Cactus Game Design Message Boards

1) I noticed a player from Boston use Arrogance on Foreign Wives and exclaim he had "[redacted] initiative." I advised him that was politically incorrect and he meant "special initiative." He told me that's something totally different. Who was correct?

2) Chariot of Fire - "Following your rescue attempt, return all Heroes in your discard pile to your draw pile. Shuffle draw pile." I thought because the shuffle was a separate sentence, I had to do it even if there were no heroes to send back. Or kind of like how I have to shuffle my deck to "search" for Herod's Temple when I block with Herod the Great, even if I don't have a Herod's Temple card in it.

3) Destruction of Nehushtan vs Unholy Writ, does special initiative apply? I'm also curious if a negate in response to the activation of an ability, brings everything back to where the cards were immediately prior to said activation, assuming the negate could've targeted the ability at that point. I.E. Destruction of Nehushtan after second use of Holy Grail.

4) Who has initiative when both players want to use a dominant at the same point? Is it still who took the last action? Or slapstick? (I know there's no slap jack, but I mean like you just have to hope your opponent slips on a banana peel so you can play Son of God before Vain Philosophy. Or pie him in the face perhaps.)

JDS, it was good to see you and to meet your friend at Nats. I'm glad you were able to make it on Friday.

1) I don't understand the question. 

2) Tim and I were discussing this. There are two ways to interpret the last sentence. My take is that the shuffle is carried out.

3) SI does not apply to Dominants, only enhancements. Writ and Grail cannot be DoN'd after they're exhausted.

4) there is no such thing as initiative to play a Dominant. Whomever plays theirs first gets to use it first. In the event of a tie, the player who took the last game action gets the tie breaker. In a multiplayer game, if neither player performed the last action you got in turn order starting with the active player to determine the tie breaker.

What happens when Sog NJ and Vain Philosphy tie at the very beginning of the game right after both players drew 8? Does tie go to the person that starts, since you have to decide that before you can play dominants?

Yes I would rule rules that no player can play dominants until it is decided who is going first and then in the unlikely event of that SoG/NJ vs Vain scenario it would go in turn order for tiebreaker.

3) SI does not apply to Dominants, only enhancements. Writ and Grail cannot be DoN'd after they're exhausted.

Does this mean I can no longer use Covenant of Noah as an artifact to negate a battle winner? Or Silver Trumpets to withdraw my priest when he is being discarded by an ability?

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on August 11, 2013, 03:15:31 PM

Quote from: Gabe on August 11, 2013, 01:47:45 PM

3) SI does not apply to Dominants, only enhancements. Writ and Grail cannot be DoN'd after they're exhausted.

Does this mean I can no longer use Covenant of Noah as an artifact to negate a battle winner? Or Silver Trumpets to withdraw my priest when he is being discarded by an ability?

CoN doesn't work under SI, but it never has. It works because the EC and EE are still in play so the EE is a legal target for your CoN.

That makes sense. So what happens in the case of Silver Trumpets? I assume you could interrupt the battle and withdraw your hero, but then they would just be discarded anyway?

If a player activates a half-used Grail and declares an EC they want to convert, DoN cannot be used at that point. Grail is immediately discarded per game rule and is no longer in play for DoN to target for discard and negate.

If the player activates the half-used Grail but does not declare he or she is using it immediately (or performs a different action other than declaring a target), then the opponent can use DoN to discard and negate Grail.

1) I noticed a player from Boston use Arrogance on Foreign Wives and exclaim he had "retodded initiative." I advised him that was politically incorrect and he meant "special initiative." He told me that's something totally different. Who was correct?

I don't know who that player was, but, as a teacher who works with special needs students, I would have found that highly offensive. That player should be advised of such. (Unless he meant it in some specialized sense as "delayed" initiative, but I have no idea what that would mean.)