Author Topic: Interrupt Initiative (Read 5385 times)

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #25 on:** February 10, 2011, 06:49:42 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #26 on:** February 11, 2011, 12:23:38 AM »

ITB does interrupt Dragon Raid, but there's no card in existence that would make use of that fact.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2011, 08:15:07 AM »

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2011, 10:43:28 AM »

Quote from: galadgawyn on February 13, 2011, 08:15:07 AM

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2011, 01:08:59 PM »

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.

Gabe · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2011, 01:17:59 PM »

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).

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2011, 01:22:49 PM »

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).

browarod · « **Reply #32 on:** February 13, 2011, 07:20:57 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2011, 01:08:59 PM

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?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #33 on:** February 13, 2011, 07:53:24 PM »

I was responding to the question about sites.

browarod · « **Reply #34 on:** February 13, 2011, 08:14:21 PM »

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?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #35 on:** February 13, 2011, 08:33:20 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #36 on:** February 13, 2011, 08:53:35 PM »

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?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #37 on:** February 13, 2011, 09:27:46 PM »

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #38 on:** February 13, 2011, 10:27:20 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on February 13, 2011, 01:08:59 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #39 on:** February 13, 2011, 11:46:24 PM »

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.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #40 on:** February 14, 2011, 12:28:46 AM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #41 on:** February 14, 2011, 02:21:53 AM »

It makes more sense to me that Interrupt the Battle does not affect cards outside of battle.

browarod · « **Reply #42 on:** February 14, 2011, 02:50:28 AM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 14, 2011, 02:21:53 AM

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.

The Guardian · « **Reply #43 on:** February 14, 2011, 02:57:04 AM »

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.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #44 on:** February 14, 2011, 08:45:21 AM »

i agree with Pol and Guardian

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #45 on:** February 14, 2011, 01:19:32 PM »

Does (or should) an ITB played in a side battle interrupt ongoing abilities played in the main battle?

SomeKittens · « **Reply #46 on:** February 14, 2011, 01:57:29 PM »

"Battle" is singular, so I'd say no.

browarod · « **Reply #47 on:** February 15, 2011, 01:43:08 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on February 14, 2011, 02:57:04 AM

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.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #48 on:** February 15, 2011, 03:00:09 AM »

How does (or should) ITB effect ongoing characters or enhancements in territory (Aaron, placed enhancements, etc.)?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #49 on:** February 15, 2011, 05:17:47 PM »

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on February 15, 2011, 03:00:09 AM

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).

Quote from: RedemptionAggie on February 14, 2011, 01:19:32 PM

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.

News:

Author Topic: Interrupt Initiative (Read 5385 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod