Cactus Game Design Message Boards

A hero plays a card that captures an evil character, targetting his opponent's lone EC in battle. The evil character plays an ITB & play next enhancement, followed by a battle-ender that causes a stalemeate.

The capture enhancement was never actually negated. The character it was originally played on is still eligible to have an enhancement played on him, although he is no longer in the same location. The character that was originally targeted for the capture is still eligible to be captured. My question is: What rule or game function, if any, stops that enhancement from continuing to target the evil character it originally targeted after battle?

Or if a SA allows you to.

So where is this rule?

They're actually different.  The WS scenario actually allows for any pending abilities to complete prior to declaring end of battle.  Battle-enders just end the battle and disregard anything that is pending.

That section is in serious need of fixing.

Why?  Consider a hero that is losing to an EC, plays ITB, and then withdraws.  The EC is still in battle, along with any interrupted and/or pending abilities after the hero withdraws.  If we use the outdated section you quoted from the REG, none of the interrupted and/or pending abilities complete.  Maybe that's the way the PTB want it.  Doesn't matter to me really.  But me and Spock both raise an eyebrow.

One difference in both of these examples is the use of an interrupt.

In the Warriors Spear combo, WS is never interrupted. In the End the Battle situation, everything else WAS interrupted.

One difference in both of these examples is the use of an interrupt.

In the Warriors Spear combo, WS is never interrupted. In the End the Battle situation, everything else WAS interrupted.

Wonders Forgotten is not an interrupt.

So you are suggesting that "the battle immediately ends" does not imply a halt to ongoing abilities or triggered abilities?

The GE was interrupted, and the battle ended before it could resume.

That is not the question I am asking. Lambo is trying to make a distinction that I do not believe exists.

What I am saying is that whether or not the ability was interrupted is irrelevant to the definition of "end the battle." Either "end the battle" means that no other abilities can activate (or finish activating) or it does not mean that. Either the battle ends or it doesn't. In this scenario you are saying it does. In the WS scenario you are saying it doesn't. I continue to disagree with that inconsistency.

That section from the REG is clearly erroneous.

Says who? I think it says exactly what it is supposed to say. If I am choosing to withdraw my own hero, then I certainly want the battle to end without anything else happening.

However, if the REG is wrong, then "battle ends" does mean what it says, and all these other excuses are wrong.

I believe that some of that section is misleading, if not incorrect. Primarily the idea that withdraw cards can be used to immediately end a battle. If I use Escape to Egypt to force your Heroes to withdraw, that can be interrupted, whereas if there was an inherent end the battle condition on the withdraw, then it couldn't be interrupted (by virtue of the fact that an end the battle card is inherently CBI). Also, I think the last sentence refers only to situations like Spy/Ahimaaz/Rhoda, where they pop in, do their thing, and pop out, and no more characters are left in battle. A withdraw wouldn't end the battle immediately in other situations (like with Visions of Iddo the Seer vs. a black EC who just played Wrath of Satan). In the latter case, I don't believe that every other Hero in play is saved, because the black EC is still in battle for Wrath to reactivate on.

Other than that, I'm not necessarily sure if the REG is incorrect. What I do know is this: interrupting any ability in battle and ending the battle before the ability reactivates prevents it from ever reactivating. There isn't any contention in the REG on that point. However, what is unclear is whether or not an ability on a card that was in battle but was never activated (i.e. Warrior's Spear on a withdrawing Spy) can be used. I was not an elder when that was officially ruled on, but I seem to remember not being quite clear on the reasoning behind allowing WS to work. It seems that since Spy activates and completes the withdraw (thus ending the battle) and since Order of Operations says that Spy completes before WS is activated, I can't see any reason why WS should take effect.

The reasoning for the first situation (ItB and end the battle) is that the ability never activates. The reasoning for the second situation is similar, just that in this case, the enhancement never activates in the first place.
 
Perhaps we need to take another look at this, because from where I stand, YMT's logic is sound, I don't see any reason to believe the REG is incorrect in that section, and I feel like Spy + WS, while an awesome combo and a bright spot in Red's otherwise (currently  ) dismal state of affairs, is not legal according to the rules.

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 23, 2011, 02:05:21 PM

I believe that some of that section is misleading, if not incorrect. Primarily the idea that withdraw cards can be used to immediately end a battle.

For the record, the first sentence says "can," so it would not be true in every withdraw. I was bolding the first and last sentence, since I think that was the intent of when it "can" happen.

That's how I read it too, I was just highlighting the fact that it may be misleading to some.

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 23, 2011, 02:05:21 PM

Perhaps we need to take another look at this, because from where I stand, YMT's logic is sound,...

Now I know this a joke post.... 

Actually, I have a lot of respect for members of your profession. If your screen name was YourEnglishTeacher or YourPsychologyTeacher, I probably wouldn't even read your posts.