Author Topic: Reckless Endangerment (Read 2929 times)

browarod · « **on:** September 25, 2009, 04:10:20 PM »

Scenario: My opponent attempts a rescue with a hero and their only other hero is in their territory with Reckless Endangerment on it.
Question: If I play an enhancement to discard the hero with RE, thus also discarding their hero in battle since there's no other target, does my opponent get special initiative to negate the enhancement I played to discard the hero in their territory?
Note: The enhancement I play does not transfer initiative to my opponent via numbers.

Reckless Endangerment
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place on a Hero. Negate that Hero’s special ability while this card remains on that Hero. If that Hero is discarded, its holder must discard another of his Characters in play. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Leviticus 19:16 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Common)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #1 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:22:40 PM »

I would say, yes, he get's special initiative, but only to play something that Interrupts what's Discarding him (reckless Endangerment). When you have special initiative, the next card you play has to interrupt what's killing you. In this case, that's a card that wasn't played in battle and is now in Discard Pile. There is currently nothing in the game that can target that for Negation.

Long story short, technically he does get special initiative, but no card exists that can be played. For all intents and purposes, his Discard is unnegatable.

Korunks · « **Reply #2 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:27:58 PM »

Burning Bush would do the trick:

Burning Bush

Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: White • Ability: 1 / 1 • Class: None • Special Ability: All evil enhancements currently in battle are negated and discarded. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Exodus 3:2 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Uncommon)

There may be others.

TimMierz · « **Reply #3 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:32:23 PM »

Reckless Endangerment isn't in battle, so Burning Bush couldn't try to target it. In any case, RE is from a previous turn which by definition cannot be negated.

Korunks · « **Reply #4 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:34:05 PM »

Why Not? Do cards placed on Hero's Not go into battle with them?

*** Edit I thought the RE'd hero was also going into battle. Well if you could interrupt and play Aaron's Rod wouldn't that work? The Interrupt stops the discard of the RE'd hero, and A's rod blows away RE. Correct?

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #5 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:35:53 PM »

Quote from: TimMierz on September 25, 2009, 04:32:23 PM

Reckless Endangerment isn't in battle, so Burning Bush couldn't try to target it. In any case, RE is from a previous turn which by definition cannot be negated.

I think the idea is that the opponent negates the card that activated RE in the first place, not RE directly.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #6 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:42:54 PM »

I would say that based on the Herod's Treachery/HA2 ruling, triggering a CBN ability (in this case RE, in that case the capture) makes the trigger (in this case the discard card, in that case the withdraw card) essentially uninterruptable. So I think the hero in battle cannot interrupt himself being discarded. I can possibly see it the other way though.

browarod · « **Reply #7 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:45:55 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on September 25, 2009, 04:42:54 PM

I would say that based on the Herod's Treachery/HA2 ruling, triggering a CBN ability (in this case RE, in that case the capture) makes the trigger (in this case the discard card, in that case the withdraw card) essentially uninterruptable. So I think the hero in battle cannot interrupt himself being discarded. I can possibly see it the other way though.

That was my thinking as well, I just thought I'd post it for discussion to get other possible opinions (or, hopefully, get an official ruling).

Korunks · « **Reply #8 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:48:44 PM »

But we are not interrupting The CBN ability, we are interrupting the trigger which can be interrupted. I don't see why I can't negate a trigger that makes no logical sense.

browarod · « **Reply #9 on:** September 25, 2009, 04:52:57 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on September 25, 2009, 04:48:44 PM

But we are not interrupting The CBN ability, we are interrupting the trigger which can be interrupted. I don't see why I can't negate a trigger that makes no logical sense.

The way they ruled it with Herod's Treachery is that in negating the trigger you're also indirectly negating the CBN ability, and CBN abilities CBN, even indirectly.

Also, why does it make no logical sense?

lightningninja · « **Reply #10 on:** September 25, 2009, 05:02:38 PM »

No, you don't get special initiative. Placed enhancements cannot be negated after a turn.

browarod · « **Reply #11 on:** September 25, 2009, 05:13:51 PM »

Quote from: lightningninja on September 25, 2009, 05:02:38 PM

No, you don't get special initiative. Placed enhancements cannot be negated after a turn.

That's what I thought

SirNobody · « **Reply #12 on:** September 25, 2009, 05:26:29 PM »

Hey,

I want to say that you would get initiative and could negate the ability that is discarding the character that has Reckless Endangerment on it. But as Professoralstad points out, that wouldn't exactly be consistent with the ruling in the Herod's Treachery thread.

Perhaps placed cards should work more like artifacts and fortresses for negating purposes. Perhaps the cannot-be-negatedness of abilities completed on previous phases doesn't include indirect negation while cannot-be-negatedness when it appears on a card does include indirect negation. Perhaps my ruling about Herod's Treachery was wrong. Or perhaps I just don't get what I want in this case. I'll have to think about this some more.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #13 on:** September 25, 2009, 06:45:04 PM »

That sounds convoluted and confusing.

SirNobody · « **Reply #14 on:** September 25, 2009, 07:40:48 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: Minister Polarius on September 25, 2009, 06:45:04 PM

That sounds convoluted and confusing.

Which part sounds convoluted and confusing?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Kyp Henderson · « **Reply #15 on:** September 25, 2009, 07:43:57 PM »

But why coundn't you play Swords into Plowshares?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #16 on:** September 25, 2009, 08:05:06 PM »

Quote

Perhaps the cannot-be-negatedness of abilities completed on previous phases doesn't include indirect negation while cannot-be-negatedness when it appears on a card does include indirect negation.

That part. Sounds like a copyright contract.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #17 on:** September 25, 2009, 08:14:40 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on September 25, 2009, 05:26:29 PM

Perhaps the cannot-be-negatedness of abilities completed on previous phases doesn't include indirect negation while cannot-be-negatedness when it appears on a card does include indirect negation.

I agree with Polarius. Different levels of CBN is unnecessarily confusing. Just think: Cannot be negated means cannot be negated. Ever. Except when it doesn't...ugh.

Quote from: SirNobody on September 25, 2009, 05:26:29 PM

Perhaps my ruling about Herod's Treachery was wrong.

I would be more inclined to agree with that as a reason why the hero might be able to interrupt. But that's a different thread.

Master KChief · « **Reply #18 on:** September 25, 2009, 09:17:52 PM »

agreed. lets not make cbn anymore convulated than it is.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #19 on:** September 25, 2009, 10:40:29 PM »

Yeah, I would say if you discard the RE'd hero in this scenario, whether he's in battle or not, the other hero would immediately be discarded and it would be CBN, since RE had completed in a previous phase.

News:

Author Topic: Reckless Endangerment (Read 2929 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod