Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Red Dragon Thorn on June 14, 2012, 05:56:19 PM
-
Hey Everybody,
I've got good news today - After some quick discussion on our side, we have come up with a standardized rule for negates that we feel simplifies this particular aspect of the game quite well.
Rule: "Cards that cause special initiative (and are not CBN) can be negated by any negate, regardless of negate type"
Gameplay implications of this ruling change are as follows:
My Hero is in battle - my opponent blocks with a Magician and plays Invoking Terror, placing both my hero and Invoking Terror beneath our respective decks.
I can now respond with Reach of Desperation (An Interrupt the battle) Flaming Sword (A Negate last) Blessings (A Negate All) or My Lord and My God (Negate Any)
My Hero is in battle - my opponent uses his Unholy Writ to capture him.
I can now respond with a negate that targets Unholy Writ - This includes Foreign Sword, Joseph before Pharaoh, and Covenant with Moses. (Possibly one or two others that I'm not thinking off right now) - I could not respond with Reach of Desperation (An Interrupt the battle) as Writ is out of battle.
My Hero is in battle - my opponent blocks with a Magician and discards Magic Charms off of that magician.
I can now respond with any of the aforementioned artifact negating cards. Additionally, in this case I can respond with Reach of Desperation (An Interrupt the battle) as Magic Charms was in battle at the time of the capture.
That should be all the situations that this new rule affects. Please let me know if I missed any.
Thank you for your patience in waiting for this ruling,
John.
-
I don't like this ruling... It makes Invoking 100% less useful since the advantage before was Opponent couldn't just slap any Negate on it, along now with an unknown definition of Special Inish. (It's not defined at all on REG)
And this seems to mean that Negate no longer limits to play.
-
I don't like this ruling... It makes Invoking 100% less useful since the advantage before was Opponent couldn't just slap any Negate on it, along now with an unknown definition of Special Inish. (It's not defined at all on REG)
And this seems to mean that Negate no longer limits to play.
IT is still very useful, its a multicolored, easily-recured CBP battlewinner.
-
And this seems to mean that Negate no longer limits to play.
Not quite - In cases of special initiative, Invoking Terror is technically still in play, and can be negated.
If instead of winning the battle with IT, you used it to place someone in territory beneath, then won the battle with another card, if I played Blessings, IT would not be negated.
-
I like the new rule. This definitely makes ruling easier, as well as an easier format for new players to learn.
BTW, I'm not sure that you meant to say Joseph in Prison for the Unholy Writ example, unless I'm missing something.
-
I like the new rule. This definitely makes ruling easier, as well as an easier format for new players to learn.
BTW, I'm not sure that you meant to say Joseph in Prison for the Unholy Writ example, unless I'm missing something.
I believe he meant to say Joseph before Pharaoh
-
Doh!
Thanks guys, I double read that before I posted it... I knew I still missed something.
Fixed...
-
RDT, thanks for getting back to us with such a clear and concise ruling. This is much more intuitive as far as I'm concerned, since Special Initiative was supposed to let you stop battle-winners in the first place.
Thanks again! Finally an answer! :D
-
I still dont see this ruling helping... because as I see it, Negate still targets play and unless it wasn't Interrupted, it shouldn't be able to be negated while its in my Deck.
And as far as I know, Special Inish needs a proper definition on REG of when Special Inish happens since this doesn't make sense here. Also, if Special Inish is supposed to stop Battle-winners, then why can it overrule Normal Inish?
-
On other thing worth mentioning...because of the same odd wording that makes DoN fail vs. Lampstand (discard then negate) you still can't respond to Writ/Charms with DoN, since you can't use it to discard (thus you can't use it to negate).
Just thought I'd make that clear. However, cards that say "negate and discard an Artifact" will work.
-
Also, if Special Inish is supposed to stop Battle-winners, then why can it overrule Normal Inish?
...What? It's your opportunity to stop battle-winners. And it's different than normal initiative...it's special. Nothing is being 'overruled', it's a completely different situation.
-
Is there a way to have Special Initiative and not have Normal Initiative?
-
Is there a way to have Special Initiative and not have Normal Initiative?
Special Initiative is a different situation that allows you to play cards to stop the last effect before it 'completes', whereas Normal Initiative does not allow that opportunity.
So if someone played a card to remove your only card in battle, you'd have no Normal Initiative. But you'd be afforded Special Initiative to stop that effect, if possible.
They're different situations, and that's why I'm not quite understanding the point he presented.
-
Is there a way to have Special Initiative and not have Normal Initiative?
So if someone played a card to remove your only card in battle, you'd have no Normal Initiative.
In this case you would be Losing by Removal. Why would you not have Normal Initiative?
-
Is there a way to have Special Initiative and not have Normal Initiative?
So if someone played a card to remove your only card in battle, you'd have no Normal Initiative.
In this case you would be Losing by Removal. Why would you not have Normal Initiative?
It has been defined as Special Initiative for years as far as I can tell, a different situation by all counts. I actually do not understand where this is all coming from.
-
"Special Initiative" was a more recent term. I thought it was just a type of Normal Initiative, specifically one that was caused by a SA. This would be akin to a square being a specific type of rectangle. So, you could have Normal Initiative without it being caused by a SA (a rectangle that is not a square). But, you cannot have Special Initiative without also having Normal Initiative (all squares are rectangles).
Am I misunderstanding "Special Initiative?"
-
"Special Initiative" was a more recent term. I thought it was just a type of Normal Initiative, specifically one that was caused by a SA. This would be akin to a square being a specific type of rectangle. So, you could have Normal Initiative without it being caused by a SA (a rectangle that is not a square). But, you cannot have Special Initiative without also having Normal Initiative (all squares are rectangles).
Am I misunderstanding "Special Initiative?"
Nope, okay, we're on the same page then. I misunderstood you before and my example didn't actually help the situation. Been doing too much work on States this weekend and apparently fried my brain ;) My bad.
I was responding to the assertion that this somehow allows Special Initiative to "overrule" Normal Initiative, when it has been a different (if based in similar scenarios) case all along.
-
The idea that losing by numbers (which is game rule) gives SI if it was because I removed one of your Characters from battle.
-
The idea that losing by numbers (which is game rule) gives SI if it was because I removed one of your Characters from battle...
...has been the ruling for awhile now as far as I know. You can respond to that particular ability before the removal actually occurs, and this scenario is more than just Normal Initiative.
-
It doesn't make sense. Special Inish is for you actually losing by a Special Ability hense the name. At no point should losing by the numbers ever give Special Inish because you are losing by a Special Ability, but by the rules of the game.
-
It doesn't make sense. Special Inish is for you actually losing by a Special Ability hense the name. At no point should losing by the numbers ever give Special Inish because you are losing by a Special Ability, but by the rules of the game.
I'm sorry, but it has been ruled that way for as long as I've been around here. It is a special ability causing a losing condition, and you then have special initiative against that ability for that reason. This was also ruled in a recent thread we were both in (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/regular-initiative-v-s-special-initiative/).
The "Special" does not come from special ability. It comes from the fact that it is a "special" kind of initiative, in the same way as (to extend YMT's discussion) a square is a special rectangle.
-
Yeah, I know the thread. But the explaination doesn't work. I don't have any Inish to negate a game rule. I have normal Inish and can use that to negate what got rid of my Character, but I don't have Special Inish.
Until a Clear definition comes that the Elders seem to agree on, I'll accept that, but I assure you, I will never use it. Until then I'm keeping my opinions on it.
-
Yeah, I know the thread. But the explaination doesn't work. I don't have any Inish to negate a game rule. I have normal Inish and can use that to negate what got rid of my Character, but I don't have Special Inish.
Until a Clear definition comes that the Elders seem to agree on, I'll accept that, but I assure u, I will never use it. Until then I'm keeping my opinions on it.
You aren't negating a game rule. You are granted special initiative by game rule. And until you can point to a disagreement among the Elders, you have no basis to say that they disagree, that's just silly :P
You can have your opinions on it, but it has to be judged the right way regardless ;)
-
The elders are in agreemnt. It was unanimous, actually.
Also, remember that losing by removal (special initiative) only allows for the playing of an Enhancement (with any kind of interrupt or negate on it). You can't respond to losing by removal by playing a dominant.
-
So what does that mean? Does that mean losing by removal doesn't include by Game rule (what I'm stating) or so (what Redoubter is saying).
My argument for my side is:
1. Special Inish isn't (and shouldn't) be given when you have Normal Inish.
2. Special Inish should be limited to Special Abilities that end with all of your Characters out of battle by an Opponents card.
And I am requesting a clear definition of Special Inish on REG or the REG updates thread.
-
The elders are in agreemnt. It was unanimous, actually.
Also, remember that losing by removal (special initiative) only allows for the playing of an Enhancement (with any kind of interrupt or negate on it). You can't respond to losing by removal by playing a dominant.
Wait a minute... I thought it was ruled that the interrupt or negate had to deal with whatever was causing the removal. For example, if an evil character is being captured by an enhancement, he can't play an evil enhancement that negates and discards an artifact. Is this true, or did I make it up?
-
The elders are in agreemnt. It was unanimous, actually.
Also, remember that losing by removal (special initiative) only allows for the playing of an Enhancement (with any kind of interrupt or negate on it). You can't respond to losing by removal by playing a dominant.
Wait a minute... I thought it was ruled that the interrupt or negate had to deal with whatever was causing the removal. For example, if an evil character is being captured by an enhancement, he can't play an evil enhancement that negates and discards an artifact. Is this true, or did I make it up?
That's true and has not changed from what I can tell of the ruling. I think Byron meant to say "(with any kind of interrupt or negate on it that stops the special ability causing the losing condition)"
-
My argument for my side is:
1. Special Inish isn't (and shouldn't) be given when you have Normal Inish.
2. Special Inish should be limited to Special Abilities that end with all of your Characters out of battle by an Opponents card.
I think this should be how Special Initiative works:
When all of your characters are being removed from battle by a card ability (or because of a game rule triggered by a card such as in the case of Gates of Samaria during a battle) played by your opponent that can be interrupted you have the opportunity to play a play a card that interrupts or negates the card directly causing the removal (or directly triggering the game rule that causes removal). The ability is suspended until the special initiative is either passed or the card(s) played are resolved.
This will affect how Jezebel works when blocking a lone green hero, since you could interrupt the ability before the band.
The other option is allow part of the ability to resolve before a different part that normally happens after. It would actually make this negate rule unnecessary (since it would be included in this rule)
-
I wouldn't mind this option, as long as a player doesn't get SI from losing by the numbers.
-
This will affect how Jezebel works when blocking a lone green hero, since you could interrupt the ability before the band.
That would change the entire notion of SA on cards, as the rule currently is that abilities must complete entirely before the opponent can respond to them. That makes rulings uniform across all the cards and simplifies the battle phase, whereas your suggestion would lead to convoluted and confusing exchanges (like your Jezebel example).
I wouldn't mind this option, as long as a player doesn't get SI from losing by the numbers.
Considering we're being told that this decision was unanimous among the Elders? I think further arguments to change it again would be moot ;) They'd have argued everything out on their side. If they all agree on something, it's going to stick.
-
So what does that mean? Does that mean losing by removal doesn't include by Game rule (what I'm stating) or so (what Redoubter is saying).
My argument for my side is:
1. Special Inish isn't (and shouldn't) be given when you have Normal Inish.
2. Special Inish should be limited to Special Abilities that end with all of your Characters out of battle by an Opponents card.
And I am requesting a clear definition of Special Inish on REG or the REG updates thread.
Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broke? what do you want exactly? that you can't negate something unless it's killing EVERYBODY?
-
Something that came up in a game, I'm not sure how to rule it with the new rule:
opponent plays wounded on a hero in my territory, killing that hero, then plays an enhancement to kill my hero in battle. I then play scapegoat. Would wounded be negated, even though it is now out of play?
-
To target an out of play card you need special inish and a int the battle card, or a card that can specifically target that card type.
-
So, does this ruling make ANB interrupt-able???
-
I believe that ANB was already interruptible, but now its easier to interrupt. ANB was never CBN.
-
So, does this ruling make ANB interrupt-able???
I would say no, since ANB is more like an "end the battle" situation.
-
You can't int ANB because by its definition it begins a new phase. You can't play an enhancement in the draw phase.
-
YMT and Jmbeers are correct. ANB's ability stretches to the "begin a new turn" part, at which point, it is impossible for any interrupts to be played.
-
The elders are in agreemnt. It was unanimous, actually.
Also, remember that losing by removal (special initiative) only allows for the playing of an Enhancement (with any kind of interrupt or negate on it). You can't respond to losing by removal by playing a dominant.
Wait a minute... I thought it was ruled that the interrupt or negate had to deal with whatever was causing the removal.
Correct. This change is really just addressing the fact that some negates didn't use to be able to target cards that discard themselves to remove your character from battle. Now, as long as your enhancement can target the card type that removed your character, you can play the enhancement (regardless of whether the card with the removing ability is still in play).
-
OK let me make sure i understand this because im sure ill see alot of Invoking Terrors at NATS.
opponent plays invoking terror in battle.
I gain initiative by special ability, I can play reach?
-
OK let me make sure i understand this because im sure ill see alot of Invoking Terrors at NATS.
opponent plays invoking terror in battle.
I gain initiative by special ability, I can play reach?
If IT caused you to be losing the battle, yes, if not no.
-
YMT and Jmbeers are correct. ANB's ability stretches to the "begin a new turn" part, at which point, it is impossible for any interrupts to be played.
Sweet. Just making sure.
-
Sorry for the necropost but I missed this thread and so did another top player.
My Hero is in battle - my opponent uses his Unholy Writ to capture him.
I can now respond with a negate that targets Unholy Writ - This includes Foreign Sword, Joseph before Pharaoh, and Covenant with Moses. (Possibly one or two others that I'm not thinking off right now) - I could not respond with Reach of Desperation (An Interrupt the battle) as Writ is out of battle.
Would my opponent who is attacking with a hero be able to likewise play a negate in battle when I use Magic Charms outside of battle to capture the rescuer? I ask because Charms was used as the third example but not as part of the second and I didn't know if that was intentional.
Kirk
-
Would my opponent who is attacking with a hero be able to likewise play a negate in battle when I use Magic Charms outside of battle to capture the rescuer? I ask because
Was there more to this quote? ???
For the question, the answer is yes, as long as the negate can target an artifact.
-
Yes, see my amended post. Thanks.
Kirk
-
I ask because Charms was used as the third example but not as part of the second and I didn't know if that was intentional.
That was because Charms is one of the few examples of the 3rd scenario. The 2nd scenario covers any artifact that is active outside of battle that is causing a removal inside the battle.
Just to clarify, an Interrupt the Battle would stop an artifact in the 3rd scenario, but not the 2nd scenario.
-
If instead of winning the battle with IT, you used it to place someone in territory beneath, then won the battle with another card, if I played Blessings, IT would not be negated.
P.S. There are a few coworkers of mine that would readily agree that I work in the Invoking Terror (IT) Department. ;)
P.P.S. Any thread that contains more than three posts regarding ANB is a good thread. :)
-
Necropost #2: Does this also mean that Herod's Treachery discarded off a Herod in territory can be negated by enhancements now?
Kirk
-
Necropost #2: Does this also mean that Herod's Treachery discarded off a Herod in territory can be negated by enhancements now?
Kirk
As long as Herod Agrippa II isn't in battle, I believe you can, yes.
-
+1
However, since HT was never in battle, a card like Blessings would not work to negate it. You would need a card that negates an evil enhancement in play or interrupts the battle.
-
If HT was on a Herod in territory and not in battle, Interrupt the Battle wouldn't touch it.
-
If HT was on a Herod in territory and not in battle, Interrupt the Battle wouldn't touch it.
+1
However, a card like Passover Hymn would.
-
You know, I didn't originally have that part about ITB, but then I started second-guessing myself...
-
Thanks guys.
-
Would my opponent who is attacking with a hero be able to likewise play a negate in battle when I use Magic Charms outside of battle to capture the rescuer? I ask because
Was there more to this quote? ???
For the question, the answer is yes, as long as the negate can target an artifact.
This makes cards like Razor and Forest Fire much more useful.