Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: browarod on November 11, 2010, 11:00:53 PM
-
What exactly is the logic behind an in-battle ignore giving the other character infinite initiative?
I'm trying to wrap my head around it, but I just don't understand why such a circumstance would result. I mean, for all intents and purposes, ignoring someone in battle is like throwing a sheet over them and then putting on glasses that can't see sheets; you proceed to walk right past them and they can't affect you (unless they interrupt your glasses by throwing off the sheet). So why does that give them infinite initiative? Sure, they can do a few gnarly things under the sheet while I'm walking past them, but even if I only walk 1 inch at a time, I would still reach my goal (either a LS as the hero, or a successful block as the EC) in less than infinite time. I don't understand. >_<
-
You have infinite initiative because the evil character is constantly losing the battle at that point until the ignore is interrupted, negated, or shut down by your favorite white site. ;)
Its the exact same reason a 1/1 hero has "infinite initiative" against a 12/12 evil character. They are constantly losing until their numbers surpass those on the EC, or they beat the EC with a special ability.
-
I feel like ignoring your problems shouldn't make them go away...
Ammian plays "Procrastination"
Text: Ignore your homework.
Voila! It doesn't affect me! Right?
Redemption is teaching us bad life lessons...
-
I always thought (prior to posting on the boards) that when you were ignored in battle, you had to negate the ignore or you lost (without being able to play any other enhancements). Unless someone can support how the current ruling is, I am going to argue that you should only be able to play a negate.
-
Ignore is not pushing you out of battle. Why would you have to play a negate?
-
You are not pushed out of the battle, but rather, the hero is simply walking past you.
So, until the battle ends, the hero is just gonna keep on trucking past you, allowing you to have infinite initiative.
-
Ignore is not pushing you out of battle. Why would you have to play a negate?
I never said it was pushing you out, I was just saying it should be like Capture. You play a negate, or get captured. You play an ignore, they have to negate it. But they shouldn't have the freedom to play as many enhancements as they want and take out your territory.
-
You have to negate a capture because it is removing you from battle. Ignore is not removing you from battle.
-
You have to negate a capture because it is removing you from battle. Ignore is not removing you from battle.
But your opponent shouldn't be able to trash your territory because you played an ignore.
-
Why not? Should your opponent be disallowed to "trash your territory" if they block your 12/12 hero with their 1/1 EC?
-
If you don't want his to trash the territory, don't play an in battle ignore...
-
Why not? Should your opponent be disallowed to "trash your territory" if they block your 12/12 hero with their 1/1 EC?
Yes, because what dum-dum goes on a rescue with Men of Judah?
-
yeah but genesis has a 10/15 Levi with helmet of brass
-
Why not? Should your opponent be disallowed to "trash your territory" if they block your 12/12 hero with their 1/1 EC?
Yes, because what dum-dum goes on Rescues with a 12/12 Hero (besides the fact there aren't any)?
Men of Judah say hi
-
Why not? Should your opponent be disallowed to "trash your territory" if they block your 12/12 hero with their 1/1 EC?
Yes, because what dum-dum goes on Rescues with Men of Judah?
Men of Judah say hi
Fixed.
-
What dum-dum will play an in battle ignore if he is worried about what his opponent can play?
-
Well, maybe redemption does teach good life lessons then...
Ignoring your problems will only make them worse! Like in this game, where your opponent trashes your territory because you think you can make the problem go away by ignoring it. And yet, next time, it will still be there. You haven't actually fixed anything. Ignoring an evil character doesn't kill it, just as ignoring a problem doesn't solve it. In the short run, it may gain you gratification (a lost soul), but ultimately, it will do more harm than good.
I like the symbolism!
-
Ignoring is a good strategy in mulitplayer b/c you get a soul and still keep opponents defence for next guy.
-
Ignore is like your opponent disappeared into the next dimension.
Unless they have a way to get back (negate)
they can't hurt you but they don't die.
-
You have to negate a capture because it is removing you from battle. Ignore is not removing you from battle.
No, but it's causing the same result: a win for the character playing the ignore. As I sad in the first post, it doesn't take infinitely long to walk around someone. Why does ignore not lead straight to battle resolution like any other ability (besides immunity)?
-
You have to negate a capture because it is removing you from battle. Ignore is not removing you from battle.
No, but it's causing the same result: a win for the character playing the ignore. As I sad in the first post, it doesn't take infinitely long to walk around someone. Why does ignore not lead straight to battle resolution like any other ability (besides immunity)?
Because it doesn't...that's how it's defined. Ignore is a unique type of ability that does exactly what has been explained, makes the hero be constantly winning the battle, so he never gets initiative, unless the ignore is interrupted.
-
That doesn't explain why, though.
-
That doesn't explain why, though.
Because I said so :P
-
That doesn't explain why, though.
Capture takes a character that can be targeted and puts it in your LoB. The reason why is because that is how it's been defined. Ignore gives your opponent infinite initiative. The reason why is because that's how it's been defined. It's really the same principle.
-
That doesn't explain why, though.
Capture takes a character that can be targeted and puts it in your LoB. The reason why is because that is how it's been defined. Ignore gives your opponent infinite initiative. The reason why is because that's how it's been defined. It's really the same principle.
Well, why was it defined that way? ;)
What I'm wondering is the logic behind defining ignore as giving infinite initiative. I know that's the definition, but my question is why was that definition given?
-
The world will never know...
-
Of course, any good debater can link this subject up with global,thermal,nuclear destruction and then the world will know. :)
-
Of course, any good debater can link this subject up with global,thermal,nuclear destruction and then the world will know. :)
That was perhaps one of the wittiest comebacks I have ever heard.
→To those of you who missed the logic:
♦When the USA/UN ignores countries trying to build up nuclear power, it gives those countries "infinite initiative." They can do whatever they want for as long as they want.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.celebrateucdavis.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F12%2Flane-iran_nuclear_po1.jpg&hash=1324a2f9d3dff585923f8d5d2d570e75bbfab01f)
-
I actually got the answer to the latter once.......