Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Red Wing on January 03, 2012, 02:01:12 PM
-
1. Can Foreign Sword and cards like it negate Writ?
2. Can Blessings negate Invoking Terror (used by Magician)?
Foreign Sword
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Red • Ability: 3 / 2 • Class: Weapon • Special Ability: Negate an opponent's evil or neutral card. If used by a Canaanite or Philistine, you may return that card to the top of owner's deck. • Identifiers: None • Verse: II Samuel 15:19 • Availability: Rock of Ages Extended booster packs (None)
Unholy Writ
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: A human Hero in battle may be taken prisoner. Discard Artifact after use. • Errata: If a human Hero is in battle, you may discard this card to capture that Hero. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Acts 9:2 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Ultra Rare)
Blessings (Pa)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: White • Ability: 2 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate all special abilities on all characters and enhancements except this one. Battle is determined by the numbers. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Genesis 27:34 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Uncommon)
Invoking Terror (FF2)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Crimson/Pale Green • Ability: 4 / 0 • Class: Territory • Special Ability: Place a human Hero beneath owner’s deck. If used by a multi-color Magician, you may place this card beneath deck. Cannot be prevented. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Isaiah 47:12 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers Extended booster packs (None)
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
That's what I thought, but I've heard a couple REPs/hosts say no.
-
1. No
-
not sure on foriegn sword vs writ but i had blessing vs terror come up last night and thats definitly a no for the general negate
-
I don't see why Foreign Sword wouldn't work against Writ as long as it activated right when the battle did.
-
Sword works against Writ when used as a Weapon.
Sword doesn't work against Writ after Writ has been used.
Blessings played after Terror works, Blessings played before terror doesn't.
-
gah seriouisly this goes against what gabe and jordan said in another thread but we'll talk later john
-
I forgot about the errata on uw. Alex is right on. As for terror I don't know it seems to me its ability completes as much as it can and is under deck b4 your opponent can play a negate. I could see it either way though.
-
gah seriouisly this goes against what gabe and jordan said in another thread but we'll talk later john
Link the thread. I'm interested in the argument as to why.
-
I think Invoking can only be negated by an ItB or Negate last negate, not a general negate all like Blessings. Special initiative grants you the ability to interrupt the last enhancement if it is removing you from battle, which both ItB and Negate last do regardless of that enhancements location, however, Blessings only negates cards in play, not cards on the bottom of your deck.
As for FS vs. Writ, I agree with RDT.
-
See, that was mentioned in another thread back in Sept., and then we thought about it, and I'd thought we decided that Cards like Blessings could work, I can't remember the exact logic we went through though. I think it was Gabe that argued for it. Frankly, I think it would be about 100% simpler if we erased the distinction, It's a rare case, and it's confusing to the average player as to why some cards work, but not others.
-
Geeze, will we PLEASE get on the same page about negates. Last time around, removal from battle triggers special initiative which takes place during the state of the battle before removal. Foreign Sword would work as a normal enhancement on Writ or anything else, and cards removing themselves from battle are negatable by anything that would interrupt them while they were still in battle.
It seems like this ruling gets reversed every single time the question is asked. This is fundamental, and should have been 100% resolved and agreed upon before the set came out. At the very least, the PTB should make up their minds now.
-
in agreement with pol it would be nice
-
I'm with Pol as far as what it should be It would be much, much simpler to simply have one blanket rule in that fashion, than the 3 or 4 that we have now.
But I'm 80% certain that I'm right as to what it actually is, the 20% hesitation is on the blessings deal.
-
While I am making the statement that it should be that way, I'm also saying it is that way as of the last time the question was asked. Interestingly enough, iirc the elders posting on this thread were not on the last one, and the ones who were on the last one have not posted on this one.
-
removal from battle triggers special initiative which takes place during the state of the battle before removal. Foreign Sword would work as a normal enhancement on Writ or anything else, and cards removing themselves from battle are negatable by anything that would interrupt them while they were still in battle.
I agree that this is confusing, but the way this has been understood in the past is that the "special initiative" reverts to a stage where the targeted card has NOT yet been removed from battle, however the card that targeted is STILL discarded if it says to.
That is why the following has been ruled in the past:
- Hero A makes a rescue attempt.
- EC A blocks and has init.
- EC plays an EE that discards itself to remove Hero from the game.
- Hero has "special initiative" which allows it to play a negate or interrupt....BUT
at the same time, the EE is still discarded already, and therefore it is NOT in play to negate.
- Therefore, the Hero has to play a "negate last" to be able to reach the EE in the discard pile to negate it.
However, this isn't really consistent with another past ruling:
- Hero A makes a rescue attempt.
- King Zimri blocks and discards an EE and himself to discard the Hero
- Hero plays a negate evil character's SA to stop Zimri
Therefore, for consistency's sake, I think that we should go with what Pol is talking about. We should just say that "special initiative" goes back in time to right before the removal, and therefore the hero is still there to play an interrupt or negate AND the card causing the removal is ALSO still there in play and available to be negated by ANY negate that can target that card type.
Could we just do away with the "negate last" distinction, as it creates unnecessary confusion?
-
And people keep asking me how Caddyshack can be so funny when watching it for the umpteenth time. ::)
Don't mind me...you guys keep going while I go get some popcorn. ;D
-
I agree for because it is so much easier to explain during tourneys like this. I think it also makes more sense honestly because why do you have to target a specific card as long in the long run you are stopping the ability.
-
I see a couple issues with that. First, it means cards pause at different states of resolution for special initiative to kick in. For example, Apprehended would pause in effect resolution but Unholy Writ would be forced to pause during cost resolution. This could create confusion as to when/if you actually pay the cost. Second, (and this is already confusing, though I see this rule change making it worse) in the case of multiple abilities on a card, do you carry the rest of them out just to then take them back? For example, if Jezebel is trying to remove a green hero from the game does she get to band, let's say to Ahab, and then Ahab's ability happen before you get special initiative to itb/negate her, or does the game pause immediately as soon as she's trying to remove you and then you get the chance to negate before everything else happens?
-
I see a couple issues with that. First, it means cards pause at different states of resolution for special initiative to kick in. For example, Apprehended would pause in effect resolution but Unholy Writ would be forced to pause during cost resolution. This could create confusion as to when/if you actually pay the cost. Second, (and this is already confusing, though I see this rule change making it worse) in the case of multiple abilities on a card, do you carry the rest of them out just to then take them back? For example, if Jezebel is trying to remove a green hero from the game does she get to band, let's say to Ahab, and then Ahab's ability happen before you get special initiative to itb/negate her, or does the game pause immediately as soon as she's trying to remove you and then you get the chance to negate before everything else happens?
I would say you completely complete all abilities except the one harming the hero then if the hero has a chance to respond then he can and if he indirectly targets other abilities all of those bounce out too.
-
It's not that complicated. The pause takes place during the order of resolution when the character would be removed, with costs not yet paid. That's the way it's always been: if you Negate Zimri you get your Enhancement back.
-
with costs not yet paid. That's the way it's always been
That is NOT how it's always been. As long as I've been playing, you pay the cost (to show you can) and then the rest carries out (or tries to, at least). Otherwise, what's to stop me from blocking with Egyptian Warden with no evil gold enhancements in my hand, bluffing that I'm going to capture you, and make you play an interrupt/negate to stop an ability I couldn't pay for?
-
with costs not yet paid. That's the way it's always been
That is NOT how it's always been. As long as I've been playing, you pay the cost (to show you can) and then the rest carries out (or tries to, at least). Otherwise, what's to stop me from blocking with Egyptian Warden with no evil gold enhancements in my hand, bluffing that I'm going to capture you, and make you play an interrupt/negate to stop an ability I couldn't pay for?
I've seen an Elder rule this way (I can't remember specifics, so no linky)
-
Which way? The Proper way with costs payed, and then interrupt? or without costs payed?
Because Pol is wrong. Cost is absolutely payed up front.
The distinction between the Egyptian Warden situation, and the Invoking Terror situation, is that Invoking Terror isn't a cost-benefit card. So I honestly have no idea why we're going down this rabbit hole.
-
The way browarod (I'm never sure if I capitalize the B or not) said. Cost is paid first.
-
I wish the B was capitalized, but I haven't felt like bothering one of the admins for such a small change.
Also, I was more disagreeing with Pol's comment to my comment than trying to say Warden and IT are at all similar. I still stand by the problems I mentioned earlier on this page.
-
I agree with RDT that the traditional ruling has been that you have to pay the cost first before giving your opponent a chance to play the negate.
Here's another hypothetical card to consider how this way of thinking would affect things. Imagine a SA that says something to the effect of "Opp must discard a card in hand with the word "negate" on it, and discard all cards in battle."
If your opponent ONLY has 1 negate enh in hand at the time, then this timing becomes crucial. If we say that you fulfill all of the "non-character-removal" abilities first, then their negate is discarded before they get "special initiative", and therefore they can't actually negate their character being discarded. But if they just show their negate that "would be" discarded, but the effect of the whole card that ends up removing the characters is paused by "special initiative", then they could go ahead and play the negate.
-
Do we have a card that does something to that effect???
-
Do we have a card that does something to that effect???
Not exactly, but I have a vague memory of being in a situation at some point where my character was being removed from battle somehow, and though I had a negate in my hand, it was being discarded at the same time (perhaps as a random) and therefore I wasn't allowed to play my negate. So that precedent goes along with the idea that everything EXCEPT the actual character being removed completes before the chance to play the negate.
-
Hasn't Blessings always been able to negate things like JiP?
-
Hasn't Blessings always been able to negate things like JiP?
That's a good point. That precedent would point to JiP NOT being removed at the time that Blessings is played, and therefore that part NOT resolving before the negate is able to be played.
There have obviously been some inconsistencies here. I'm glad that we are now thinking through this exactly to come up with a consistent answer.
-
Hasn't Blessings always been able to negate things like JiP?
That's a good point. That precedent would point to JiP NOT being removed at the time that Blessings is played, and therefore that part NOT resolving before the negate is able to be played.
There have obviously been some inconsistencies here. I'm glad that we are now thinking through this exactly to come up with a consistent answer.
So what's the official ruling on Blessings vs. Invoking Terror? There have been two elders in disagreement on the first page.
-
Why is the hang-up on whether a card can be targeted? Negates/interrupts target special abilities. Which special abilities cannot be targeted by negates/interrupts? Those that cannot be negated/interrupted.
Pretty simple, eh?
Just decide how far the "cannot be negated" qualifier can extend (e.g. used and discarded artifacts, etc.) and then everyone doesn't need to be smarter than a 5th grader to figure it out.
-
I'm not saying that the cost isn't paid when the effect takes place, but that if the cost/benefit ability is interrupted, the cost being paid is interrupted.
-
I'm not saying that the cost isn't paid when the effect takes place, but that if the cost/benefit ability is interrupted, the cost being paid is interrupted.
I think this sums t up. If I use Writ or Zimri, etc I need to go through the costs first. I discard Writ/the enhancement and try to win the battle. At this point the opponent can negate. My impression of the issue is whether or not we think Zimri and Writ are different because they are different card types (which is NOT confusing) or if we want to rule them to be treated the same way.
-
It's not a matter of whether it's confusing. If we had a single precept that could be applied to every instance of negation/special initiative, then one of the most asked-about aspects of the game will have a uniform answer.
-
It's not a matter of whether it's confusing. If we had a single precept that could be applied to every instance of negation/special initiative, then one of the most asked-about aspects of the game will have a uniform answer.
Do we want the same answer for every card type though? Artifacts aren't in battle, so it's not a stretch to rule them differently or frankly its not even confusing.
-
It's not about card type, it's about the state of special initiative. While this instance or that instance or anything you could bring up may not be "that complicated," it's death by a thousand paper cuts. There are so many "well, what if" scenarios surrounding special initiative that special initiative itself needs to be as simple as possible. I propose "special initiative takes place during the state of the battle immediately prior to the character(s) being removed." Unless someone proposes an even simpler rule or provides a non-hypothetical example of why that won't work, I'll continue to promote that definition.
-
Here is the way I think it should be, to keep everything consistent (not that my word means much): If a card in battle removes itself (while removing a character), the player who's character is being removed should have the opportunity to play any kind of negate card that targets the card doing the removing (negate all, negate last, negate any, and interrupt the battle). This is consistent with cards like King Zimri, where you can play anything that negates him or interrupts the battle. I think that makes it a lot less complicated, and I also don't think that sacrifices gameplay at all. Now cards like Unholy Writ or Magic Charms (played out of battle) I'm a little less sure on, but I think that based on the precedent that would theoretically be set by what I said before, I'd be inclined to say they can be negated by any card that targets them (for instance, Foreign Sword).