Cactus Game Design Message Boards

If the enhancement played during SI interrupts the ability causing removal, but doesn't actually negate or discard the card with the ability, can that player play another enhancement?

Their character is still being removed, and the ability causing removal is reactivating, but the REG specifies that you can play "an enhancement". Is this per ability, or per activation?

Alright. That's how we ended up playing it. Thanks

However, if the enhancement does not include a "play the next enhancement" ability, the SI is over and the character is discarded. SI is not unending initiative to play as many cards as you want but is a one time opportunity to undo what is removing you from the battle.

if you have multiple cards that can interrupt or negate, then you can play them sequentially as well, because at the end of the ability completing, you still have SI.

These sound like contradictory posts.  Travis is saying you only get SI once, and Dayne is saying you get SI as long as an opponent's ability is removing your characters.

If I have Michael in battle, my opponent blocks w/ a human EC and plays an EE to defeat Michael, and I have 3 Striking Herods in hand (T2 deck), can I play all 3 and have the first 2 target ECs in my opponent's territory?

Although we have traditionally ruled as Dayne stated, I personally agree with Travis. Players should only get one chance to interrupt or negate the removal card. They may play additional interrupts under the umbrella of the initial interrupt, but once the initial interrupt completes, SI should end.

I'll add a third interpretation. You can play more than one enhancement during SI but only if your first attempt to negate is then itself negated.

You play a battle winner giving me SI.
I play a negate/discard giving you SI.
You play a negate on my negate/discard.
I am now being removed by the original battle winner and again have SI.

That would only apply in situations in which the negate/discard targeted your opponents character and it was the last one in battle which is extremely situational.

The more likely situation would be...

You play a battle winner giving me SI.
I play a negate/discard on the battle winner.
You play a negate on my negate/discard.
I now have the ability to play another negate/discard because I am again being removed by the original battle winner.

That is very close to what Dayne mentioned above with one distinction. In his example's original "response" to SI, the threat was not dealt with. It intended to deal with the threat by drawing three and playing the next enhancement, but when the next enhancement failed to deal with the threat SI should not continue and the character should be discarded. In other words, for SI to reset, the card causing it must have been interrupted and discarded in some way or negated outright.

FYI, the REG agrees with Dayne:

"When a player is controlling character(s) in battle and an opponent's special ability, or a game rule that has been triggered by an opponent's special ability, would leave that player with no character in battle when the special ability has completed, they have Special Initiative.  When this occurs, all abilities are paused and suspended (including additional abilities on cards played or any triggers) and the player with their character(s) being removed has the opportunity to play an Enhancement that will interrupt or negate the ability that is causing the removal (or that triggered the corresponding game rule). The enhancement played must be able to interrupt or negate the removing ability."

SI happens when the bolded section is true.  And when SI happens, the player gets to do the italicized section. 

*****

For what it's worth, I like the way the REG is now, and agree with Dayne.  This is the simplest way to define SI.  Adding additional limitations such as the two described above would make SI wordier and more complex. 

And to those who are worried about game-breaking combos or other shenanigans with the current definition of SI, rest easy.  This is so much harder to "set up" (and therefore create a combo out of) than, say, using a CtB ability on an Immune EC, especially because the enhancements you get to play basically have to be interrupts.  In my Michael/Striking Herod example, the rescuer played 3 GEs to rescue 1 LS; that's not efficient, and is why players don't try and "break the game" this way.

"to play an Enhancement" is where the confusion lies.

So is it one or until you can potentially do something?

We played it as one, but it just depends how many times you get to try

I always get suspicious when someone known for coming up with combos says "Oh don't worry, there's no combo-potential here..." 

 

Trust me, I've considered ways to abuse SI:

1. Attack with two banded heroes (one was set aside with Provisions), choose my Archelaus to block, choose to withdraw both my heroes so that I get SI before my opponent can play Doms

2. Attack with King Amaziah w/ Throne of David in play, choose one of the kings of Israel that captures him, get to play two enhancements via SI + Throne

The second one has the most potential, but again I'll stress that it is VERY difficult to make a combo where you are boxed in from the beginning (since you have to use Interrupts).  I'd rather make a deck with Blue + Immune ECs and abuse OoN/The Long Day/Jubilee/Stillness. 

And there's a reason I don't make decks with Blue + Immune ECs   

So if you play an Interrupt, and it resolves, and the conditions for SI reappear, you get SI again.

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. The conditions do not "reappear." You get to play "an" enhancement that interrupts the removal card. If that interrupt does not then stop the removal card, the removal happens.

As noted above by others, the general ruling here is that the "when" refers to any time the condition is true. If the situation is true then SI is given. This also resolves the issue of trying to determine what "stopping" an effect with "an" enhancement means.  Subjective analysis based on cards used shouldn't happen, we want the rules to apply the same in as many situations as possible without special conditions.

In Vega's situation, SI still applies and is given then too.

As noted above by others, the general ruling here is that the "when" refers to any time the condition is true.

I agree. Since the enhancement reactivates after the ITB, the character is once again being removed and should have SI. I think it makes sense, but perhaps it could be kept in mind to simply update the wording of SI in the next update to make it more clear?
Maybe something like this:

"When a player is controlling character(s) in battle and an opponent's special ability, or a game rule that has been triggered by an opponent's special ability, would leave that player with no character in battle when the special ability has completed, they have Special Initiative.  When this occursWhile this is occurring, all abilities are paused and suspended (including additional abilities on cards played or any triggers) and the player with their character(s) being removed has the opportunity to play an Enhancements that will interrupt or negate the ability that is causing the removal (or that triggered the corresponding game rule). The enhancements played must be able to interrupt or negate the removing ability."

Quote from: Redoubter on June 16, 2016, 12:51:20 PM

As noted above by others, the general ruling here is that the "when" refers to any time the condition is true.

I agree. Since the enhancement reactivates after the ITB, the character is once again being removed and should have SI. I think it makes sense, but perhaps it could be kept in mind to simply update the wording of SI in the next update to make it more clear?
Maybe something like this:

"When a player is controlling character(s) in battle and an opponent's special ability, or a game rule that has been triggered by an opponent's special ability, would leave that player with no character in battle when the special ability has completed, they have Special Initiative.  When this occursWhile this is occurring, all abilities are paused and suspended (including additional abilities on cards played or any triggers) and the player with their character(s) being removed has the opportunity to play an Enhancements that will interrupt or negate the ability that is causing the removal (or that triggered the corresponding game rule). The enhancements played must be able to interrupt or negate the removing ability."

I agree. That is how we word cards and should be the same language we use for the rules. Maybe the "when" at the start of the first sentence should be a "while" too?

I agree with Dwayne. Although "an" is technically singular, it's also a generic article in English. "If X then do a Y" does not lnecessarily exclude multiple Y because it would simply be grammatically wrong to omit the article "a."