Author Topic: Rule Change/Clarification - Negates. (Read 7834 times)

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #25 on:** June 14, 2012, 09:29:50 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on June 14, 2012, 08:39:00 PM

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?

Redoubter · « **Reply #26 on:** June 14, 2012, 09:34:13 PM »

Quote from: Ken4Christ4ever on June 14, 2012, 09:29:50 PM

Quote from: Bryon on June 14, 2012, 08:39:00 PM
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)"

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #27 on:** June 14, 2012, 11:14:34 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on June 14, 2012, 09:17:22 PM

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)

megamanlan · « **Reply #28 on:** June 15, 2012, 02:32:46 AM »

I wouldn't mind this option, as long as a player doesn't get SI from losing by the numbers.

Redoubter · « **Reply #29 on:** June 15, 2012, 06:39:31 AM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on June 14, 2012, 11:14:34 PM

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).

Quote from: megamanlan on June 15, 2012, 02:32:46 AM

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.

Red · « **Reply #30 on:** June 15, 2012, 09:37:46 AM »

Quote from: megamanlan on June 14, 2012, 09:17:22 PM

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?

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #31 on:** June 16, 2012, 09:48:38 PM »

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?

Jmbeers · « **Reply #32 on:** June 16, 2012, 10:16:39 PM »

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.

TheJaylor · « **Reply #33 on:** June 17, 2012, 01:27:50 AM »

So, does this ruling make ANB interrupt-able???

megamanlan · « **Reply #34 on:** June 17, 2012, 03:22:57 AM »

I believe that ANB was already interruptible, but now its easier to interrupt. ANB was never CBN.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #35 on:** June 17, 2012, 08:18:22 AM »

Quote from: KoalaKingoFA on June 17, 2012, 01:27:50 AM

So, does this ruling make ANB interrupt-able???

I would say no, since ANB is more like an "end the battle" situation.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #36 on:** June 17, 2012, 09:44:52 AM »

You can't int ANB because by its definition it begins a new phase. You can't play an enhancement in the draw phase.

Chris · « **Reply #37 on:** June 17, 2012, 10:55:46 AM »

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.

Bryon · « **Reply #38 on:** June 17, 2012, 11:09:52 AM »

Quote from: Ken4Christ4ever on June 14, 2012, 09:29:50 PM

Quote from: Bryon on June 14, 2012, 08:39:00 PM
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).

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #39 on:** June 17, 2012, 09:56:28 PM »

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?

Drrek · « **Reply #40 on:** June 17, 2012, 10:00:42 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on June 17, 2012, 09:56:28 PM

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.

TheJaylor · « **Reply #41 on:** June 18, 2012, 12:09:08 AM »

Quote from: Chris on June 17, 2012, 10:55:46 AM

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.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #42 on:** February 19, 2013, 08:11:22 AM »

Sorry for the necropost but I missed this thread and so did another top player.

Quote

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

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #43 on:** February 19, 2013, 08:25:22 AM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on February 19, 2013, 08:11:22 AM

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.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #44 on:** February 19, 2013, 09:01:46 AM »

Yes, see my amended post. Thanks.

Kirk

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #45 on:** February 19, 2013, 10:18:36 AM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on February 19, 2013, 08:11:22 AM

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.

STAMP · « **Reply #46 on:** February 19, 2013, 12:56:57 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on June 14, 2012, 06:31:01 PM

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.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #47 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:36:20 PM »

Necropost #2: Does this also mean that Herod's Treachery discarded off a Herod in territory can be negated by enhancements now?

Kirk

browarod · « **Reply #48 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:50:20 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on March 13, 2013, 09:36:20 PM

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.

The Guardian · « **Reply #49 on:** March 14, 2013, 12:27:02 AM »

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.

News:

Author Topic: Rule Change/Clarification - Negates. (Read 7834 times)

Chris

browarod