Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Korunks on February 09, 2011, 08:55:28 PM
-
Simple scenario: I make a RA with a human hero, they use Unholy Writ to capture him. Can I interrupt and band some one in?
-
No. An ITB won't work beings UW isn't in battle, and an interrupt an artifact (I don't think any exist...) won't work beings UW is discarded.
-
Interrupt the battle interrupts the following:
• Your opponent’s special abilities that are (1) causing you to be losing by removal (e.g., your opponent’s Net (BL)), or (2) causing a mutual destruction by mutual removal (e.g., your opponent’s King Zimri (Ki) but not your own King Zimri (Ki)).
• The last enhancement played in battle, as long as it was played by an opponent (e.g., your opponent’s False Peace (Pr) but not your own Reach of Desperation (Wo)).
• ALL ongoing special abilities (see Ongoing Abilities).
It says I can interrupt any ability causing me to lose by removal. Unholy Writ is causing me to lose by removal.
-
I'm pretty sure they won't allow ITB to interrupt Writ. If needed, there will probably be a clause added to the first bullet that the ability has to be in battle, which Writ isn't.
-
you would have to interrupt outside of battle and target writ or your character somehow.
ex. Interrupt the game and ___________.
or
Interrupt all abilities and ___________.
-
It's not written that ITB only interrupts cards in battle since it's actually called Interrupt the Battle.
-
Can we please have some elder input?
-
Elders generally won't comment on a thread asking an answered-before question that's being unanimously answered correctly by REP's.
-
While that section of the REG probably should be clarified, Interrupt the Battle has always meant it interrupts abilities active in battle. It doesn't interrupt Fortresses, Artifacts, Sites, etc., just characters and enhancements in battle.
If you had a card that said "Interrupt a capture ability" then I could see an argument for that working against a Writ attempt, but I don't believe there is such an enhancement.
Elders generally won't comment on a thread asking an answered-before question that's being unanimously answered correctly by REP's.
That's usually true. If someone like Pol or Rawrlolsauce! have correctly answered a question, they have enough experience with both the game and other rulings to be right the majority of the time (even more than some of the elders at times). The elders will typically only comment if someone has said something incorrect, there is a debate, or no one else has ventured to answer it yet.
-
Elders generally won't comment on a thread asking an answered-before question that's being unanimously answered correctly by REP's.
But my impression was that you and Aggie had different views on how it worked. When two REP's don't fall on the same side of an issue I ask for an elder. If I misinterprated you then my bad. But I construed this:
It's not written that ITB only interrupts cards in battle since it's actually called Interrupt the Battle.
As stating that you believe that I can interrupt the capture because I am interrupting the battle.
While that section of the REG probably should be clarified, Interrupt the Battle has always meant it interrupts abilities active in battle. It doesn't interrupt Fortresses, Artifacts, Sites, etc., just characters and enhancements in battle.
But the ability is active in battle, it is removing me from there. Just because the source of the ability originated from outside the battle doesn't change that it is active in the battle. If thats how the PTB want it then fine. But it does not, to me, logically follow that Unholy Writ is not active in battle. I guess that would depend on how you define "active" in battle. Can you define that for me?
-
There's a certain section of "in play" known as the field of battle. Heroes, EC's, enhancements and sites being used for access are placed here. All abilities that originated from that area are part of the battle, and are interrupted with ITB.
-
But the ability is active in battle, it is removing me from there. Just because the source of the ability originated from outside the battle doesn't change that it is active in the battle. If thats how the PTB want it then fine. But it does not, to me, logically follow that Unholy Writ is not active in battle. I guess that would depend on how you define "active" in battle. Can you define that for me?
By that logic, lots of things are active "in battle". Covenant with Adam is decreasing human EC's in battle by 0/3. Asherah Pole is making my enhancements in battle CBN. However, SomeKittens is correct that for an ability to really be active "in battle" it must come from a card that is in battle.
-
Obviously I agree that for an interrupt the battle ability to interrupt a card it must be in battle. I wonder about Magic Charms on a magician in battle. Could it legally be interrupted?
I don't think there is currently a precedent for this. What are your thoughts?
-
There's a certain section of "in play" known as the field of battle. Heroes, EC's, enhancements and sites being used for access are placed here. All abilities that originated from that area are part of the battle, and are interrupted with ITB.
By that logic, lots of things are active "in battle". Covenant with Adam is decreasing human EC's in battle by 0/3. Asherah Pole is making my enhancements in battle CBN. However, SomeKittens is correct that for an ability to really be active "in battle" it must come from a card that is in battle.
I guess that I have a different definition of "active in battle". I was under the impression that anything actively affecting the battle was "active in battle". Can we codify your definition, it is not available for the general public and has been a major source of contention for me. If I had known that definition for "active in battle" it would have prevented a lot of my arguments about the interrupt ability in general.
-
Obviously I agree that for an interrupt the battle ability to interrupt a card it must be in battle. I wonder about Magic Charms on a magician in battle. Could it legally be interrupted?
I don't think there is currently a precedent for this. What are your thoughts?
It's an ability in battle. I think it's targetable for an ITB ability.
-
Obviously I agree that for an interrupt the battle ability to interrupt a card it must be in battle. I wonder about Magic Charms on a magician in battle. Could it legally be interrupted?
I don't think there is currently a precedent for this. What are your thoughts?
Since Magic Charms does NOT send a captured hero to Raiders Camp (due to the ruling that the evil character is NOT the one doing the capturing), it seems that the artifact is being disassociated from the character. This would mean that it would NOT be interrupted when an ITB interrupted characters and enhancements in battle.
Of course it does make sense to me that the artifact is really "in battle" and therefore it's SA is "in battle", too. But it also makes sense to me that the evil character is using Magic Charms to capture people, and I lost that argument a long time ago :)
-
Obviously I agree that for an interrupt the battle ability to interrupt a card it must be in battle. I wonder about Magic Charms on a magician in battle. Could it legally be interrupted?
I don't think there is currently a precedent for this. What are your thoughts?
It's an ability in battle. I think it's targetable for an ITB ability.
I agree...But who uses their Magic Charms in battle anyway?
I guess that I have a different definition of "active in battle". I was under the impression that anything actively affecting the battle was "active in battle". Can we codify your definition, it is not available for the general public and has been a major source of contention for me. If I had known that definition for "active in battle" it would have prevented a lot of my arguments about the interrupt ability in general.
I don't necessarily think that "active in battle" needs to be codified necessarily, since the only concept that it affects really is interrupting the battle. So all that needs to happen is a rewrite of that section of the REG to state that whenever it refers to abilities, it means abilities of cards in battle. Assuming no other elders disagree, we can at least put that up on the REG corrections thread for now.
-
"You may discard this card from your Magician during battle to capture up to two human Heroes"
Doesn't that technically imply the magicians have to be in the field of battle for MC to work, leading it to be Interrupted?
-
The battle phase begins when a hero enters battle.
-
"You may discard this card from your Magician during battle to capture up to two human Heroes"
Doesn't that technically imply the magicians have to be in the field of battle for MC to work, leading it to be Interrupted?
"During battle" is short for "during the battle phase". Magic Charms is most commonly used from a magician in a territory. You could even be making a rescue attempt when you choose to capture 2 Heroes.
If you think that's OP you should have seen the original version of Magic Charms before I got them to water it down. It could be used anytime, not just during battle, and capture X Heroes where X = to your magicians. Ouch! :)
-
I don't necessarily think that "active in battle" needs to be codified necessarily, since the only concept that it affects really is interrupting the battle. So all that needs to happen is a rewrite of that section of the REG to state that whenever it refers to abilities, it means abilities of cards in battle. Assuming no other elders disagree, we can at least put that up on the REG corrections thread for now.
Do we want it to be that broad? Cards in battle includes artifacts on characters (Cross Beams, Magic Charms, etc.) and sites (site access is ongoing), so maybe it needs to be "characters and enhancements in battle".
-
That's possible, but there are very few cases when it would matter, and I don't think that allowing one of the three Artifacts that could potentially be in battle to be interrupted is a bad thing. For example, say you have your Magic Charms on your Damsel. I attack you, and you block with Damsel so you can use her draw ability, but then you end up just using MC anyway. The only difference between blocking and not blocking is that you got to draw, but I certainly don't see it as a bad thing if I then have a chance to interrupt. And if you attack me with Simon and Cross Beams, and I really wanted to band in my Red Dragon, I could just use Lurking to do so. Not too bad in that case either. Interrupting the battle interrupts any ignore abilities in battle anyway, so Priestly Breastplate wouldn't really be affected at all.
As for Sites, the only ones that have SA's that can be active in battle are: Dragon Raid, Promised Land, The Ends of the Earth, and New Jerusalem. But I can't think of any scenarios where interrupting their abilities temporarily would really affect anything.
All that said, I don't really care either way how broad it is, but I do agree that it should be more explicitly stated, so that people won't make similar mistakes in thinking as Korunks did.
-
Just removing one of the multicolor sites from battle (except Dragon Raid) should leave the hero(es) with access, since they grant access by their SA. Interrupt it and then removing it (steal it, discard it, etc.) removes the access, I think. That would be different. (You could also do something similar to the artifacts with one of the artifact discarders that doesn't negate.)
I don't really care how broad it is either, I just think it needs to be worded correctly in case there are eventually scenarios in which other types of cards could be allowed in battle, which we may not want interrupted.
-
As for Sites, the only ones that have SA's that can be active in battle are: Dragon Raid, Promised Land, The Ends of the Earth, and New Jerusalem. But I can't think of any scenarios where interrupting their abilities temporarily would really affect anything.
All my LS are in sites, you make a rescue attempt with access via Dragon Raid. I block with low numbers, and ITB/play next. I then play Gib Trick or any CBN battle-ender. My guy dies, but the battle's over before your access can resume, so you don't get a soul.
-
You can't interrupt brigade. And unfortunately Demonic Blockade negates the site.
Although: You RA with Dragon Raid and discard an evil card on my site. I block, play an interrupt + end the battle. It could happen ;D
-
ITB won't interrupt Dragon Raid - it's not ongoing or causing you to lose the battle (or the last enhancement played). ITB could interrupt the access that the other 3 access sites, but you'd have to remove the sites from battle to remove the access, since they're still multicolor.
-
ITB does interrupt Dragon Raid, but there's no card in existence that would make use of that fact.
-
Was there an official rule change on this?
Because of wanting to remove site access for my site defense, I asked this 3? years ago and it was answered that ItB only interrupts enhancements and characters because that is how it is defined in the REG. I tried to argue that logically it should interrupt all cards in battle and that the Reg was just using old wording because normally just enhancemnts and characters are in battle. But the elders ruled no, the Reg was clear on that.
-
Was there an official rule change on this?
Because of wanting to remove site access for my site defense, I asked this 3? years ago and it was answered that ItB only interrupts enhancements and characters because that is how it is defined in the REG. I tried to argue that logically it should interrupt all cards in battle and that the Reg was just using old wording because normally just enhancemnts and characters are in battle. But the elders ruled no, the Reg was clear on that.
I don't think the REG is clear on that point. Also, the elders weren't around 3 years ago. However, now that we are, we can probably discuss this on the playtesters board.
-
The REG is very clear:
Instant Special Abilities > Interrupt or Negate Last > How to Use
‘Interrupt the battle’ interrupts all active ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements, abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal, as well as the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent. Interrupting the battle interrupts the battle flow at the point where you played the interrupt. It does not send you back to the beginning of the battle and does not include special abilities completed prior to the interrupt being played that are no longer pending.
-
Thanks, YMT. I knew this had come up before and that the conclusion was that Sites in battle were not interrupted but I couldn't recall why. Thank you for pointing out the obvious (that we've overlooked). :)
-
FTR, the reason for the lack of clarity is because the Glossary does not specify "characters and enhancements." The debate from a while back I believe came to the conclusion that the Glossary was the one that was outdated (or incomplete).
-
The REG is very clear:
Instant Special Abilities > Interrupt or Negate Last > How to Use
‘Interrupt the battle’ interrupts all active ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements, abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal, as well as the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent. Interrupting the battle interrupts the battle flow at the point where you played the interrupt. It does not send you back to the beginning of the battle and does not include special abilities completed prior to the interrupt being played that are no longer pending.
The REG is clear indeed. I can easily see the comma after "characters and enhancements" that separates it from "abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal" (not to mention the repetition of the word "abilities" which further suggests they are in fact different statements). Why are you associating them when they are clearly separate statements in a list?
-
I was responding to the question about sites.
-
Fair enough, but I'd still like to know why the "characters and enhancements" from the first list item is applied for some reason to the rest of the sentence against proper grammatical behavior. Based on your quote of the REG, I should be able to use an ITB ability to interrupt your UW capturing my only hero in battle as UW is an "abilit[y] that [is] causing you to lose the battle by removal". Why is this not the case?
-
I asked the same question way back when, and I was told that the reason ItB does not interrupt Unholy Writ is because the Errata for UW says to discard UW first, then capture. You can not interrupt a card in the discard pile unless it was the "last enhancement played in battle."
The second part of the quote I gave from the REG says that ItB does not include special abilities already completed, which the discard of UW was.
-
Okay, then what about Herod's Dungeon? Why can't I ITB and remove their Herod so they no longer meet the requirement for the capture?
-
I'm not the one to ask that question. I agree that you should be able to interrupt the capture of Herod's Dungeon (if you are then losing by removal). All the talk about cards that are "not in battle" is not really the question here. We already know that ItB does not interrupt Wall of Protection or Priestly Crown, since they are not ongoing abilities on characters or enhancements. The second part of ItB's definition says "abilities that are causing you to lose by removal," which Herod's Dungeon clearly has. UW was a different scenario (just like Go Into Captivity) because of the discard condition.
-
The REG is very clear:
Instant Special Abilities > Interrupt or Negate Last > How to Use
‘Interrupt the battle’ interrupts all active ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements, abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal, as well as the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent. Interrupting the battle interrupts the battle flow at the point where you played the interrupt. It does not send you back to the beginning of the battle and does not include special abilities completed prior to the interrupt being played that are no longer pending.
Touché sir. The quoted section should still probably be changed to be made more clear though.
-
Actually the REG is still clear as mud if you look at where the commas are. According to that, it ITB should be able to Interrupt Herod's Dungeon or a Herod's Treachery from territory. This is clearly not the case as pretty much every elder on this thread has been clear that ITB only ever interrupts abilities active in battle.
-
I think we need to take a look back and decide if the REG was right all along. If any card targets cards in battle for removal, then I think ItB should be able to stop it. UW and the like have specific exceptions to make them still work.
The reason we say that cards not in battle are not affected by ItB is because there were no cards outside of battle that targeted cards in battle for removal. Again, if there were, they were given the "discard first" clause to essentially protect the ability from ItB. I don't think that the "cards not in battle" argument is a good one, since the ability clearly affects the battle.
It seems to me that the REG quote I gave is very specific and therefore was carefully chosen. I see no need to change it. These new capture sites and artifacts that do not specify the discard first should be affected by ItB, IMO.
-
It makes more sense to me that Interrupt the Battle does not affect cards outside of battle.
-
It makes more sense to me that Interrupt the Battle does not affect cards outside of battle.
The cards may be outside the battle, but their abilities are very much in the battle.
-
Their abilities are affecting the battle (but they are not in the battle)...just as Crown of Thorns, Trap of the Devil, Holy of Holies and countless other cards outside of the battle do.
-
i agree with Pol and Guardian
-
Does (or should) an ITB played in a side battle interrupt ongoing abilities played in the main battle?
-
"Battle" is singular, so I'd say no.
-
Their abilities are affecting the battle (but they are not in the battle)...just as Crown of Thorns, Trap of the Devil, Holy of Holies and countless other cards outside of the battle do.
So? Nothing in the definition of "Interrupt the Battle" says anything about any of the cards needing to be physically in the battle, except the third list item that says "the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent."
The cards you mentioned don't cause the battle to be being lost by removal, Herod's Dungeon does.
-
How does (or should) ITB effect ongoing characters or enhancements in territory (Aaron, placed enhancements, etc.)?
-
How does (or should) ITB effect ongoing characters or enhancements in territory (Aaron, placed enhancements, etc.)?
Ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements in territory would likely have been activated on a previous turn, therefore they cannot be negated (and therefore cannot be interrupted).
Does (or should) an ITB played in a side battle interrupt ongoing abilities played in the main battle?
According to the REG, yes.
Posting questions that are not really questions is not your usual M.O.
-
Clarification: only the placement becomes CBN on placed Enhancements.
-
The REG says abilities completed on a previous turn are CBN. Aaron's SA doesn't "complete" until he's removed from play. That doesn't mean it can be negated, just that I'm not sure as to whether or not it can be.
Like Pol said, only the placement is CBN on placed enhancements - the rest of the ongoing ability should be able to be interrupted. Again, I'm not really sure.
So the first (quoted) question is mostly due to my foggy understanding of how ongoing abilities activated in a previous phase work. If they gain CBN status, then I Am Salvation is useless except to negate LSs drawn while it's active (unless there are different rules for LSs and other cards). If they don't gain CBN status, allowing ITB to interrupt all (in battle, in territory, etc.) ongoing character/enhancement abilities could have larger consequences than desired.
The second (quoted) question was more of a real question. According to the REG, yes it should, but based on some of the arguments in this thread (emphasis on battle), ITB could wind up being restricted to only the current battle.