Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: RTSmaniac on May 24, 2013, 02:59:39 AM
-
OK rule fans,
I play persistant pestering (opponent underdeck 2 good card) and underdeck PP
Opponent initiative plays Ehud Dagger (interrupt and discard).
Can he target PP if it is underdecked? Is it discarded?
-
I do not believe you can target it without special initiative.
-
I do not believe you can target it without special initiative.
+1
-
Ehud's Dagger (RoA) says "Interrupt the battle and discard an evil Enhancement or evil King. Cannot be negated if used by a Judge."
The REG says that ITB will target "the last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent."
If Persistent Pestering was the last card the opponent played I see no reason it wouldn't be interrupted, then able to be targeted for discard.
-
I agree with Gabe.
-
I thought you couldn't target an enhancement that was out of play (ie. discard pile) unless you either have "special initiative" or play a "negate last" card (because we have special rules for those).
I thought an "interrupt THE BATTLE" card only interrupted ongoing abilities, or cards that were still IN BATTLE.
Am I remembering this incorrectly?
-
I have been trying to get overall Elder response on whether interrupt/negate work on targets that are not in play. Some Elders have been ruling that way, and I have been trying to get a response in this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/negates-32335/msg502548/#msg502548) most recently, and this thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/michael-angels-sword-vs-uzzah/msg500905/#msg500905) prior to that. There are some serious rulings at stake, regardless, and an overall answer is needed so that we can rule correctly as the major tournament season approaches.
-
I vaguely remember a change recently where the distinction between "negate" and "negate last" was removed (for example, you could use any negate on Invoking Terror even outside special initiative, rather than just a negate last).
I don't know if this is correct, or just something that was being considered but not set in place.
-
I agree with Redoubter that this needs to be officially ruled. So were looking at,
1: interrupt the battle Always interrupts all ongoing abilities and the last card played by opponent including cards that are out of play.
2: interrupt the battle only interrupts ongoing abilities and the last card played by opponent if that card is still in play. Special Initiative uniquely allows an Interrupt the battle to target an out of play card.
3: interrupt the battle can not interrupt an ongoing or instant ability on a character or enhancement if that card is out of play. Special Initiative allows you to target an out of play card with an interrupt the battle.
I have seen each of these supported at some point, so which is it?
-
1: interrupt the battle Always interrupts all ongoing abilities and the last card played by opponent including cards that are out of play.
This is correct. If the special ability was activated in battle, then it's a legal target for interrupt/negate regardless of where the card with the special ability is currently located.
-
Is this an official consensus? Because I feel like this is going to come up again (as history has shown) if we don't get an official stamp saying "APPROVED!!"
-
Is this an official consensus? Because I feel like this is going to come up again (as history has shown) if we don't get an official stamp saying "APPROVED!!"
I agree that we may need to just wait until it is sorted out by the Elders and get one official update. Just look at this thread, where an Elder ruled a different way, and the linked threads where different Elders have ruled every which way. It is not just one thread or one Elder, there just doesn't seem to be consensus.
And I'll point this out again: If interrupt/negate does not default to play, then there are more interrupt/negates that work than would be thought of (i.e. Daniel negates Gates of Hell).
-
And I'll point this out again: If interrupt/negate does not default to play, then there are more interrupt/negates that work than would be thought of (i.e. Daniel negates Gates of Hell).
Was Gates of Hell activated in play during the phase Daniel tries to negate it? I'm not aware of any way to make that happen, so Daniel would not be able to negate GoH.
-
Special Abilities can exist without the cards that activated them.
Continuous Abilities exist in battle even if the card that activated them is no longer in battle, this means that they can be interrupted by interrupt the battle abilities, since they interrupt ongoing abilities in battle. Supported because discarding a card doesn't negate ongoing abilities on it and the ruling that Gabe gave.
Instant Abilities can exist in battle even if the card activating them is no longer in battle. This means that an interrupt the battle can hit them wherever they are, since the ability is still interruptable.
They are not trying to interrupt something not in battle, they are interrupting an ability that is in battle, where only the card that caused the ability is no longer in battle.
Or at least that is my interpretation.
-
And I'll point this out again: If interrupt/negate does not default to play, then there are more interrupt/negates that work than would be thought of (i.e. Daniel negates Gates of Hell).
Was Gates of Hell activated in play during the phase Daniel tries to negate it? I'm not aware of any way to make that happen, so Daniel would not be able to negate GoH.
Why not? I understand the point that you are trying to make, but are you saying that the ability of GoH is somehow also not in play, or similar fortresses/set-asides have active, ongoing abilities that are not in play? Now abilities (abstract concept, mind) have a location as well? So they are 'in-battle', 'in-play', 'in set-aside', 'out-of-play', and so on? Where is the limit on negates and interrupts, and where is the differentiation coming from in the rules?
As I have said before, nothing in our current rules or rulings have supported this type of position on abilities. If that changes, that is fine, but it is clearly not the way it has always been and we would need definition worded such that there is no question as to what is going on in this game.
-
I have been trying to get overall Elder response on whether interrupt/negate work on targets that are not in play.
Of course ITB can interrupt a card that isn't in play. Reach of Desperation has been interrupting Deceit of Sapphira since the Women released.
The question is whether ITB can interrupt a card that isn't in play if that removed card didn't grant special initiative. I am not 100% certain about that one, but Gabe's reasoning seems good.
-
So I'll throw my 2 cents in, why can't Daniel negate Gates of Hell? In layman's terms please.
-
I have been trying to get overall Elder response on whether interrupt/negate work on targets that are not in play.
Of course ITB can interrupt a card that isn't in play. Reach of Desperation has been interrupting Deceit of Sapphira since the Women released.
The question is whether ITB can interrupt a card that isn't in play if that removed card didn't grant special initiative. I am not 100% certain about that one, but Gabe's reasoning seems good.
First, SI being ruled how it is, Deceit would not be completed (and therefore out of play) until SI was resolved. So that is indeed a different situation, though I would tend to agree that ITB would interrupt the last enhancement even if out of play based on the wording of the targeting on the ability.
Second, Gabe has also argued that generic interrupts or negates can target abilities on cards that are now out of play, and that is the other question I have been making.
-
First, SI being ruled how it is, Deceit would not be completed (and therefore out of play) until SI was resolved. So that is indeed a different situation
Yes, we all agree that Special Initiative allows people to play "interrupt the battle" (or any other kind of "negate" to target the card causing the removal of the last character in battle. The question is whether the ability to target "out of play" cards is ONLY due to Special Initiative, or something innate in "interrupt the battle" cards.
I have started a discussion on the other side, and hopefully the elders will be able to quickly reach a consensus and report back here :)
-
Hey,
Regarding Daniel and The Gates of Hell. "Negate all" negates default to negating abilities on cards that are in play. Daniel's ability is a "Negate all" style of negate despite not having the word "all" in the ability. Since The Gates of Hell is in the Set-aside area it isn't targeted by Daniel's negate.
See The Twelve-fingered Giant retrieved by Unknown Nation or Ethiopian Treasurer/Great Faith blocked by King of Tyrus for precident.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Regarding Daniel and The Gates of Hell. "Negate all" negates default to negating abilities on cards that are in play. Daniel's ability is a "Negate all" style of negate despite not having the word "all" in the ability. Since The Gates of Hell is in the Set-aside area it isn't targeted by Daniel's negate.
My point is that if the rule is that negate targets abilities, and not cards, and abilities are in play, then it follows by the same ruling that negate can target any location. That is what I am getting at. Abilities have never been defined their location, and if the card is out of play but the ability can still be negated, then it follows that cards that are affecting the game would also be negated by a card that targets the card type.
Note that I disagree wholeheartedly with the ruling being put forward by some Elders, and this example is one of the inconsistencies I am bringing up. It would be a change to the game and would affect more than they think.