situations where you've stacked a deck with something like strength revealed any negated shuffle on the next turn of the deck that was stacked would be undone. It's a small scenario but stacking a deck is a highly advantageous effect and I think potentially could be a viable strategy for future cards. Imagine a defense that aimed to stack cards of an opponents deck. Other than that it is things like how do you negate an completed action like a reveal. A player can't unsee a card. I think for scenarios like a reveal or look the other player should have special initiative before the ability resolves to interrupt the ability so a potential true negate could occur. The same I think should apply for a player using an ability with a shuffle effect. Then if a chain occurs you undo full abilities that you can. So for the chain forementioned in this thread it would have to send Sapphira to territory in that TAS could not have the search/shuffle completely undone but the lurking band could be negated. Those are just my thoughts. I just think that a ruling like that would make things less hairy and potentially more strategic plays. Sorry if that's a bit off topic.