Author Topic: Special Initiative (Read 4324 times)

Minister Polarius · « **on:** October 29, 2010, 03:42:59 AM »

There is a section in the REG that says when you are being removed from battle by a SA, you have initiative to play a card with "interrupt" or "Negate" in the SA. Now, to me it's abundantly clear that it means you have initiative to play a card that will directly or indirectly negate the SA causing your removal. But what it actually says is something else, and some people read it as a non-error, non-typo rule. I actually hope it is like that for quite a few reasons (not the least of which being Imprisoned becomes an answer to a battle-winner), and if that section of the REG were to be taken at face-value, it would be. But I have a problem with:

You use Jael's Nail on my blocker. I play...Lying unto God?
You use Korah's Rebellion on my Job. I play...Job's Faith?
(This one's my favorite) you use Wrath of Satan. I use...Magnificat?

Elders ruling, plz. I am well aware of what the REG says, and I'm also strongly of the opinion that it's a badly worded section that says something it doesn't mean.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #1 on:** October 29, 2010, 03:45:21 AM »

Just for reference, here are two threads that touch on the topic.

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15412.msg240768#msg240768

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16533.0

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #2 on:** October 29, 2010, 03:52:45 AM »

The first thread doesn't address this issue, just how many times you are allowed to interrupt the thing removing you (which is infinite and I agree with). It never talks about whether you can play an Interrupt/Negate card that does not directly or indirectly negate the ability removing you.

The second thread is exactly what I'm talking about. The rule needs to be written, not implied, because I've run into many, many players, even top-ranked, that play by the rule of the law and say you can play any Negate/Interrupt. As I've already said, I really, really hope that is the case (even though it'd be stupid) because it would help my deck immensely.

As of now we've got a written rule that one Elder says has an implied extra few words. Can we get confirmation that the initiative to play a Negate or Interrupt only applies if you're directly or indirectly Interrupting the ability removing you? And once we get that, it'd be nice to have it in the letter of the law, too.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #3 on:** October 29, 2010, 03:59:59 AM »

I'm inclined to agree with the logical reasoning that you can only I/N the card targetting you.

However, since Redemption is rarely completely logical I'm gonna have to go with Magnificat against Wrath

I think that the rule needs to be re-written to be clear that the implied is the case.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 29, 2010, 04:02:42 AM »

doesn't work you have to negate directly otherwise pride of simon to go get a negate from d/c pile would work and it doesn't or so i was told

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #5 on:** October 29, 2010, 04:08:59 AM »

Quote from: christiangamer25 on October 29, 2010, 04:02:42 AM

doesn't work you have to negate directly otherwise pride of simon to go get a negate from d/c pile would work and it doesn't or so i was told

That's a different scenario.

The cases are similar, but the primary reason that you can't play Pride of Simon is because it doesn't say Interrupt or Negate on it - So the rule says you can't play it period. Pol's question is if you can play something that says Interrupt or Negate but doesn't target the removing card - They are similar, but different scenarios.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2010, 04:47:47 AM »

Redemption® Rulebook > Situation Descriptions > Losing the Battle
Losing by Removal because of a Special Ability
A Hero is losing by removal if the Hero is being captured, discarded, returned to territory, or otherwise removed from battle by an opposing special ability. You have initiative, but you may only play an enhancement that has an “interrupt” or “negate” special ability.

More:

Example – Losing by special ability
You are making a rescue attempt with Guiding Angel, a silver brigade Hero with abilities of 7/7. Your opponent blocks with the Evil Character Er, a pale green brigade Evil Character with abilities of 6/6. Since Er is losing, the opponent has initiative to play an evil enhancement. Your opponent plays Slave Trade. There are no abilities (numbers) on this card, but its special ability reads, “Capture any Hero in play and place in your Land of Bondage. Hero is treated as a Lost Soul.” This is causing Guiding Angel to be losing by removal. You have initiative, but you may only play an enhancement if the enhancement will “interrupt” or “negate” Slave Trade. Otherwise, your opponent will capture Guiding Angel and place him in his Land of Bondage.

Master KChief · « **Reply #7 on:** October 29, 2010, 05:44:17 AM »

excellent find rtsmaniac, the 2nd example answers this thread precisely.

Master_Chi · « **Reply #8 on:** October 29, 2010, 09:30:30 AM »

So according to the REG, the ONLY thing you may do if you are losing by removal (capture, return, etc.) is to DIRECTLY negate/interrupt the card that is removing you?

EX:
Rescue attempt Angel at Jerusalem. Opponent blocks with King Pekahiah and has initiative, then plays Snare to capture A@J. Now, since A@J is losing by removal, can I play Striking Herod to discard his EC, and thus render Snare useless? Or must I play Flaming Sword to negate Snare?

Korunks · « **Reply #9 on:** October 29, 2010, 09:42:42 AM »

Quote from: Master_Chi on October 29, 2010, 09:30:30 AM

So according to the REG, the ONLY thing you may do if you are losing by removal (capture, return, etc.) is to DIRECTLY negate/interrupt the card that is removing you?

EX:
Rescue attempt Angel at Jerusalem. Opponent blocks with King Pekahiah and has initiative, then plays Snare to capture A@J. Now, since A@J is losing by removal, can I play Striking Herod to discard his EC, and thus render Snare useless? Or must I play Flaming Sword to negate Snare?

No, Striking Herod interrupts Snare Directly, and then indirectly negates it.

The issue is we have conflicting information: we have from Bryon:

Quote from: Bryon on April 21, 2009, 07:40:20 PM

You didn't stop the removal, so you are still losing by removal. So, you can play another interrupt.

Then We have one from SirNobody:

Quote from: SirNobody on July 08, 2009, 04:51:06 AM

Hey,

If the next enhancement is prevented you would need a cannot be prevented or cannot be negated interrupt to interrupt the battle winner. Simply having two interrupts would not help you because....

When you are losing by removal you have initiative but you can only play an interrupt or negate that interrupts or negates the ability that is causing you to be losing by removal.

If your interrupt is prevented then it doesn't interrupt what's causing you to be losing by removal and thus cannot be played.

The italicized part is not clearly stated in the rulebook, but has been established by precedence over the years.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Then finally we have the rulebook stating:

Quote from: RTSmaniac on October 29, 2010, 04:47:47 AM

Redemption® Rulebook > Situation Descriptions > Losing the Battle
Losing by Removal because of a Special Ability
A Hero is losing by removal if the Hero is being captured, discarded, returned to territory, or otherwise removed from battle by an opposing special ability. You have initiative, but you may only play an enhancement that has an “interrupt” or “negate” special ability.

More:

Example – Losing by special ability
You are making a rescue attempt with Guiding Angel, a silver brigade Hero with abilities of 7/7. Your opponent blocks with the Evil Character Er, a pale green brigade Evil Character with abilities of 6/6. Since Er is losing, the opponent has initiative to play an evil enhancement. Your opponent plays Slave Trade. There are no abilities (numbers) on this card, but its special ability reads, “Capture any Hero in play and place in your Land of Bondage. Hero is treated as a Lost Soul.” This is causing Guiding Angel to be losing by removal. You have initiative, but you may only play an enhancement if the enhancement will “interrupt” or “negate” Slave Trade. Otherwise, your opponent will capture Guiding Angel and place him in his Land of Bondage.

So what is the resolution?

adamfincher · « **Reply #10 on:** October 29, 2010, 09:54:41 AM »

to Korunks

Master_Chi · « **Reply #11 on:** October 29, 2010, 10:09:11 AM »

So can I, or can I not use Striking Herod to win the battle against King Pekahiah and Snare?

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #12 on:** October 29, 2010, 10:11:18 AM »

You can.

Master KChief · « **Reply #13 on:** October 29, 2010, 10:31:13 AM »

@korunks: all 3 are correct.

Master_Chi · « **Reply #14 on:** October 29, 2010, 10:48:17 AM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on October 29, 2010, 10:11:18 AM

You can.

Thank you. Striking Herod now becomes much more valuable to me.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #15 on:** October 29, 2010, 11:46:06 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on October 29, 2010, 10:31:13 AM

@korunks: all 3 are correct.

This is true.

Bryon is referring to playing an interrupt and do something other than stop the removal, then having special initiative again to interrupt, and this time stop the removal (if you can). You can play as many interrupts as you'd like, as long as they all interrupt the ability removing you from battle.

Tim was referring to the case when, for example, Egyptian Charioteers (prevent the SA of the next enhancement played by opponent) is in battle and plays a battle winner against your hero. In that case, you can only play an interrupt if the interrupt cannot be prevented. You cannot play an interrupt, then play another one that is not prevented, because the battle-winning ability would take place before the first one can be played.

The REG is correct, albeit slightly confusing (without the example). The example RTS provided answers the question fairly well I think.

Korunks · « **Reply #16 on:** October 29, 2010, 11:50:14 AM »

Quote from: Master KChief on October 29, 2010, 10:31:13 AM

@korunks: all 3 are correct.

No SirNobody and Bryon are in conflict, Bryon states that you can play multiple Interrupts as long as you are still losing by removal:

Quote

You didn't stop the removal, so you are still losing by removal. So, you can play another interrupt.

And SirNobody said that when you are losing by removal you can only interrupt or negate what is removing you:

Quote

When you are losing by removal you have initiative but you can only play an interrupt or negate that interrupts or negates the ability that is causing you to be losing by removal.

Additional emphasis mine. They are both elders, and SirNobody agrees with the RuleBook, but Bryon is also an elder and then I get confused.

Korunks · « **Reply #17 on:** October 29, 2010, 11:56:18 AM »

Quote

This is true.

Bryon is referring to playing an interrupt and do something other than stop the removal, then having special initiative again to interrupt, and this time stop the removal (if you can). You can play as many interrupts as you'd like, as long as they all interrupt the ability removing you from battle.

Tim was referring to the case when, for example, Egyptian Charioteers (prevent the SA of the next enhancement played by opponent) is in battle and plays a battle winner against your hero. In that case, you can only play an interrupt if the interrupt cannot be prevented. You cannot play an interrupt, then play another one that is not prevented, because the battle-winning ability would take place before the first one can be played.

The REG is correct, albeit slightly confusing (without the example). The example RTS provided answers the question fairly well I think.

Ok I guess I understand but Tims statements is a little confusing because he does not clarify that occurs only in the situation of having a prevent next stopping your first interrupt. His statement is worded in a global context. I.E. You can only ever interrupt or negates what is removing you.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #18 on:** October 29, 2010, 12:05:35 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on October 29, 2010, 11:56:18 AM

I.E. You can only ever interrupt or negates what is removing you.

Because you CAN only interrupt what is removing you. If you play a battle winner, and I try to play a card that interrupts a Fortress, I can't, because it interrupts something, but not the thing removing me from battle. If I play Reach, however, then I play a card that discards a Fortress, I can do that, because Reach interrupted your enhancement (as well as any ongoing abilities in battle). At that point, however, I will need to play something else to interrupt your enhancement, or I lose.

Korunks · « **Reply #19 on:** October 29, 2010, 12:09:47 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on October 29, 2010, 12:05:35 PM

Quote from: Korunks on October 29, 2010, 11:56:18 AM
I.E. You can only ever interrupt or negates what is removing you.

Because you CAN only interrupt what is removing you. If you play a battle winner, and I try to play a card that interrupts a Fortress, I can't, because it interrupts something, but not the thing removing me from battle. If I play Reach, however, then I play a card that discards a Fortress, I can do that, because Reach interrupted your enhancement (as well as any ongoing abilities in battle). At that point, however, I will need to play something else to interrupt your enhancement, or I lose.

But if you read the thread Bryon's quote is from it seems he endorses the fact that you can play any card with the word interrupt on it, and then play another to interrupt the battle winner. Let me read that thread again from the beginning.

*** I Just Reread the thread and Bryon is agreeing with the fact that you can interrupt a conversion, play something, then play another interrupt and do something else.

Josh · « **Reply #20 on:** October 29, 2010, 12:52:19 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on October 29, 2010, 11:50:14 AM

No SirNobody and Bryon are in conflict, Bryon states that you can play multiple Interrupts as long as you are still losing by removal:

Quote
You didn't stop the removal, so you are still losing by removal. So, you can play another interrupt.

And SirNobody said that when you are losing by removal you can only interrupt or negate what is removing you:

Quote
When you are losing by removal you have initiative but you can only play an interrupt or negate that interrupts or negates the ability that is causing you to be losing by removal.

Actually Tim never says that you can only play 1 interrupt/negate. He just says you can only play a card that interrupts/negates the card causing the removal. If you interrupt the removal with, say, Striking Herod, but you don't discard the EC causing the removal, you still have special initiative to play another interrupt/negate, like Flaming Sword. So Tim and Bryon are in agreement.

Korunks · « **Reply #21 on:** October 29, 2010, 01:00:59 PM »

Thats not what he said in the quoted section. He says you only have intiative to interrupt or negate the ability causing you to lose. Its right there in the quote!

Quote

When you are losing by removal you have initiative but you can only play an interrupt or negate that interrupts or negates the ability that is causing you to be losing by removal.

He is saying I would not have intiative to play any thing that would negate something else. For example:

I RA with John, He blocks with Lot's wife and choses not to band. He plays Net(capture). I have intiative because I am losing by removal. I play Sons of thunder and target his Fortress to negate, and then I want to play reach and AOCP. Tim is saying I can't do this, I can only play a negate or interrupt that targets net. Those are his exact words, how am the only one seeing this? I welcome any of them to come correct me on their statements. I am not trying to twist anything but the words are what they are

Professoralstad · « **Reply #22 on:** October 29, 2010, 01:06:29 PM »

Sons of Thunder does interrupt Net. It doesn't do anything to Net besides interrupt it, since you discard the Fortress, but Net is interrupted. Once SoT completes, you are again losing, and you have initiative to play something else to interrupt Net, in this case Reach. So Net is interrupted twice, after the first time it is interrupted, it tries to kick back in, but it is then interrupted again and this time it is stopped.

D-man · « **Reply #23 on:** October 29, 2010, 01:29:51 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on October 29, 2010, 01:00:59 PM

Tim is saying I can't do this, I can only play a negate or interrupt that targets net.

The entire ability doesn't have to target Net. Just the interrupt part. In fact, only the interrupt portion of Reach targets Net. It goes something like this:

Sons of Thunder's interrupt ability targets all cards in battle.

Net is in battle.

Sons of Thunder targets Net, so you can play it.

You discard a Fort, you're still losing.

You play Reach, which interrupts the battle, meaning that the interrupt portion of the ability targets all cards in battle.

You can then play AoCP and win the battle.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Korunks · « **Reply #24 on:** October 29, 2010, 03:01:33 PM »

Ok,Guy I understand how your ruling it. I get it. I just want harmony between the rule book and the elders them selves. I have conflicting quotes. I need a final ruling. I get what your saying, I know how you guys are trying to rule it. I just want all the loose ends tied up so when I rule it this way no one can come back to me and say "this quote from SirNobody says you ruled it wrong, you rock etc." So please stop explaining the ruling to me. Just address the conflicting quotes and I'm good. Honest.

News:

Author Topic: Special Initiative (Read 4324 times)