Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Situation:

I have gray character in territory and my opponent has TGT up.  I want to block with my other gray character from hand.  From what I hear, the character from hand can't block because he's being ignored. 

But this lead me to question:

1) Does TGT ignore ECs with no/unknown brigade?  Since my EC is in hand the opponent can't know the brigade, essentially meaning he has no brigade.  So would TGT ignore this brigade-less EC? 

2) When do the brigades on ECs played from hand activate? Couldn't I put my Gray guy in battle to negate TGT?  Remember we don't know his brigade until I put him in play, so I think that this would work unless TGT ignores characters of unknown brigade.

3) A better question is this, can you ignore something that is out of play?  If you can ignore something that's out of play I can see how TGT ignores the EC in hand but if Ignore defaults to in play like other abilities shouldn't I be able to block with my gray EC from hand?

The Garden Tomb (RA)

Type: Fortress • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If opponent has a redeemed Lost Soul, then Salome, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Peter, John, and Mary the mother of James ignore all evil brigades that do not have at least two Characters in play.

Thanks!

My issue is the 'at least two characters in play' clause.  As soon as I add a character into battle it's in play and if it's of the same brigade TGT no longer has effect. 

Now my argument is invalid if somehow my character is being ignored from out of play.  But I don't see how that can work since things default to in play. 

In regards to bringing ignored characters into battle, I understand why we won't do that, but in regards to this character that I'm trying to bring in, as soon as he does enters battle he's no longer ignored. 

I guess I should find out how the 'can't bring in ignored characters' works, when does that restriction kick in? Does it kick in once the character tries to enter battle or before that? 

I have a lot of questions that are difficult to answer. Thanks browarod for helping out. 

I'm awful curious to hear what the elders say though...

EDIT:

BTW what does AFAIK mean?  Not knowing that may have caused me to misconstrue the meaning of your post...

     

Ok fair enough, I know that ignore is a confusing ability.  I suppose that it would be easiest to take your word on it, and let sleeping dogs lie...

It does have a target it targets ignored characters.  But if it doesn't specify the target how are the characters ignored unless by the target that they are ignored. 

Ignore seems to be tautologous!

Yes, unless u can blow TGT sky-high, if u have an Evil Brigade w/ only 1 EC in territory, ur screwed. Unless u have a Cannot be Ignored Card (aka Hating the Light/Large Tree/Golgotha)

FTFY.

It actually targets the battlefield. That's how it can stop characters from entering it without targeting them.

3. characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)

Um...question:  Does this mean that Lampy suddenly protects hand from Mayhem again?  Because if a card is in hand, it is not considered not in battle by the definitions given for that ruling.  Evil characters in hand are not targeted by the current definition of Ignore if Mayhem can target them with Lampy up.

By that definition given, the EC must meet BOTH of these conditions: Must be 'not in battle' (this does not include hand) and be ignored.

So I can play from hand into battle by this definition

What the proof said would not affect Lampy.  Lampy doesn't target the battle it targets cards 'not in battle' so since they have different targets they are different situations.  Does that make sense?

Nope, because "not in battle" is defined to not include hand.  It is not not in battle.  And if Ignore specifically requires the EC to be "not in battle", then it cannot be targeted in hand, which is not not in battle.

Your move broken rule 

That would be true if ignore targeted the cards not in battle. According to the prof ignore targets the cards 'the field of battle' not cards 'not in the battle'.

An ignore ability has four parts...

    ...characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)

  Oh my, it IS how I said it.

Your move broken rule 

Wait I'm confused by what you meant in the last post... 

I'm saying that, by the definition of ignore, cards can enter battle UNLESS they are 'not in battle' and are being ignored.

Cards in hand are not 'not in battle' anymore.

Therefore, cards in hand can enter battle even if they are being ignored, as they do not meet both criteria required to be restricted from entering.

Your move broken rule 

Did you even read what the Prof said?  Ignore targets the battle not the characters. 

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 23, 2012, 08:34:42 AM

It actually targets the battlefield. That's how it can stop characters from entering it without targeting them.

I certainly did read what he said.  Does that mean that he is changing the REG at this very second?  Because otherwise, the rules currently disagree with him.

I'm not disputing what he said.  It is at odds with the rules, however.

The quote you are referring to says this "characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle." 

You argument would be true if the 'and' were an are.  As confusing as it seems the target there is actually battle, the 'cannot enter battle' part of the clause indicates that the battle is being targeted.

That is patently false.  "And" is an operator that states that both conditions must be true in order for the entire statement to be true.  That is:

Cannot Enter Battle = (Not in Battle) + (Ignored)

The two Boolean statements (Not in Battle) and (Ignored) must both return "True" for Cannot Enter Battle to be "True".  If either is "False", then Cannot Enter Battle is "False".

You are the one misreading the quote.  I will post the entirety once again:

An ignore ability has four parts:
    it grants the ignoring card immunity to all cards being ignored
    it grants the ignored cards immunity to the ignoring card
    characters not in battle and ignored cannot enter battle (i.e., you cannot choose to bring them into battle and they cannot be targeted by an ability that would bring them into battle)
    characters already in battle and ignored are treated as though they were not in battle for purposes of determining battle outcome

The third statement actually uses the term being defined to refer to a card that is being ignored.  It is establishing that if a card is ignored, and the not in battle condition is met, it may not enter battle.  The third statement is not defining the definition of ignore, rather its effect on evil characters.

Sorry, but you are incorrect.  It does not have to be targeted to cause an issue with this ruling.

By the very definition of the rules of Ignore, the only reason an Evil Character cannot enter battle is if it originates from outside the battle (note that this does not include hand, thanks to the ruling they made) and is being ignored.  If both of those conditions are not met, the Evil Character can enter battle.

The definition itself has not been updated since they changed the definition of 'not in battle'.  The intent may be there for it to include EC from hand, and that is what the elder is going off of.  Unfortunately, intent and one elder's statements do not change the rules.  Unless the definition of ignore is updated, I would be able to block from hand regardless.

Sorry, but the REG does indicate what it should be   And I think maybe you should let the elder respond to my assertion himself, no one else has brought this discrepancy up before to my knowledge

If an Elder wants to comment they are welcome to, but so far only the prof has commented so that's all we have to go on.

Nothing against our currently-posting elder, but they are not infallible (none of us are), and he has not responded to my assertion.  Again, do not speak for elders.  Also, I can say that the rules are in opposition, and I do not have to believe just what he says by himself.  Please do not add more to the discussion or his comments than are there I will wait for responses from elders and other REPs who can actually argue from the REG.

No one (since you've been the only one to reply, and do not seem to understand what I'm saying) has been able to explain how an EC in hand cannot enter battle by this rule.  He does not meet the criteria that is excluded, nor does he hit territory first.  It does not matter if he is targeted.  He is not being excluded, either.  Please use the actual rules, not what you think the words mean, to rebut.

Thank you.