Author Topic: Simultaneous triggers conflicting  (Read 15355 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2009, 06:17:50 PM »
0
Logically, the ability activating is an effect that is caused by the character entering battle, it is impossible for a cause and effect to happen simultaneously.

Logically, I'd run into a battle with both guns blazing.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2009, 06:22:08 PM »
0
Sadly a recent change to the online version of the rulebook seems to agree with you.  Logically, the ability activating is an effect that is caused by the character entering battle, it is impossible for a cause and effect to happen simultaneously.

It's not caused.  It's binary.  You're either in battle or you're not.  Adding more steps to the process only adds complexity needlessly.

Quote
But activated abilities have to complete before triggered abilities so characters with banding abilities still take effect and take the battle out of the "has a lone hero" state before the demon-discard lost soul can be triggered by that state.  We've gone over this before.

Then you will remember that the ability does not say "if a lone Hero is IN battle" but if a lone Hero STARTS a battle, which you have just acknowledged as being the case, IF we are to assume the entry of the Hero and the activation of the ability are separate events.

Offline crustpope

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+27)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3844
  • Time for those Reds to SHINE!
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2009, 10:14:56 PM »
0
I hope this gets sorted out because we have three legitimate arguments going on here.

Bryon - AS "suspends the step 3 until after all character abilities complete

Maly's - the physical presence of a character is the trigger for AS, no SA's need to complete

and the actuual rules stated in the reg which say in step 3 that Weapon Class enhancements fire off before banding, making AS take second place in some scenarios.
This space for rent

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #53 on: March 24, 2009, 10:25:23 PM »
0
I just heard back from Rob about whether to make "First enhancement" any different from "next enhancement" or "an enhancement."

Rob said, "It's fine with me that they mean the same thing.  I pretty much saw it that way from the beginning.  I've learned the hard way that saying the same thing two different ways leads to a search for different meanings."

This means I was wrong, and in a way I'm glad.  This makes things much simpler.  Any time you see "play first enhancement" or "play next enhancement", it ONLY means "play an enhancement."

That means you wait until ALL special abilities complete, including other "play an enhancement" special abilities, before AS triggers to allow you to play the enhancement.  It also means that horses on any WC EC mean the EC gets to play before any angel with AS, including Michael.

Yay!  Simpler rulings!

Offline crustpope

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+27)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3844
  • Time for those Reds to SHINE!
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #54 on: March 24, 2009, 10:34:17 PM »
0
It also means that horses on any WC EC mean the EC gets to play before any angel with AS, including Michael.

Yay!  Simpler rulings!


but michael cannot be interrupted?  is this a a misquote?  I would assume that horsies interrupt any battle EXCEPT one with michael.  they can draw 2 but they have to get behind michael who cannot be interrutped


correct or no?
This space for rent

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #55 on: March 24, 2009, 10:58:47 PM »
0
You dont interrupt Michael. Angels Sword does not grant him the ability to play before 2kh. However, if Michael is still alive after your opponent plays something from 2kh... he would THEN be granted the ability to play next.

Offline crustpope

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+27)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3844
  • Time for those Reds to SHINE!
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #56 on: March 24, 2009, 11:18:44 PM »
0
alright, understood
This space for rent

Offline Red Dragon Thorn

  • Covenant Games
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Covenant Games
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #57 on: April 08, 2009, 05:22:11 PM »
0
I'd just like to interject that we've been playing it that way in minnesota for years.
www.covenantgames.com

Offline everytribe

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+30)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #58 on: April 09, 2009, 10:54:22 AM »
0
This is a big change!!!!! Is this change going to happen befor Nationals? Their are alot of decks being made for State, Regionals and Nationals that rely on Angles Sword on Michael to beat any evil character with Horses on them.
Old Guys Rule

Offline TimMierz

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4047
  • I can't stop crying. Buckets of tears.
    • -
    • Northeast Region
    • Tim's Photos
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #59 on: April 09, 2009, 11:15:11 AM »
0
I would think that between mid-March and the very end of July, there's enough time to adjust.
Get Simply Adorable Slugfest at https://www.thegamecrafter.com/games/simply-adorable-slugfest

Offline everytribe

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+30)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #60 on: April 09, 2009, 01:43:34 PM »
0
I was just thinking of us old guys, change takes us a little longer. :)
Old Guys Rule

Offline Bryon

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Dare to Tread into the Dawn
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Redemption California
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #61 on: April 09, 2009, 01:52:44 PM »
0
This is a big change!!!!! Is this change going to happen befor Nationals? Their are alot of decks being made for State, Regionals and Nationals that rely on Angles Sword on Michael to beat any evil character with Horses on them.
Wait, in the post right above yours, it says you've been playing it that way for YEARS!?

Apparently not everywhere in Minnesota.

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #62 on: April 09, 2009, 02:21:46 PM »
0
Wait, in the post right above yours, it says you've been playing it that way for YEARS!?

Apparently not everywhere in Minnesota.

When everytribe gets all cantankerous like that, it's his Wisconsin side leaking through.

Offline CountFount

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+23)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
  • I'll be your Huckleberry
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #63 on: April 09, 2009, 09:49:22 PM »
0
Quote
This is a big change!!!!! Is this change going to happen befor Nationals? Their are alot of decks being made for State, Regionals and Nationals that rely on Angles Sword on Michael to beat any evil character with Horses on them.

I agree Bill.

Wow! Bad  Ruling (back up) Awful Ruling. Now we can put Michael and the rest of the "non by the numbers silver brigade characters" next to Thomas and Saul on the shelf of "why use". Anybody want some Michael's and AS?




Now that we're a family, I can be the ulll-timate DAD.

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #64 on: April 09, 2009, 09:52:32 PM »
0
No, logical ruling. Also, those cards are STILL very powerful.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #65 on: April 09, 2009, 09:52:59 PM »
0
Anybody want some Michael's and AS?

I'll take them! Should I just PM my address or did you want to check my trade thread?
My wife is a hottie.

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #66 on: April 09, 2009, 10:19:07 PM »
0
Aw, who needs Michael?  AS works better on Ehud anyway.

;)
Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline Red Dragon Thorn

  • Covenant Games
  • Global Moderator
  • Trade Count: (+10)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5373
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • Covenant Games
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #67 on: April 09, 2009, 10:50:05 PM »
0
Sorry let me correct - to my knowledge in rochester we've always played it that way.
www.covenantgames.com

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #68 on: April 10, 2009, 08:40:11 AM »
0
[Wow! Bad  Ruling (back up) Awful Ruling. Now we can put Michael and the rest of the "non by the numbers silver brigade characters" next to Thomas and Saul on the shelf of "why use". Anybody want some Michael's and AS?

That's nothing, Count. Did you see what they did to Miriam on this thread
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15253.0?

I guess they have some kinda vendetta against heores whose name happen to start with M. Who's next--Micah, Mentor, Mordecai?!?!?!? ;)
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 08:45:26 AM by EmJayBee83 »

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #69 on: April 10, 2009, 10:42:20 AM »
0
My name is Stephen.  My sons' names are Nathaniel and Isaac.  Given our card namesakes, I have a hard time shedding a tear for the plight of Heroes whose names begin with M.  :p

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #70 on: April 10, 2009, 10:44:58 AM »
0
My name is Stephen.  My sons' names are Nathaniel and Isaac.  Given our card namesakes, I have a hard time shedding a tear for the plight of Heroes whose names begin with M.  :p

I'll take that non-denial as a confirmation of a nefarious plot.  ;)

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #71 on: April 10, 2009, 11:36:47 AM »
0
I just heard back from Rob about whether to make "First enhancement" any different from "next enhancement" or "an enhancement."

Rob said, "It's fine with me that they mean the same thing.  I pretty much saw it that way from the beginning.  I've learned the hard way that saying the same thing two different ways leads to a search for different meanings."

This means I was wrong, and in a way I'm glad.  This makes things much simpler.  Any time you see "play first enhancement" or "play next enhancement", it ONLY means "play an enhancement."

That means you wait until ALL special abilities complete, including other "play an enhancement" special abilities, before AS triggers to allow you to play the enhancement.  It also means that horses on any WC EC mean the EC gets to play before any angel with AS, including Michael.

Yay!  Simpler rulings!


Whoooo hold your horses (pun intended). First of  all playing the first enhancement isn't exacltly the same as playing an enhancement, sure in both cases you are playing an enhancement but since the ablilty to play the "first" is more specific and is actually what is intended from the Sa it should win the tie breaker.  Second of all this will severly hurt type 2 Horses will be runing rampant ( as if they were not already). There are a few ways to stop them as it is. Why then make them more powerful? Thirdly why did Rob suddenly change this ruling ? This is really frusterating.  Does he know by doing so he is undermining the the exact special ability written on AS? Does he know that this will hurt type 2?  Did Rob talk with you about this Bryon? Meaning did you actual have a discussion with him where you conveyed your ideas? Because it seems to me from your post that this was not the cased. This bothers me because I know that Rob isn't overly active in playing redemption,  it is possible that this would affect his judgement on the matter. It also seems to me from the post that Rob isn't concerned all that much with it.  He is kinda like "oh that would be nice if the two were combined into with, I guess I saw it that way all along.  It doesn't even seem like Rob actually made a ruling.  Rob is a flexible guy and I am sure when he learns of the downsides he will change his mind.  Simpler rulings always come with a price, are you willing to pay said price? Hold on guys don't enscribed it in stone yet!

I just have to lol because this is so rediculous it is like an atomic bomb exploded and nobody flinched, we are so bound to techinicalities and details of the game that we forget the logically obvious.  When you place a character in battle he is in battle , This meets all of the requirements of AS therefore it trigers. However before you can play first you have to wait for all abilities to completed. Tkh interrupts the battle draws two cards and attempts to play the next enhancement but cannot because the ability to play the first enhancement cannot be negated because it was played on Michael . This is why I agree with Maly. This is straight from the REG.

"Blocking is the attempt to prevent a rescue. Only Evil Characters may block. Placing an Evil Character into the Field of Battle constitutes blocking."

http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/

Lamborghini_diablo

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #72 on: April 10, 2009, 11:46:04 AM »
0
When you place a character in battle he is in battle , This meets all of the requirements of AS therefore it trigers. However before you can play first you have to wait for all abilities to completed. Tkh interrupts the battle draws two cards and attempts to play the next enhancement but cannot because the ability to play the first enhancement cannot be negated because it was played on Michael . This is why I agree with Maly. This is straight from the REG.

"Blocking is the attempt to prevent a rescue. Only Evil Characters may block. Placing an Evil Character into the Field of Battle constitutes blocking."

http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/


You seem to be forgetting that character abilities activate the INSTANT a character enters battle. Both happen at the same time. There is nothing "logical" about Angels Sword breaking all normal rules and INSERTING itself into the actions of entering battle.

Basicly, the EC has not "entered battle" to trigger Angels Sword until his abilities have completed, therefore angels sword can not possibly play before any of the 5 steps of the Order of Operations.

If you have a logical explanation for why this should not be the case, having considered that ECs are not in battle until their abilities activate, I would love to hear it.

The Schaef

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #73 on: April 10, 2009, 11:47:16 AM »
0
Placing an Evil Character into the Field of Battle also activates its special ability.  That's the point.

It seems every two months or so, a ruling is issued from which the complete and utter downfall of Redemption is now assured, because the game has been ruined by some abomination of a ruling for which apparently nobody gave any thought to how or why the ruling should happen.

Leaving aside all the absurdities of the initial assumptions, the game so far seems to be not-destroyed.  Can we maybe take a breath?

Offline EmJayBee83

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Ha! It's funny because the squirrel gets dead.
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • mjb Games
Re: Simultaneous triggers conflicting
« Reply #74 on: April 10, 2009, 12:28:28 PM »
0
You seem to be forgetting that character abilities activate the INSTANT a character enters battle. Both happen at the same time.

L Diablo, I understand and agree with you, but let me ask you how you would deal with the following under this framework...

The Amalekites' Slave  SA  If blocking, you may place this card in opponent's Land of Bondage to search your deck for a human Evil Character and add it to the battle.

What happens if you put a hero into battle and I play TAS?  If I'm not officially blocking until TAS's SA completes, then how can TAS ever move itself to your opponent's Land of Bondage?  So the steps are TAS enters battle and his SA activates before TAS is officially blocking. Thus, no one is blocking when you do the "if blocking" trigger check. Wouldn't that mean that TAS's SA would just fizzle at that point?

Basically, TAS is not blocking to trigger his SA until after the SA completes. Therefore, TAS as a lone initial blocker can not possible be placed in your opponent's Land of Bondage.

Quote
If you have a logical explanation for why this should not be the case, having considered that ECs are not in battle until their abilities activate, I would love to hear it.

Sending the challenge back to you, LD.  :p


@Stephen, I understand your frustration at the monthly, "oh noes, this ruling will cause the game to shrivel up and blow away" claims. I also appreciate the fact that you have explained similar items to me in the past. So, I'm not really arguing at all--I'm just curious as to how this current scenario would get fit into the current system.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal