Author Topic: Isaiah+Call and Sites/Protected Lost Souls (Read 4053 times)

browarod · « **on:** January 22, 2014, 01:38:10 PM »

An interesting point was brought up today:

Quote from: Professoralstad on January 22, 2014, 12:31:57 PM

Actually, the negate only lasts while Isaiah is in battle, based on the wording of Isaiah's Call.

Isaiah's Call: "Search deck or discard pile for Isaiah and put him in play. Place on Isaiah: While in battle, Isaiah has Site access and negates Lost Souls, Sites and Evil Characters."

On pages 25 and 26 of the 4th edition rulebook, it specifically states that in both situations where the rescue attempt is successful (Hero wins, and mutual destruction by numbers) the characters leave battle (either discarded or returned to territory) and then "The rescue attempt is successful, and your opponent must select and surrender to you one available Lost Soul from his Land of Bondage."

As such, wouldn't the protect abilities of Lost Souls like NT-only and Female-only reactivate once Isaiah leaves battle and no longer be "available" to him since he doesn't meet the requirements? On the same token, can Isaiah rescue any Soul from a non-green site for the same reason?

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 22, 2014, 03:06:01 PM »

My understanding of MD is that it is all simultaneous. Therefore, a called Isaiah rescues a NT/Womens lost soul in mutual destruction. I can see why you might think otherwise, but the quote you used is just reiterating the process a type one player ought to go through in order to hand over the lost soul. Nothing more really.

browarod · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2014, 03:40:14 PM »

Sure the characters are discarded simultaneously in MD, but the process of battle resolution still goes in steps, at least according to the rulebook.

I know that the current way Call is played was how it was intended, but I have doubts now that it should actually work that way, based on the wording. If Call lasted until the end of the phase (like most site access or negate abilities) then there wouldn't be an issue, but it only lasts until Isaiah leaves battle which is before the opponent selects an available Lost Soul and surrenders it.

The Guardian · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2014, 04:01:42 PM »

The way I understand it is that battle resolution is done in steps but the steps are treated as happening simultaneously

browarod · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2014, 05:14:04 PM »

Even so, conditions ("While in battle" certainly seems like a condition to me) update instantly, even during other game actions per the Iron Pan/Belshazzar's Banquet ruling, so wouldn't Isaiah's negate cease before he actually rescues the Soul?

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2014, 05:39:57 PM »

Think of it this way...once your opponent announces that the battle is over--either by discarding his last character (btn loss) or by saying he will play no more enhancements (sa loss)--you are in battle resolution. At the moment of battle resolution your Call is still in battle, which means it is still active. If your opponent cannot play a dominant between the time he ends the battle and before he awards the lost soul (which is a well established ruling) you surely cannot remove your hero from battle. The reason being that battle resolution is an indivisible event. Extended in time, maybe, but still an indivisible event.

This is just a long-winded way of repeating...

Quote from: The Guardian on January 22, 2014, 04:01:42 PM

The way I understand it is that battle resolution is done in steps but the steps are treated as happening simultaneously

browarod · « **Reply #6 on:** January 23, 2014, 09:27:42 AM »

Your opponent can't play a dominant between when you discard your character with Bel's Banquet and when Bel's Banquet then protects the Lost Souls, yet Iron Pan updates in between those, so I fail to see your point. If conditions can update during abilities (which are also simultaneous when on the same card, yet carried out in steps, just like battle resolution) what is stopping them from updating during game actions?

I fully understand that battle resolution happens "simultaneously but in steps," I'm not disputing that. It just doesn't matter in this situation because conditions have been ruled to change even during other actions.

At this stage, I'm just pointing out a possible inconsistency with how condition updating is treated. That's all. I've played Isaiah the way everyone else has since he was printed (my Type 2 deck offense currently revolves around him), but I care more about consistency and logical game rules than keeping my deck powerful, lol.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:06:24 AM »

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 09:27:42 AM

Your opponent can't play a dominant between when you discard your character with Bel's Banquet and when Bel's Banquet then protects the Lost Souls, yet Iron Pan updates in between those, so I fail to see your point.

There is a qualitative difference between Call leaving the field of battle because Isaiah won the battle, and in the playing of Bel's Banquet.

Call is leaving the field of battle solely because the battle has ended. Playing Bel's Banquet, on the other hand, does *not* end the battle. Officially, since the EC(s) have been removed by a special ability, the battle only ends when the person playing Bel's Banquet says, "The battle is over go in peace" (or words to that effect

). Either player could still play a dominant between the character discard from the banquet and the start of battle resolution. The blocker could play Unknown Nation. The state of the battle (including whether there is a Babylonian in play) can change. And so on...

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 09:27:42 AM

I fully understand that battle resolution happens "simultaneously but in steps," I'm not disputing that. It just doesn't matter in this situation because conditions have been ruled to change even during other actions.

I do not believe that it has ever been ruled that conditions can change during battle resolution, which is precisely what you are arguing for here. Part of the meaning of "simultaneous" wrt battle resolution is that the complete state of the battle freezes at the point in time that battle resolution commences, and that state is used to determine the outcome.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #8 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:11:03 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 23, 2014, 10:06:24 AM

... the battle only ends when the person playing Bel's Banquet says, "The battle is over go in peace" (or words to that effect ).

My mind is immediately flooded with what Richard Sherman would say at that point....

browarod · « **Reply #9 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:23:32 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 23, 2014, 10:06:24 AM

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 09:27:42 AM
I fully understand that battle resolution happens "simultaneously but in steps," I'm not disputing that. It just doesn't matter in this situation because conditions have been ruled to change even during other actions.
I do not believe that it has ever been ruled that conditions can change during battle resolution, which is precisely what you are arguing for here. Part of the meaning of "simultaneous" wrt battle resolution is that the complete state of the battle freezes at the point in time that battle resolution commences, and that state is used to determine the outcome.

First, the rulebook says nothing about simultaneous anywhere in battle resolution, so even though I gave you guys that point earlier, nothing actually says it works that way (if it does, that should be added/clarified). Second, the rulebook definitely says nothing about anything "freezing" or that things can't change. No cards can be played but that doesn't mean states can't change (especially since states have been ruled to be able to change during other actions, which is the point I'm trying to make with Bel's Banquet, not that it's an exactly similar situation). Third, just because there isn't a specific statement saying that states can change during battle resolution doesn't prove that they can't. In fact, the lack of a statement saying they can't change allows the possibility that they can, so since there's already precedence for them changing, it seems inconsistent to treat them differently in this case when there isn't anything telling you to treat them differently.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 23, 2014, 10:11:03 AM

My mind is immediately flooded with what Richard Sherman would say at that point....

I'll admit I have no idea who that is. O_o

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #10 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:33:45 AM »

Quote from: The Guardian on January 22, 2014, 04:01:42 PM

The way I understand it is that battle resolution is done in steps but the steps are treated as happening simultaneously

The steps are considered simultaneous because there is no interaction probably. There are still steps that have an order. Either the rulebook is wrong or the card is.

edit: Maybe this is why other games came up with the whole " do this unless a card says different" rule.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #11 on:** January 23, 2014, 10:44:42 AM »

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 10:23:32 AM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 23, 2014, 10:11:03 AM
My mind is immediately flooded with what Richard Sherman would say at that point....
I'll admit I have no idea who that is. O_o

Not much of a football fan, I assume? Or a twitter/Facebook/Huffington Post/host of other media or social media sites fan?

browarod · « **Reply #12 on:** January 23, 2014, 12:53:02 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on January 23, 2014, 10:44:42 AM

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 10:23:32 AM
Quote from: YourMathTeacher on January 23, 2014, 10:11:03 AM
My mind is immediately flooded with what Richard Sherman would say at that point....
I'll admit I have no idea who that is. O_o

Not much of a football fan, I assume? Or a twitter/Facebook/Huffington Post/host of other media or social media sites fan?

Definitely not a sports fan, and I don't really keep up with news or current events (mostly because it is usually depressing/sad). I'll read articles on Huff or wherever else if people post them but I don't often sit there on those kinds of sites randomly clicking things to read myself.

Re-posting to add the below->

On-topic: My argument hinges on the following key points-
1. Multiple abilities on a single card happen simultaneously, but in a specific order (steps). [I believe this is true, not 100%]
1. a. Battle resolution also happens simultaneously but in a specific order (steps). If this is the case, the rulebook should specify this as it doesn't currently indicate such.
2. Iron Pan's condition updates during the resolution of Bel's Banquet so conditional updates can happen even during simultaneous actions.
3. Since a condition can update during simultaneous actions, Call should update when Isaiah leaves battle during battle resolution and no longer allow Lost Souls to be negated or Site access for the next step which is to determine and surrender an "available" Lost Soul to the Hero's player.
4. If Call were worded differently there wouldn't be an issue since ongoing abilities default to lasting until the end of the phase.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 23, 2014, 03:09:17 PM »

So, browarod, by your logic can anyone ever rescue the anti-withdraw lost soul in a non-mutual destruction situation?

Anti-withdraw lost soul: If a Hero withdraws from a rescue attempt against holder, place this card beneath owner’s draw pile.

Rulebook under Hero Wins: The Evil Character is discarded, and your Hero withdraws to your territory.

browarod · « **Reply #14 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:28:27 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on January 23, 2014, 03:09:17 PM

So, browarod, by your logic can anyone ever rescue the anti-withdraw lost soul in a non-mutual destruction situation?

Anti-withdraw lost soul: If a Hero withdraws from a rescue attempt against holder, place this card beneath owner’s draw pile.

Rulebook under Hero Wins: The Evil Character is discarded, and your Hero withdraws to your territory.

Well, the rules say they withdraw, so I'd say no.

I'm also not really sure what point you're trying to make with that. Is is that we shouldn't take the rules exactly as they're written? Because I feel like that's a bad thing to do in a card game.

If it's to point out other inconsistencies with the battle resolution rules, then I agree with you there.

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:51:13 PM »

I understand browarod's position, really do. I think he's reading the rules too precisely (as I do from time to time, probably why I get the point being made

), but if we literally look only at the exact wording, it can be viewed that way. I too champion clarity in the rules, though I'm not seeing the need for change here, and my reasons are as follows.

The rules for how to end a battle describe what happens, but that is not the exact order they happen in. These are not abilities; for those, we have rules about what activates first, and what can insert where. Rather, this is a description of all events that occur at that moment, and there is no indication that they occur one after the other, or have a specific order of 'activation.'

Therefore, because there is no precedent for an order of operations for the rules, because there is no indication in that rule itself that these are actions distinct from one another, and because there is no rule saying that the order presented in rules is followed (like we have for abilities), we must take these statements of effects as one distinct step, with different components that complete simultaneously. To do otherwise has no basis in the rules or precedent.

So, while I agree that you could read it the way presented, there is nothing in the rules that rules have an order like abilities do, and process one-step-at-a-time. Simultaneous.

The Guardian · « **Reply #16 on:** January 23, 2014, 04:57:34 PM »

*Goes to see how many anti-withdraw LS he has in collection.*

browarod · « **Reply #17 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:30:13 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 23, 2014, 04:51:13 PM

So, while I agree that you could read it the way presented, there is nothing in the rules that rules have an order like abilities do, and process one-step-at-a-time. Simultaneous.

I dunno, the rules specifically say "in battle resolution you do this, then this, then this;" that seems pretty much like a process to me, lol. As such, even if the process is simultaneous, conditions have been ruled to update instantly and even during other actions (as I've pointed out like 6 times now per the Iron Pan/BB example), so what specifically about battle resolution changes the default behavior of conditions? Because I don't see anything in the rules for battle resolution that says any default conditions change.

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:36:12 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 05:30:13 PM

I dunno, the rules specifically say "in battle resolution you do this, then this, then this;" that seems pretty much like a process to me, lol.

Actually, no, they don't. Nothing in the rules say "then do this," it is literally just a list of things that happen. There is no specificity to indicate steps at all, and no "then," it is all one step.

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 05:30:13 PM

...so what specifically about battle resolution changes the default behavior of conditions? Because I don't see anything in the rules for battle resolution that says any default conditions change.

Nothing changes the behavior of conditions, but as I pointed out, there is literally nothing there to indicate that they are separate. Nothing in the way rules work (precedent or other rules) indicates they must be done in order, like abilities. So, because of that, we know that all of this is simultaneous, so there is nothing for conditions to "insert themselves" between.

browarod · « **Reply #19 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:50:22 PM »

Okay you've got me that it doesn't say "then", but when ever in your entire life of reading a paragraph did you think "hmm, I should do the last part first, then maybe I'll do the second sentence, now I think I'll do the first sentence. Oh, I almost forgot the third sentence! Silly me." It makes logical sense that the sentences are in order of how you do them, even if it isn't explicitly said. You even admitted it resembles a list. I don't think it's a stretch to assume they should be done in the listed order since that's general practice, and there's nothing in the rules saying you can do them in a different order (much like, I admit, there's nothing saying to do them in the order presented). By default, people should do things as the rules suggest, not other ways "because the rules don't say I can't." The rules don't say I can't rip little Susie's card in half just because I want to, but does that mean I should?

Especially considering if you don't have to do them in a given order then it changes the game in small, but possibly significant, ways (like in this situation). If my opponent withdraws his Isaiah from battle before I give him a redeemed soul, then I am able to say I can't give him the protected ones (because of Call's wording), whereas if I attack with my Isaiah I can leave him in battle until my opponent gives me the redeemed soul so as not to fall victim to the same situation because both are acceptable in the rules. I don't think that's right, and it's certainly not consistent.

Redoubter · « **Reply #20 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:55:06 PM »

Honestly, by your interpretation, absolutely nothing would fix this problem you see, because our language and how we relay instructions is linear. It is simultaneous, each part of it is listed because there is no other way to do it.

There is no rule saying that effects described by the rules have any particular order, priority, or complete separately by default. That is only for special abilities that this sort of thing is defined.

Therefore, since there is no rule making it that way, it is not. The description of the end of a battle does not say that each of these things happens separately, rather they all happen as part of that condition. It is simultaneous.

Your example of 'when is Isaiah withdrawn, both ways are valid with different results' is flawed because it is simultaneous, not in a particular order that results in a change in the conditions on the table. Thus, there is no consistency problem.

browarod · « **Reply #21 on:** January 23, 2014, 05:59:47 PM »

The point I'm trying to make, that everyone seems to be missing, is that conditions update even during simultaneous actions. Nothing can be truly simultaneous (except maybe SoG+NJ because you have 2 hands and can grab 2 Lost Souls at the same time) because we're humans and there's a limit to what we can accomplish in a given second of time, but they are considered simultaneous for the purposes of gameplay. Even so, the order you carry out the "simultaneous" actions DOES matter because conditions can update during them (per IP/BB). So, if you choose to perform your simultaneous actions in one, humanly-possible order, the condition can update during that and may lead to a different outcome than if you choose to perform your simultaneous actions in a different, humanly-possible order.

I get that they're simultaneous, you don't have to keep pointing that out, but apparently something with my thinking above is wrong and I'm hoping someone can point it out to me so I can understand.

Redoubter · « **Reply #22 on:** January 23, 2014, 06:06:13 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 05:59:47 PM

The point I'm trying to make, that everyone seems to be missing, is that conditions update even during simultaneous actions.

I never missed your point, as I said, I truly do understand what you are trying to say, I think much the same way you do (see my arguments about how the rule change about "not in battle" broke ignore sometime

). However, it is for actions as a result of abilities where there can be insertion, because we have a definition for what abilities complete in a specific order, and that each happens one at a time. Between abilities, conditions can update. We have very specific rules on this.

This situation is different, that is what we are trying to tell you. And no, I don't think you are 'missing' it, I think you are just looking at the situation the same way you did at the start, and I understand that.

All the examples you gave, have given, or can give are about abilities and the space between them. There is no such space 'between' the actions during battle resolution, because 'they' are just one step. There is no rule that allows for anything else to happen there, and your statements about human actions don't come into play here either. The game sees all of these things happening at the exact same time, and no conditions to update.

I don't think that will change, and as I said, there is no wording of these rules that will satisfy your definition.

browarod · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2014, 06:56:41 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on January 23, 2014, 06:06:13 PM

Between abilities, conditions can update. We have very specific rules on this.

I know of the specific rules you speak (they're a major point of my argument, after all) but I do NOT remember them specifying abilities anywhere in them. Granted, the example everybody uses (including me) is of abilities, but just because that's the main example doesn't explicitly mean it only applies in that situation.

Is the wording of how conditions work/update actually written/typed out anywhere? I'm going to be really embarrassed if it is and it says abilities and I just missed it. >_<

Redoubter · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2014, 07:04:33 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 23, 2014, 06:56:41 PM

Is the wording of how conditions work/update actually written/typed out anywhere? I'm going to be really embarrassed if it is and it says abilities and I just missed it. >_<

Don't be embarrassed! You made good points, honestly, and again, I understand what you are saying.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 23, 2012, 05:15:50 PM

Quote from: Elder Consensus
Triggers have to wait for active special abilities* to finish first. Triggered abilities are started by an instant event ("when X happens, do Y") or are manually triggered ("at any time X is true, you may do Y" abilities).

Conditions do NOT have to wait for active special abilities* to finish. Conditions are always checking for an ongoing state and always result in ongoing abilities ("while X is true, give ongoing effect Y").

Card Trigger Effect Ability to insert during SAs*
Unknown Nation Manual Instant No, never for triggered abilities
Gates of Samaria Automatic Instant No, never for triggered abilities
Bearing Bad News Automatic Ongoing No, never for triggered abilities
Iron Pan none Ongoing Yes, it updates constantly

Another example of an "always working" ongoing check in Redemption is X/X values on characters like Silly Women or The Angel with the Secret Name. Those Xs can change during other effects, too. They don't wait and do checks after each card* completes. They are fluid.

*Referencing inserting during other special abilities

News:

Author Topic: Isaiah+Call and Sites/Protected Lost Souls (Read 4053 times)

browarod

TheHobbit13

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod