Cactus Game Design Message Boards

 

I'm not 100% sure, but I could see it going one of three ways:

1. You interrupt and redirect the negate to the redirect enhancement. Even though the interrupt and redirect is negated, the interrupt has already been completed and it is now the last enhancement in battle. The redirect enhancement is negated and discarded, and the hero is being discarded again.

2. As 1, but with different reasoning - negating the interrupt/redirect causes an infinite loop, which has generally been ruled to the initial is effectively CBI (see 'play an enhancement'). In this case, even though the redirect is being negated, it is still forced to target the redirect, and the hero is being discarded again.

3. The GE says "last EE played", and even if it's interrupted that means the last from when it was played. In this instance you can't actually redirect it, since it only has the one valid target. The discard is negated.

My gut says 1 but my brain says 3. Unhelpful, I know, but if nothing else hopefully this can lay out a thought process for whichever elder actually rules this

I'm not 100% certain either, but #1 was also my initial thought.

Are you saying scenario 3 above is the correct one then?

Quote from: Gabe on June 25, 2018, 01:47:58 PM

I believe the answer to this is found in the REG under Negate > Special Conditions - "A negate effect cannot negate itself, directly or indirectly."

That rule was instituted to prevent loops. It was probably never realized that interrupt can also create loops (or it was believe to be addressed by the negate entry). Either way it would be good to add a similar entry to the Interrupt > Special Conditions.

I dont believe that is the question.

The Question is
a) can a redirect change the target of a negate to itself (should be able to)
b) in the specific example, the negate looks for the "last" evil enhancements, can the redirect meet that qualification?

What he's saying is, redirecting to itself would indirectly negate itself, meaning that A is "no".
Still not sure on B, though.

Thanks for the clarification Bobbert.

I guess I assumed that something can’t negate itself. And in this situation the redirect successful redirected, the negate doesn’t really form “feedback” because it target the redirect which is now gone. The target choice is gone and the game continues.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that redirect is always simple, but that the basic (and likely most common) redirect situation is pretty simple.

You play an EE that says "Discard a Hero."

I played a GE that "Interrupt and redirect an EE."

Now, instead of you choosing a Hero to discard, I get to choose a Hero to discard. It could be one of yours, a different one of mine, or any other Hero on the table in a MP game. Any stats on the EE would also count for my side of the battle, not yours.

Quote from: Watchman492 on June 25, 2018, 02:50:54 PM

Redirect has caused more confusion than any other ability I know. Either ban it altogether (which is not likely) or make it an option to redirect or prevented the ability, that way, if there’s no clear target or understanding of how the redirect would work (such as in the scenario presented above) it can simply be prevented. And if it’s a clear target, such as “Discard a hero,” the redirect could easily work with no ambiguity.

Really? It hasn't been used on cards in years so I'm not sure how it could be that confusing. The original redirect cards (Counsel of Abigail and Treachery of Jezebel) suffer from some outdated wording/understanding of redirect but otherwise redirect typically doesn't create problems...

From the players who I’ve played or asked me questions about it there has been more misunderstanding of how it works than any other ability (in my experience, other than CBI, CBN, CBP).

So the redirect can't interrupt and prevent itself or negate itself but it can be discarded by itself indirectly?

I apologize, I thought my previous reply was adequate answer to make the answer clear.

When you redirect the "negate last" you get to choose new targets, but there is only one "last", that being your redirect. That means the redirect would indirectly negate itself (which isn't possible). This leaves the redirect and negate applying to the evil side and the "discard a Hero" back to a resolving state. Because the original interrupt/negate from SI was undone the rescuer has SI again.

I'm not following, Gabe.

If You are saying that a Redirect cannot legally "negate" itself (be it directly or indirectly), then wouldnt it be an illegal play due to illegal targeting? and because as Aggie says, at the time of target declaration the Negate was targeting the discard, and that "locks" that target into the game state, the discard would be negated? So, it sounds like to me, that the original negation should negate the discard for two reasons.

If the word "last" wasnt in the Negate ability (read: "Negate an Evil Enhancement" instead - so to take the "last" part out of the discussion momentarily), I don't see how a redirect's indirect negation is a problem. Quite a few other games deal with a similar interaction, by "rearranging" the Original negates resolution:

here is how I am used to seeing similar interaction:
1) Discard target Hero
2) Negate target: #1
3) Redirect target: #2's target: FROM #1  TO #3 :: now correct resolution order:

1) Discard target hero
2) Redirect Target: #3
3) Negate #2

This is how other games avoid a loop.Because the Negate "resolves" before the redirect, and now that the negate's ability has resolved, it cant resolve again; But like i said I can see the logic behind simply making a Redirect's ability to negate itself "an illegal target." I would rather it the way I described to encourage more interaction among players.

1 and 3 both made some sense to me, but I would absolutely defer to Aggie.