Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Good questions. I look foward to hearing the answers.

I just want to confirm the situation. Side-Battle one occurs, and during it someone plays d/c all heros in territory enhancement. Then the side-battle finishes and normal battle resumes. You are wondering if back in the normal battle you could ITB that enhancement? If I'm interpreting the question correctly then I would agree but I don't think that a straight up negate would work either because the side-battle already resolved. 

Almost, but not quite.  It would be a d/c all heroes in battle that would be the example, not in territory.  We already have the precedent that anything can be targeted, even if out of play, that causes special initiative, so that's not an issue.  It's just the wording of ITB that is being questioned and its impact on SI when the ability occurs in a side-battle.

I would say you could not Interrupt it because Interrupt targets current battle only. However the way negate is defined it says it can target anything in the field of battle so since I think special initiative would be granted you could then possibly play a negate to the old battle. I feel like that would make life very confusing so I'm not sure.

I agree that a targeted Interrupt or Negate would work based on the recent ruling that those can target cards that are outside of play (however, there are quite a few of those which read "in the current battle", and would therefore have the same lack of targeting ability).  The issue at hand is if ITB is worded as intended, such that it will not be able to interrupt anything in the field of battle, but only those in the current battle.

Not seeing any disagreement there, and it follows the letter of the rule, but I'd like to make sure there is no issue here.

I think, based on how it was ruled in the past, that the card that caused the side battle (which is assuredly in the current battle) can be negated or interrupted as if it was the card that caused the special initiative (which was a card in the side battle).

Special Initiative MUST target the ability causing the removal.  A card that cannot may not be used.

Also, are you saying that you can negate an entire side-battle?  I'll be honest, I was never sure if that was possible.  It shouldn't be, regardless

Didn't this just come up? The card that caused the side-battle is considered to be causing the removal in the main battle, and can be interrupted. However, if the card that caused the side-battle is CBI/N, the whole side-battle is CBI after it finishes.

Where is that thread then, because I do not remember seeing that at all.  Nor have I seen it on a search.  Can you please back that up?

EDIT: If you're referring to this thread, there is a statement that it seems to be correct by one Elder, but they did not seem sure, and I have yet to see any other support for that statement.  The rules for SI as they have been developed are such that the cards specifically causing removal must be targeted.  What you're suggesting goes against the rules we have, so we'll have to edit those and get some more definition if that's the way it's going to be.  But again, neither you or the Elder seemed very convinced yourselves   So it'd be nice if someone could respond to explain that.

What are you talking about? One elder initially responded incorrectly, I gave the current ruling, another elder backed it up, and then the first elder corrected his mistake. We're all sure, we just think it's weird.

And if you're all so sure (and I'm not sure who this "all" is), then where is it in the rules or previous rulings?  If it is another one of those "this is how we rule it at tournaments," then I understand where you're coming from, but there is still nothing here on this site or in the rules.  The rules for SI have specific developed so that you must target the card causing the removal.  In addition, it has now been ruled that you can target cards out of play that cause SI.

If you could please back it up, that'd be appreciated.  Only two people (Soul Seeker didn't know your rule, and didn't correct himself, just deferred since he "apparently" was wrong) have expressed knowledge of the rule.  And no one else has posted here to help to support the concept.

Gabe now agrees too. Is that enough for you? Of course not. But it'll be enough for everyone else so it's fine.

We're all aware that there are some things missing from the REG.

Let's not start that again.

I want to know what rules apply, and how it works.  What is the reasoning behind an actual ruling on this?  If you were to negate the side-battle card, what then?  Can you target the actual card, given the recent rulings on targeting out-of-play cards?  Are we revisiting this in light of the recent rulings?

I want you to consider something, before this post you just made: I have never heard this ruling before you, we had one person agreeing with you, there are ZERO rulings on this, and ZERO rules that apply.  You still think it's entirely unreasonable to ask for support?  Because you'll ask it of me and everyone else at the drop of a hat.  And that is FAIR.  We can both be reasonable, but it takes both of us to have a reasonable conversation.

When three elders confirm it and none dissent, yes, it's unreasonable.

You aren't even reading what I post.  I asked you BEFORE YOUR POST (and I'd still like to see Gabe post, not just your statement, because I trust you but want to see his reasoning), if it was unreasonable.  SS never confirmed anything, just deferred.  Only you and one Elder posted anything on it, but without ANY prior rulings or rules to back it up.  If you think it's unreasonable to ask for more information, then nothing will ever satisfy you.  And that's unfortunate.

When you say cascades, what would that entail?  Everything that happened at all that wasn't CBN or CBI just...never happened in the side-battle?  Were they unplayed?  Or just negated?  How do we make sure that it actually goes back with the proper cascade when we know how complex side-battles can get?  You can see how there are still questions, and how it doesn't make any sense to just summarily dismiss what I'm asking.

And I still want to ask the location of this ruling, and how it works with the actual rules we have, if it is apparently an old rule.  We all know that there have been rulings in the past where people from different regions (including Elders) ruled it different ways, but we could always work it out through the rules.  I'm not seeing it at all with the rules we have, and the fact is that all precedent says you must target the card causing removal.  This is even more pertinent now that you can target those cards while they are out of play.

You can just keep saying the ruling all you want, but that doesn't explain where it came from or how it affects the game.  Or why there is nothing on the boards on it.  That is the discussion I want to have.  You of all people should know I support rulings I disagree with when they are finalized and change my own (personal) position when warranted based on these sort of discussions, so don't act like I'm just stubborn and stupid.  I want to have an actual discussion.

Whether or not it was reasonable then is debatable, but it was unreasonable to say that the thread had no definitive conclusion. However, it's definitely unreasonable to keep asking for it. The matter is clearly resolved, and you're now just making a nuisance of yourself.

Cascading negates are always messy when a long chain is involved. CBN and CBI always stick. If you understand negates cascading, you understand how this works; it's not different just because a side-battle was involved. If not, you'll need another thread for it.

I still want to say it's missing from the REG as are some other rules. Stop belaboring the point on this thread and PM one of the people involved with the REG to get it added. You'd also make a lot more headway if you stopped trying to dispute what the rule is and started arguing for it to be changed. Then we'd be on the same side, as I think it's a bad rule as well.

Me, myself and I have a different solution.