Cactus Game Design Message Boards

1. Initiative and Special Initiative are different things, where SI only allows you to play an enhancement.  I don't believe that it currently works during SI, if I am remembering this question correctly (come up a few times over the years).

2. No, because the card you play must be able to interrupt or negate the source, and it cannot; MM copies another card, that's all it does at face value, so you cannot play it (even if a target would allow an ItB effect).

When The Silver Trumpets came out this was a question with the same answer as redoubter gave. The other explanation follows along point 2. silver trumpets is doing nothing to negate what is removing you. Intention is kind of a muddy area but there wasn't any regret that I remember when the card came out, part of the initiative wording is  probably there to clear things up so that you aren't trying to band through special abilities completing. I do see your point and you might be right, Redemption seems to either use to many words or not enough sometimes but the status quo, steady boys, is to read the card first. If it is coherent then it flies.

Also you can use anything that directly negates the source, ie paying taxes can ruin writs glory.

I know this may be seen by some as combining two unrelated topics and usages of words but how is my implying that "Special Initiative" is a type of "Initiative" ("Initiative" being the word referred to on The Silver Trumpets) and that "Initiative" also includes "Special Initiative" fundamentally, logically, or grammatically any different than someone saying that "Exchange" is a type of "Search"?

Now I know that "Initiative" and "SI" are not abilities in that same way that "Exchange" and "Search" are, but in the same way that "Exchange" is technically a subset/type of "Search", I believe the same case can be made for "SI" being a subset/type of "Initiative". The same "Initiative" referred to by The Silver Trumpets.

The definition of Search from the REG states,

A search ability allows a player to view a deck, discard pile, or Artifact Pile to perform an action with a specific card or set of cards.

It has been ruled that an "Exchange" is also a "Search" because it clearly falls under the definition of what a "Search" is.

However, some have said that it would be better if "Exchange" was it's own ability independent of "Search" even if they shared similar functions. I believe that this view has merit and would not flat out reject it, but it has been ruled that because "Exchange" includes an implied "Search", even though it does more than just "Search", it is in fact still a "Search" and falls under definition as such.

I am content with this ruling given the current state of the rules and how we define abilities.

Now, Here is the definition of "Initiative" as given by the REG,

A player with initiative may play the next enhancement. Initiative is always given to the player who is losing the current battle. The losing player cannot pass initiative.

Clearly, this defines what happens during regular "I'm dying by the numbers" "Initiative" and part of what happens when a character is being removed from the battle and is given "SI", just like "Search" defines part of what happens during an "Exchange".

What I don't understand is how the argument, "Exchange is also a Search because the definition of Search defines part of what Exchange actually does", is any different then saying "Special Initiative is also Initiative because the definition of Initiative defines part of what Special Initiative actually does".

If we're saying an "Exchange" is also a "Search", I don't see what's any different by saying "Special Initiative" is also "Initiative".

I'm not saying that game states like "Initiative" should be defined in the exact same way as abilities like "Search" and "Exchange" are being defined. What I am saying is that there are logical parallels in these arguments that I believe have merit.

Just bumping this because my post has a handful of up votes and kram has been the only one to weigh in on my position so far.

I'd like to hear other people's opinions and reasoning both for and against the argument I've laid out.

I agree with what's been said in the first reply based on the current definition of the rules.

What I don't understand, however, is why one person or group of people can make an argument that one thing, exchange, is also a search because exchange = "The definition of search + something else" but I can't make the same argument with different terms by suggesting that special initiative is the same as initiative (for the purpose of wording on special abilities) because SI = "The definition of initiative + something else"

That's where I'm confused/frustrated.

Maybe I'm just muddying the waters and fishing for something that isn't there, which I didn't mean to do, but nobody has said that my conclusion isn't logically the same as that laid out in the "exchange = search" debate.