Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

That's what I thought, but I've heard a couple REPs/hosts say 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 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.

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?

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.