Cactus Web Site special offer: Orders over $75 will receive a free Angel of God 2023 National Promo card while supplies last.
‘Interrupt the battle’ interrupts all active ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements (e.g. Red Dragon), abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal (e.g. King Zimri), as well as the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent.
Interrupting or negating an enhancement targets the entire enhancement, not just the special ability of the enhancement.
Where does the rulebook or REG say that?
Quote from: REG > Instant Abilities > Interrupt or Negate Last‘Interrupt the battle’ interrupts all active ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements (e.g. Red Dragon), abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal (e.g. King Zimri), as well as the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent.
Here is how to RESOLVE the timing issues associated with interrupt, prevent and negate cards as they are played. Put these cards in a stack (mentally if not physically) in the order they are played. The last card (top card) on the stack gets resolved first. For example, if I play card A, then you interrupt with card B, then I interrupt with card C, we resolve the actions in a ‘last on, first off’ manner. So card C’s actions are first, which in the above case would eliminate card B, so card A would be the last one standing and take effect.
The REG also says this in how to resolve when the cards are played:Quote from: Instant abilities > Interrupt and Negate Last > How to UseHere is how to RESOLVE the timing issues associated with interrupt, prevent and negate cards as they are played. Put these cards in a stack (mentally if not physically) in the order they are played. The last card (top card) on the stack gets resolved first. For example, if I play card A, then you interrupt with card B, then I interrupt with card C, we resolve the actions in a ‘last on, first off’ manner. So card C’s actions are first, which in the above case would eliminate card B, so card A would be the last one standing and take effect.In this, it says that it is as if the last card (C) was played before the others, which would mean that the others numbers have been played either.
3) Point number three specifies the last enhancement as the target for the interrupt. That means the entire enhancement, not just the special ability of the enhancement.
Quote from: Scottie_ffgamer on March 24, 2009, 02:53:29 PMThe REG also says this in how to resolve when the cards are played:Quote from: Instant abilities > Interrupt and Negate Last > How to UseHere is how to RESOLVE the timing issues associated with interrupt, prevent and negate cards as they are played. Put these cards in a stack (mentally if not physically) in the order they are played. The last card (top card) on the stack gets resolved first. For example, if I play card A, then you interrupt with card B, then I interrupt with card C, we resolve the actions in a ‘last on, first off’ manner. So card C’s actions are first, which in the above case would eliminate card B, so card A would be the last one standing and take effect.In this, it says that it is as if the last card (C) was played before the others, which would mean that the others numbers have been played either.I believe that this is can only be referring to only the special ability of the enhancement (because the REG states interrupts targets special abilities and does not say numerical abilities) as well.
"Interrupt is used to stop another card’s special ability until the special ability on the interrupt card is completed (see Interrupt in the glossary of the rulebook [p. 45]). An “interrupt” goes back in time and suspends something that has already happened. Negate is a combination of “interrupt” and “prevent”, where “prevent” is a special ability described in more detail elsewhere (see Prevent). The “prevent” stops something from happening now or in the future. Together, they stop past, present, and future special abilities on targeted cards.Interrupt is an ability that temporarily undoes a previously completed ability or set of abilities and inserts the special ability on the interrupt card before the previously completed abilities complete. Interrupt is used to stop another card’s special ability until the special ability on the interrupt card is completed (see Interrupt in the glossary of the rulebook [p. 45]). An “interrupt” goes back in time and suspends something that has already happened."
That could be seen as assumption on your part since the REG is so narrow in its wording to call out special abilites. Can you interrupt the numerical value of a character card as a general rule?
Quote from: CountFount on March 24, 2009, 03:05:46 PMThat could be seen as assumption on your part since the REG is so narrow in its wording to call out special abilites. Can you interrupt the numerical value of a character card as a general rule?I would agree with you except that I've gone through this same process myself. There was a time a couple years ago that I thought you could only interrupt the special ability and not the numbers. It took some convincing and I believe Schaef and/or Bryon patiently explaining things, but eventually I understood. I can appreciate where you're coming from.
The real problem starts with the rulebook definition of "Interrupt."Interrupt is used to stop another card’s special ability until the special ability on the interrupt card is completed. Interestingly, the definition of "Negate" says this:Negate stops and prevents a targeted special ability or card.
Interrupt is an ability that temporarily undoes a previously completed ability or set of abilities and inserts the special ability on the interrupt card before the previously completed abilities complete.
The closest thing I can find is the following potentially ambiguous statement:Interrupt is an ability that temporarily undoes a previously completed ability or set of abilities and inserts the special ability on the interrupt card before the previously completed abilities complete.Especially considering that every other instance of interrupt seems to reference "special abilities" and not just "abilities", it seems hard to defend my case. I couldn't find the older posts that solidify what Gabe and I have been saying.