Author Topic: Mounted Ahimaaz (Read 3449 times)

asrgimli · « **on:** May 16, 2013, 09:07:41 AM »

I realize this is a bit of a longshot, but suppose I had a situation where I managed to get chariots on Ahimaaz. The situation I'm thinking of involves:

-Ahimelech, Priest at Nob (S.A. Search discard pile for a weapon class Enhancement and place on your warrior class Hero that has no weapon and convert weapon to that Hero’s brigade.)
-Ahimaaz (S.A. Protect this Hero from capture. You may look at one opponent’s hand or cards face down in a Site. You may then withdraw Hero from battle unharmed.)
-Chariots ex. Naaman's Chariot and Horses (S.A. Interrupt the battle and draw two cards. If used by a unique character, you may play the next Enhancement.)

So Ahimelech searches for Naaman's Chariot and Horses and places it on Ahimaaz. Next turn, Ahimaaz goes out with Chariots and chooses to withdraw. What happens? Of course, I'm not sure if you're allowed to search for an evil weapon class enhancement and convert it to a good enhancement, but it doesn't mention not being able to on the card, but I don't know if it's in the rules at all.

TimMierz · « **Reply #1 on:** May 16, 2013, 09:48:12 AM »

First of all, you definitely are allowed to use Ahimelech in the way you propose. Nothing on Ahimelech forces the weapon to start as a good enhancement, and converted weapons maintain their abilities.

As far as Chariots after withdraw, my guess is this: The Chariot actives, because it was in battle and there was a character in battle it could activate on. You can draw two cards, and when it gets to the "play enhancement" part, you cannot play an enhancement on Ahimaaz because he is not in battle at the point you're trying to play the card. I believe that if you banded Ahimaaz into battle and so a character remains in battle, you could play an enhancement on that remaining Hero.

But I'm far from official, and I'm often wrong.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #2 on:** May 16, 2013, 10:55:07 AM »

Quote from: TimMierz on May 16, 2013, 09:48:12 AM

First of all, you definitely are allowed to use Ahimelech in the way you propose. Nothing on Ahimelech forces the weapon to start as a good enhancement, and converted weapons maintain their abilities.

As far as Chariots after withdraw, my guess is this: The Chariot actives, because it was in battle and there was a character in battle it could activate on. You can draw two cards, and when it gets to the "play enhancement" part, you cannot play an enhancement on Ahimaaz because he is not in battle at the point you're trying to play the card. I believe that if you banded Ahimaaz into battle and so a character remains in battle, you could play an enhancement on that remaining Hero.

But I'm far from official, and I'm often wrong.

Chris · « **Reply #3 on:** May 16, 2013, 10:58:21 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on May 16, 2013, 10:55:07 AM

Quote from: TimMierz on May 16, 2013, 09:48:12 AM
First of all, you definitely are allowed to use Ahimelech in the way you propose. Nothing on Ahimelech forces the weapon to start as a good enhancement, and converted weapons maintain their abilities.

As far as Chariots after withdraw, my guess is this: The Chariot actives, because it was in battle and there was a character in battle it could activate on. You can draw two cards, and when it gets to the "play enhancement" part, you cannot play an enhancement on Ahimaaz because he is not in battle at the point you're trying to play the card. I believe that if you banded Ahimaaz into battle and so a character remains in battle, you could play an enhancement on that remaining Hero.

But I'm far from official, and I'm often wrong.

Is this going to be a thing from now? Because I am in favor of it.

Gabe · « **Reply #4 on:** May 16, 2013, 01:17:40 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on May 16, 2013, 09:48:12 AM

First of all, you definitely are allowed to use Ahimelech in the way you propose. Nothing on Ahimelech forces the weapon to start as a good enhancement, and converted weapons maintain their abilities.

As far as Chariots after withdraw, my guess is this: The Chariot actives, because it was in battle and there was a character in battle it could activate on. You can draw two cards, and when it gets to the "play enhancement" part, you cannot play an enhancement on Ahimaaz because he is not in battle at the point you're trying to play the card. I believe that if you banded Ahimaaz into battle and so a character remains in battle, you could play an enhancement on that remaining Hero.

But I'm far from official, and I'm often wrong.

I agree with all of the above, except for one thing I'm not sure about. Why wouldn't the play ability work? We have precedent that play abilities work outside of battle based on cards like Altar of Burnt Offering and High Places. I'm not familiar with an rule that would stop the C&H from playing in the rare instance it was activated in battle first.

TimMierz · « **Reply #5 on:** May 16, 2013, 01:24:26 PM »

REG, "Play an Enhancement":
An enhancement targeted by a play an enhancement ability during the battle phase can only be played on a character that is in the current battle and is controlled by the player that controls the targeted enhancement. An enhancement targeted by a play an enhancement ability during any other phase can only be played on a character that is controlled by the player that controls the targeted enhancement and is in that player's territory.

Korunks · « **Reply #6 on:** May 16, 2013, 02:11:58 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on May 16, 2013, 01:24:26 PM

REG, "Play an Enhancement":
An enhancement targeted by a play an enhancement ability during the battle phase can only be played on a character that is in the current battle and is controlled by the player that controls the targeted enhancement. An enhancement targeted by a play an enhancement ability during any other phase can only be played on a character that is controlled by the player that controls the targeted enhancement and is in that player's territory.

Doesn't a character withdrawing from battle end the battle phase?

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #7 on:** May 16, 2013, 02:18:31 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on May 16, 2013, 02:11:58 PM

Doesn't a character withdrawing from battle end the battle phase?

Not immediately, just like discarding the only evil character doesn't end the battle phase, withdrawing a character won't do it either. Once all abilities resolve and neither player uses any other ones the battle moves to Battle Resolution and the outcome is determined. In the case of Ahimiaaz, nothing really happens in resolution.

Gabe · « **Reply #8 on:** May 16, 2013, 05:28:19 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on May 16, 2013, 01:24:26 PM

REG, "Play an Enhancement":
An enhancement targeted by a play an enhancement ability during the battle phase can only be played on a character that is in the current battle and is controlled by the player that controls the targeted enhancement. An enhancement targeted by a play an enhancement ability during any other phase can only be played on a character that is controlled by the player that controls the targeted enhancement and is in that player's territory.

Tim, thanks for explaining where this idea comes from. I see that is the "Default Condition" for the "Play an Enhancement" REG entry. The current REG layout predates my involvement, but I believe the purpose of the "default condition" for each entry is to show what happens under normal circumstances. However, there are usually special situations that work outside of the default conditions for most special abilities. Sometimes it's a result of multiple card interactions. Sometimes it's simply based on the special ability of a card.

Here's an example of what I mean from default conditions for Capture.

Quote

Captured characters are held captive in the Land of Bondage of the player that used the capture ability.

We know that's true, but there are also times where that is not the case. Sometimes a card tells you to put the captured character in opponent's Land of Bondage. Sometimes the captured character goes to a Fortress.

We should also note that if enhancements cannot be played in territory during the battle phase then we've been wrong about the Warrior's Spear + Spy ruling. Activating a weapon is considering playing it, and in that example the spear activates in territory.

I'm interested to hear what other elders have to say on this too, especially Jordan who has helped with the lion's share of the recent REG updates.

Redoubter · « **Reply #9 on:** May 16, 2013, 06:30:18 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on May 16, 2013, 05:28:19 PM

Tim, thanks for explaining where this idea comes from. I see that is the "Default Condition" for the "Play an Enhancement" REG entry. The current REG layout predates my involvement, but I believe the purpose of the "default condition" for each entry is to show what happens under normal circumstances. However, there are usually special situations that work outside of the default conditions for most special abilities. Sometimes it's a result of multiple card interactions. Sometimes it's simply based on the special ability of a card.

Here's an example of what I mean from default conditions for Capture.

Quote
Captured characters are held captive in the Land of Bondage of the player that used the capture ability.

We know that's true, but there are also times where that is not the case. Sometimes a card tells you to put the captured character in opponent's Land of Bondage. Sometimes the captured character goes to a Fortress.

But in those cases, it is the ability itself that specifically overrides the game rule, with wording like "take captured characters and put them here". In the case of Horses, the ability has no such caveat, so it would follow the default conditions. Since the default condition for "play" abilities is that they must occur with a character in battle, and Horses has nothing to override that, then Horses has a default condition that the play will not work if the character is not in battle.

This isn't really inconsistent with the WS ruling, because there is nothing in the default conditions that affect the ruling there, as far as I know. This one default condition does not apply to enhancements in general, but just to this one ability.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #10 on:** May 16, 2013, 06:59:55 PM »

I agree with Redoubter's logic. The part of the REG that Tim quoted directly talks about Play abilities, and the default condition is there to explain what happens when the circumstance is not on the card (which is how we can get away with saying "capture a Hero" instead of "capture a Hero and place it in your land of bondage"). Horses does nothing to override the default condition (unlike Joseph Before Pharaoh and Raider's Camp, which do).

In regards to Spy+WS, the REG doesn't say anything about playing enhancements in general, just Play abilities. Thus WS+Spy works as it has been ruled for the same reason that NC&H+Ahimaaz allows the draw. However, the REG then specifies that by default, when you activate a play ability during the Battle Phase (which you do with NC&H) you have to play the enhancement on a character in the current battle (which you cannot, as no one is in battle). If (for some weird reason) NC&H said something like "you may play an Enhancement on a character in battle or in your territory" then the default condition would be overridden, and you could play an enhancement off of NC&H.

And let's be honest, if we allowed people to essentially turn any enhancement into a TC enhancement (no matter how convoluted of a combo it would require) someone would find a way to break it. So even though that part of the REG is a bit complicated itself, it's probably a good thing it is there. The situation would come up so rarely that it probably doesn't matter much how complicated it is, but it would only take one broken combo for us to realize it is needed.

asrgimli · « **Reply #11 on:** May 16, 2013, 08:58:04 PM »

I just thought this was an odd situation that I had thought about trying to manipulate, but didn't know how it would work. I didn't know if the "Interrupt the battle" part of the Chariot would interrupt Ahimaaz withdrawing and leave him temporarily suspended in battle, thus allowing the playing of the enhancement. But I'm not much of an expert on these kinds of situations, so I wanted to see what others thought about it. Thanks to everyone for helping me out with it, although it seems like consensus hasn't totally been reached, although it seems to be leaning towards "You can Draw, but you can't Play".

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #12 on:** May 16, 2013, 11:44:04 PM »

Actually from a quick reading of Interrupt the Battle (actually I read it because of a different ruling) The 2kHorses should interrupt the withdraw.

From the REG

Quote

The phrase “interrupt the battle” includes interrupting the following:
-all active ongoing abilities
-abilities that are defeating one of the characters you control in battle
-the last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent.

Quote

A Hero is defeated when:
-The Hero is removed from the field of battle because of a special ability.
-The battle ends with the Hero being discarded by the numbers of the Evil Character(s) in battle (except in the case of mutual destruction).
-The battle ends in a stalemate.

I bolded the relevant sections. Since technically the withdraw causes the hero to be defeated (Withdrawing) and interrupt the battle interrupts abilities defeating the character, I would suggest that the 2kHorses interrupts the withdraw, so technically Ahimaaz is in the battle (since the ability is interrupted) and you should be able to play an enhancement before the withdraw finishes (because it is interrupted), it would resolve and then Ahimaaz withdraws.

Bryon · « **Reply #13 on:** May 17, 2013, 12:00:02 AM »

ChristianSoldier, that is nice research, but there is one flaw: You cannot interrupt your removal from battle if it was YOUR ability that removed you.

For example, you cannot interrupt your Joseph in Prison with your Philistine Horsies.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #14 on:** May 17, 2013, 12:14:05 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on May 17, 2013, 12:00:02 AM

ChristianSoldier, that is nice research, but there is one flaw: You cannot interrupt your removal from battle if it was YOUR ability that removed you.

For example, you cannot interrupt your Joseph in Prison with your Philistine Horsies.

I was fairly sure that's how it would be ruled, however this is something that should be updated, since I didn't find it in the REG. The Special Initiative section deals with the ability to play new cards.

However now that I think about it, Ahimaaz isn't in battle anymore to be interrupted (since interrupt the battle only interrupts cards in battle) which gives basis for the inability to interrupt your own removal, even if the card is activating anyway.

SirNobody · « **Reply #15 on:** May 17, 2013, 08:28:50 PM »

Hey,

Gabe, Warrior's Spear on Spy does "activate" in battle it just ends up in the territory before it is carried out.

Bryon, I believe the rule is only that you do not get special initiative to negate your removal if you caused it, not that you cannot negate the removal.

I believe ChristianSoldier's thinking is correct that the interrupt the battle on Horses brings Ahimaaz back into battle allowing you to play an enhancement on him and then the withdraw kicks back in.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Redoubter · « **Reply #16 on:** May 17, 2013, 08:42:22 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on May 17, 2013, 08:28:50 PM

Bryon, I believe the rule is only that you do not get special initiative to negate your removal if you caused it, not that you cannot negate the removal.

This is correct with the reading of the new SI rules:

Quote

When you are losing the battle by removal, you are granted special initiative to play an Enhancement that will interrupt or negate the card that is causing your character’s removal. You are considered to be losing by removal when an opponent’s special ability, or a game rule that has been triggered by an opponent’s special ability, would leave you with no character in battle when the special ability has completed.

You have no SI anymore to negate your own SA causing the removal of your side of the battle. It should be noted to be a change, but yep, it's still there

Quote from: SirNobody on May 17, 2013, 08:28:50 PM

I believe ChristianSoldier's thinking is correct that the interrupt the battle on Horses brings Ahimaaz back into battle allowing you to play an enhancement on him and then the withdraw kicks back in.

You are actually correct by the rules:

Quote

The phrase “interrupt the battle” includes interrupting the following:
o all active ongoing abilities
o abilities that are defeating one of the characters you control in battle
o the last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent.
Interrupt the battle only includes such abilities if they were activated on cards in the current battle.

...

A Hero is defeated when:
The Hero is removed from the field of battle because of a special ability.
The battle ends with the Hero being discarded by the numbers of the Evil Character(s) in battle (except in the case of mutual destruction).
The battle ends in a stalemate.

By a technical reading of the definitions of ITB and defeat, the card was activated on cards in the current battle, even if they are withdrawn to territory. The withdraw is a defeat condition, because it removed the Hero from the battle via an SI. Any SA causing defeat is interrupted by ITB.

So while you cannot play an ITB via SI to interrupt your own removal, having a weapon activate as in the case described would actually interrupt the withdraw, meaning that the draw would occur (weapon in battle) before the withdraw reactivates.

SirNobody · « **Reply #17 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:07:10 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Redoubter on May 17, 2013, 08:42:22 PM

You have no SI anymore to negate your own SA causing the removal of your side of the battle. It should be noted to be a change, but yep, it's still there

It actually isn't a change, it has been that way for a very long time.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:27:19 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on May 17, 2013, 09:07:10 PM

It actually isn't a change, it has been that way for a very long time.

Considering we only just got the ruling written down in the last few months, and it has definitely been ruled differently before, I guess that would depend on who you talk to

Also, to whoever has been following my posts around and -1ing them when I don't post inaccurate rules, hello

Gabe · « **Reply #19 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:49:27 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on May 17, 2013, 09:27:19 PM

Quote from: SirNobody on May 17, 2013, 09:07:10 PM
It actually isn't a change, it has been that way for a very long time.

Considering we only just got the ruling written down in the last few months, and it has definitely been ruled differently before, I guess that would depend on who you talk to

Also, to whoever has been following my posts around and -1ing them when I don't post inaccurate rules, hello

That would be me. I only -1 posts where you make false statements as though they were true. I also plus 1 some of your posts when you give all accurate info. I usually don't respond to you because I don't feel the need to debate your opinions.

In this instance the rule you're saying is new was in place before I joined the game. Just because we make an update/clarification or add a definition to the REG doesn't make it new every time.

Redoubter · « **Reply #20 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:00:39 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on May 17, 2013, 09:49:27 PM

That would be me. I only -1 posts where you make false statements as though they were true. I also plus 1 some of your posts when you give all accurate info. I usually don't respond to you because I don't feel the need to debate your opinions.

You aren't the only one (unless you also -1 the post above the was immediately agreed with by Prof A and seems to be the way it would be ruled...I can't see anything wrong with that one), but I don't see the purpose of -1ing posts that aren't actually saying inaccurate things about the rules. From how that has been used on here, that's basically saying the person is not correct about the ruling, and I didn't say anything wrong about the way the rules work in either post.

On SI rules, I understand that you always had it ruled one way in your area, but we never had an official written rule that all could reference (and I have seen others rule it differently) until you put it in the new REG. Thanks again for that, by the way, that was a big help

If you disagree with something I say, just tell me so. Trust me, I can take it

It hurts that you think that you can't tell me something, or that if you had that much of a problem, you didn't feel you could come to me with that. I change my position quite often, actually, and would rather be right in the end than right at the start.

EDIT: REGARDING ITB IN THE REG

So I was in the new REG looking around about another question, and I see this definition of ITB under Interrupt:

Quote

The phrase “interrupt the battle” includes interrupting the following:
o all active ongoing abilities
o abilities that are defeating one of the characters you control in battle
o the last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent.

...

A Hero is defeated when:
The Hero is removed from the field of battle because of a special ability.
The battle ends with the Hero being discarded by the numbers of the Evil Character(s) in battle (except in the case of mutual destruction).
The battle ends in a stalemate.

And this definition in the Glossary:

Quote

Interrupt the Battle
Interrupt the battle interrupts the following:
Your opponent’s special abilities that are (1) causing you to be losing by removal, or (2) causing a mutual destruction by mutual removal.
The last enhancement played in battle, as long as it was played by an opponent.
ALL ongoing special abilities (see Ongoing Abilities).

By the first definition, I was correct in saying that (technically) ITB would interrupt Ahimaaz's withdraw. However, the second definition says that it would not, because the withdraw was not controlled by an opponent.

So which one is right, and can we have a fix put in for the next REG update to have each match up?

Bryon · « **Reply #21 on:** May 18, 2013, 11:41:01 AM »

I always thought that the Interrupt the Battle definition from the Glossary was correct.

It adds complexity to have different rules for Interrupt the Battle based on whether Special Initiative has been granted.

"Horses can interrupt your own card if Horses was already played, but you can't play it now" just seems needlessly complex.

SirNobody · « **Reply #22 on:** May 18, 2013, 01:20:06 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Bryon on May 18, 2013, 11:41:01 AM

"Horses can interrupt your own card if Horses was already played, but you can't play it now" just seems needlessly complex.

Isn't it very similar to Death of Unrighteous? You don't get initiative to negate it, but if you can somehow activate a negate anyway you can negate it.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Bryon · « **Reply #23 on:** May 18, 2013, 02:35:25 PM »

But "Interrupt the battle" won't do it, because "interrupt the battle" only targets a last enhancement if your opponent played it.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #24 on:** May 18, 2013, 06:27:41 PM »

I would also suggest that the one on the Glossary is the one we should go with, (and I'm the one who pointed out the possibility it would interrupt it) and here's why:

It is a really weird special case situation that rarely comes up, and going with the glossary definition it makes it look more consistent on the surface (and it isn't any less consistent)

Secondly it doesn't involve the word "Defeat" which while it is a perfectly good word with a perfectly good definition, the definition is different depending on whether the character is a hero or an evil character, the Glossary definition gets away from that difference.

News:

Author Topic: Mounted Ahimaaz (Read 3449 times)

Chris