Cactus Web Site special offer: Orders over $75 will receive a free Angel of God 2023 National Promo card while supplies last.
Quote from: REGAfter all abilities (except abilities that add a character to the opponent's side of battle and side battle abilities) have activated and no effects are resolving at least one evil character entered battle"
The way I understand that passage, the moment after the Hero's effect's finish resolving is the only moment a blocker can be presented and doing anything other than putting an EC in battle at that moment is the defending player passing that opportunity.
Because ToW places itself in territory, it could not be negated by a negate that only targets cards in battle. I believe that's what jmhartz was getting at. (i.e. "Negate an evil card in battle" would not work)A character that was CBI or CBN banded in would not be kicked out if YWR was negated.
Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 02:43:19 PMQuote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 02:35:15 PMTo clarify this statement, I believe if Player A presents a Hero and Player B plays Falling Away, Player B is declining to block by doing so. So if afterward Player A uses YWR to add another Hero, Player B does not get a second opportunity to present a blocker and the second Hero would rescue unopposed.That is incorrect. Playing a dominant (good or evil) prior to blocking does not make a player lose his chance to block. A common example: someone waits for the opponent to attack, plays Mayhem and then blocks with Foreign Wives so she's protected.A player could also use CM or FA to force the opponent to attack with a different Hero (via YWR) that they have a better chance of defeating.I'm glad to be wrong then since I think it makes more since to work that way but how does that satisfy this portion?Quote from: REGAfter all abilities (except abilities that add a character to the opponent's side of battle and side battle abilities) have activated and no effects are resolving at least one evil character entered battle"The way I understand that passage, the moment after the Hero's effect's finish resolving is the only moment a blocker can be presented and doing anything other than putting an EC in battle at that moment is the defending player passing that opportunity.
Quote from: Kevinthedude on February 21, 2018, 02:35:15 PMTo clarify this statement, I believe if Player A presents a Hero and Player B plays Falling Away, Player B is declining to block by doing so. So if afterward Player A uses YWR to add another Hero, Player B does not get a second opportunity to present a blocker and the second Hero would rescue unopposed.That is incorrect. Playing a dominant (good or evil) prior to blocking does not make a player lose his chance to block. A common example: someone waits for the opponent to attack, plays Mayhem and then blocks with Foreign Wives so she's protected.A player could also use CM or FA to force the opponent to attack with a different Hero (via YWR) that they have a better chance of defeating.
To clarify this statement, I believe if Player A presents a Hero and Player B plays Falling Away, Player B is declining to block by doing so. So if afterward Player A uses YWR to add another Hero, Player B does not get a second opportunity to present a blocker and the second Hero would rescue unopposed.
After all abilities (except abilities that add a character to the opponent's side of battle and side battle abilities) have activated and no effects are resolving at least one evil character entered battle"
SI suspends the banishment of The Flood so that it can be negated. That's what makes it "special." Note that a card like Three Woes could not negate The Flood because only an enhancement can be played in SI. Once SI passes, The Flood is indeed banished and not an eligible target to be negated by Three Woes.
Quote from: The Guardian on February 21, 2018, 05:22:07 PMSI suspends the banishment of The Flood so that it can be negated. That's what makes it "special." Note that a card like Three Woes could not negate The Flood because only an enhancement can be played in SI. Once SI passes, The Flood is indeed banished and not an eligible target to be negated by Three Woes.But how is a card like Cymbals even able to target the banished card (or one of the black spears that discard themselves) since it’s out of play?
If the card with the removing effect was alreadyremoved from play due to one of its effects, it may still be targeted during Special Initiativeby an enhancement that specifically targets its card type.
Was that always that way (as in the past two years)?
http://www.cactusforums.com/rules-announcements/major-rule-change-11-14-2014-special-initiative-updated!/I believe we've tweaked a few things in the SI entry since then, but that aspect of it has been around since at least 2014.
Quote from: Watchman492 on February 21, 2018, 06:32:59 PMWas that always that way (as in the past two years)?http://www.cactusforums.com/ruling-questions/the-flood-and-special-initiative/msg567918/#msg567918
Is this a case where there's just a normal interrupt where The Flood's ability is temporarily suspended, and once the hero is withdrawn, since the hero is no longer in battle when the discard attempts to deactivate can't now causing it to fizzle out, or is there some other factor given the fact that the Flood banishes itself in order to discard all evil cards?
It sounds like you handled the situation correctly. Even though The Flood banishes itself SI is still passed and the ITB will suspend The Flood for the duration of the interrupt. By withdrawing all Heroes when The Flood attempts to reactivate it finds no Hero in battle and fails. Well done!
