Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

IT is still very useful, its a multicolored, easily-recured CBP battlewinner.

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.

Doh!

Thanks guys, I double read that before I posted it... I knew I still missed something.

Fixed...

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?

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?

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.

Quote from: Redoubter on June 14, 2012, 07:14:07 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 14, 2012, 07:08:57 PM

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?"

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...

...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.

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.

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 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

You can have your opinions on it, but it has to be judged the right way regardless

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.