Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Warrior_Monk on March 27, 2010, 03:41:57 PM
-
if I place a Jehoida's Strength on Ahimaaz, can I retreat from battle before Jehoida's Strength activates? and is it still placed?
-
I think it activates, so you band...to...nothing?
-
I think that it would bring a different character into battle since it would have to be activated in battle.
-
So, Ahimaaz has Jehoiada's Strength placed on him to be activated (and immediately discarded) when he enters battle. So, Ahimaaz enters battle, then uses his ability to withdraw. JStrength can't activate until Ahimaaz's ability is done. However, Ahimaaz has entered battle, and nothing has negated JStrength, so it then activates, with Ahimaaz no longer in battle. Sounds fine to me. Is this broken somehow?
-
I think he wants to keep J Strength on Ahimaaz until he is ready to use it.
-
I think he wants to keep J Strength on Ahimaaz until he is ready to use it.
If that is the question, then I think the answer is no.
-
so it then activates, with Ahimaaz no longer in battle. Sounds fine to me. Is this broken somehow?
I don't see how this works according to this logic. My understanding is that Ahimazz enters battle. His ability completes and then Jehoida's strength would interrupt and band in other players, but you can't interrupt something that isn't there (in this case the battle, because Ahimazz has already left). But on the same token then Spy-Warriors Spear wouldn't work either. So.....I guess it would work.
-
... but you can't interrupt something that isn't there (in this case the battle, because Ahimazz has already left).
It is a mistake to think that the battle is over when Ahimaaz leaves it. Ahimaaz began the battle when he entered it, but he did not end it when he left.
-
... but you can't interrupt something that isn't there (in this case the battle, because Ahimazz has already left).
It is a mistake to think that the battle is over when Ahimaaz leaves it. Ahimaaz began the battle when he entered it, but he did not end it when he left.
Okay, but if he withdrew and no evil character is present, than what is there to represent a battle?
-
So, Ahimaaz has Jehoiada's Strength placed on him to be activated (and immediately discarded) when he enters battle. So, Ahimaaz enters battle, then uses his ability to withdraw. JStrength can't activate until Ahimaaz's ability is done. However, Ahimaaz has entered battle, and nothing has negated JStrength, so it then activates, with Ahimaaz no longer in battle. Sounds fine to me. Is this broken somehow?
An enhancement needs a character to activate on. Just as an enhancement is discarded if there is not a character of matching brigade in battle, J's Strength would be discarded. Nothing negated it, but it needs a hero to work. However, since it entered battle, it stays there and is simply discarded.
-
However, since it entered battle, it stays there and is simply discarded.
So based on this does Spy+Warrior's Spear work because it is a weapon class enhancement.
-
i don't this would work because it makes no sense but i don't care and i have a killer headache and why not pm bryon?
-
An enhancement needs a character to activate on. Just as an enhancement is discarded if there is not a character of matching brigade in battle, J's Strength would be discarded.
The way I see it, Ahimaaz's ability has to activate before JStrength can. When Ahimaaz's ability completes, he (and JStrength with him) is in territory. That wouldn't stop JStrength from activating, however; enhancements often activate outside of battle. What's the problem with this? Why does no one like it?
-
An enhancement needs a character to activate on. Just as an enhancement is discarded if there is not a character of matching brigade in battle, J's Strength would be discarded.
The way I see it, Ahimaaz's ability has to activate before JStrength can. When Ahimaaz's ability completes, he (and JStrength with him) is in territory. That wouldn't stop JStrength from activating, however; enhancements often activate outside of battle. What's the problem with this? Why does no one like it?
REG quote from the "banding" page:
Banding
Banding is a special ability given to characters. Band ing allows two or more characters to join together. When two or more characters are banded together, they are regarded as a com bined force in strength and toughness. Banding cards are played during battle. The banding special ability can be either on a character or on an enhancement. The banding card does not hold the second character in battle; it is simply what allows the second character to join the battle.
I've always believed Spy + Warrior's Spear works and Bryon + others have ruled it does. I'd even consider ruling for it at a tournament due to the positive reviews from the playtesters. However, you can't band to no one; someone has to be in battle to band. In addition, the REG says nothing about playing Warrior's Spear outside of battle while the bolded portion of my quote states that banding abilities are played during battle.
If this did work, I could think of ways to make multiple RAs per turn with banding to no one.
-
... you can't band to no one; someone has to be in battle to band.
I don't know, that area in the REG seems a bit fuzzy to me. It seems to me like the wording "add to battle" or even "band into battle" wouldn't require any hero to be in battle initially, but maybe that's a dumb gut feeling on my part. You're probably right here.
In addition, the REG says nothing about playing Warrior's Spear outside of battle while the bolded portion of my quote states that banding abilities are played during battle.
Again, the battle is still going on. Just no one is in it. (This is the way we play it based on rulings involving Unknown Nation, Grapes of Wrath, etc.)
If this did work, I could think of ways to make multiple RAs per turn with banding to no one.
How would you be able to do this in ways that haven't already been done?
I can see your point here. I still would like to get an official word on this matter.
-
I still would like to get an official word on this matter.
Same, I'm a bit kerfuffled.
-
I still say Spy & Warriors Spear doesn't work (thus the same in this scenario) because the current REG says this:
Instant Abilities > Withdraw from Battle > How to Use
Withdraw cards can be used to immediately terminate a battle or rescue attempt. Only cards targeted to withdraw must leave the Field of Battle. If the withdraw card specifies that only a character withdraws from battle, the enhancements are discarded unless there is another character remaining or immediately replaced in the Field of Battle that can use them. Cards returned to your hand return to face value and cards returned to your territory retain their abilities. Other characters in battle not targeted remain in battle. If a withdrawing character was the only one in battle, the battle ends.
The current ruling for "Battle immediately ends" is that no other SAs can activate - you go directly to Battle Resolution. Based on the above quote, withdrawing Ahimaaz before a blocker is presented constitutes "battle immediately ends."
When I presented this in the Spy debate, all I got was "the REG wasn't supposed to say that." Perhaps the new REG will clarify this, but I am reluctant to rule my tournaments based on what one person said the REG didn't mean to say. That whole paragraph seems to be painstakingly written to say exactly what it means.
-
When I presented this in the Spy debate, all I got was "the REG wasn't supposed to say that."
Boy do I hate that. We're all just stuck in the mud when it comes to making good rulings until the new REG comes out.
-
I still say Spy & Warriors Spear doesn't work (thus the same in this scenario) because the current REG says this:
...
When I presented this in the Spy debate, all I got was "the REG wasn't supposed to say that." Perhaps the new REG will clarify this, but I am reluctant to rule my tournaments based on what one person said the REG didn't mean to say. That whole paragraph seems to be painstakingly written to say exactly what it means.
Having that information readily available, Bryon ruled...
Spy + Warriors Spear "works," if by "works," you mean the discard happens.
Did the spear enter battle? yes
Was it negated (directly or indirectly)? no
Then it works.
The discard happens AFTER the withdraw option. So, if you choose to withdraw, and then the discard makes a lost soul become available, you can't decide "oh, I mean Spy stays in battle." :)
So you don't have to worry about ruling "based on what one person said the REG didn't mean to say." Bryon is quite explicit that Spy + Warriors Spear works, which means to all extents and purposes (i.e., Rob explicitly overruling Bryon)--regardless of what the REG says--Spy + Warriors Spear works.
-
Tim Maly was the one I was referring to. Did Bryon's post come before or after my post? Could you link the thread. Either I posted after Bryon, or Bryon did not even consider my post, since he never mentions the REG.
Either way, I disagree. I believe I may have even mentioned the scenario of Siege bringing in a bunch of ECs, but then one of them using a "play next" to play Wonders Forgotten, which immediately ends the battle. In that case, a bunch of cards enter battle without their SA being negated and yet they do not activate. So, his response could not be correct unless there is some difference that I am missing.
-
Tim Maly was the one I was referring to. Did Bryon's post come before or after my post? Could you link the thread.
Cool trick people should know about--when you quote someone using the official way--the "Quote from..." line is a link to the message and its thread.
Either I posted after Bryon, or Bryon did not even consider my post, since he never mentions the REG.
It is likely you posted the REG quote after Bryon's comment above because about a month after Bryon's post you made the following comment on the same thread...
We were discussing this in another thread, but I would argue that the REG is clear that the spear would not work. The REG says that if the hero withdraws, then the battle ends. We already have an understanding of what "battle ends" means. If abilities in battle can still activate after the "battle ends," then that will have a plethora of peripheral problematic effects.
I am not sure when the discussion in the other thread you referenced occurred, so it depends on whether "were discussing" meant "more than a month ago" or more recently than that.
In any case Bryon did not respond to anyone after the quote above, so I wouldn't take it as a personal snub.
Either way, I disagree. I believe I may have even mentioned the scenario of Siege bringing in a bunch of ECs, but then one of them using a "play next" to play Wonders Forgotten, which immediately ends the battle. In that case, a bunch of cards enter battle without their SA being negated and yet they do not activate. So, his response could not be correct unless there is some difference that I am missing.
The argument being advanced is that the lone hero leaving the field of battle does not immediately end the battle. Taken from that perspective, I am not sure how the Siege + Wonders Forgotten scenario has any relevance since it is based on an SA that specifically states the battle is immediately ended.
Here is the thing, however. I think in all of this you have managed to cut to the heart of the issue which is whether a lone hero leaving battle immediately ends the battle or not. It is not clear to me that at the time of Bryon's initial confirmation people had realized that was the key question. I think it would be best of you created a separate thread requesting an official PTB ruling on this issue. Put forward the existing REG quote and ask if this is being explicitly overruled.
The only risk that you face in this course of action is that someone will write a post complaining about people who whine about and/or search for loopholes around every picky little ruling they disagree with. That drawback of that seems to me to be relatively minor compared to the other option of having an experienced host override a quite direct ruling from Tim and Bryon.
-
1. Stating what is clearly written in the REG does not equate to looking for loopholes. This is a question about "Withdraw" and I quoted a part of the section about "Withdraw" from the REG.
2. I never said I would override an official ruling. Reluctance is not refusal. Am I really the only one that makes a tournament ruling with a little "I don't necessarily agree, but..."
3. The Siege example is indeed relevant since I am basing my opinion on what the REG clearly states - a lone hero withdrawing from battle immediately ends the battle.
4. Starting a new thread would be pointless since the PTBs are hard at work making the new REG, and I would rather they finish so that I can stop making incorrect rulings based on what the current REG clearly states.
5. Thank you for the tip about the "Quote from" link since I did not know that.
-
Sort of an off topic question, but would I be allowed to play seige, and then band in some of their heroes, then ALL of my evil characters, and finish with a character that can play next, play an end the battle card, and discard a large number of their heroes without banding in EVERY one of their heroes?
-
Sort of an off topic question, but would I be allowed to play seige, and then band in some of their heroes, then ALL of my evil characters, and finish with a character that can play next, play an end the battle card, and discard a large number of their heroes without banding in EVERY one of their heroes?
If you are playing the right kind of defense, this shouldn't be a problem anyway. :) (Unless you or your opponent are using Stalks of Flax and you don't want to kill your own heroes...but no one uses that card anyway. :P)
-
Im saying, seige can potentially turn into a CBN mass hero discarder if used right. ;)
-
Im saying, seige can potentially turn into a CBN mass hero discarder if used right. ;)
Oh yes, yes it can indeed.
-
1. I never said you were looking for loopholes. I was pointing out that there are others who frequent this board who are not as charitable as I whom seem to enjoy disparaging the motives of other posters. Particularly in a case like this where the official ruling was handed down in early November, Bryon definitively confirmed the ruling in December, and disagreements keep bubbling up even as we verge on April.
2. My bad. I misunderstood the depth of conviction you meant to portray with "I am reluctant..."
3. Since the latest explanation underlying the Spy + Warriors Spear ruling is that withdrawing a lone hero does not end the battle (and that the current REG is incorrect), the Siege example has exactly zero to do with the ruling.
4. If you don't feel this question is worthy of a new thread specifically focused on your concern (and to be clear I do think you have a legitimate question that should be adjudicated), I am not sure what purpose you feel is being served by repeatedly bringing it up in other threads.
5. Your welcome. This was something I accidentally stumbled across a while back. I didn't mention it because I figured all of the young computer whizzes here already knew about it.
-
This was something I accidentally stumbled across a while back. I didn't mention it because I figured all of the young computer whizzes here already knew about it.
Yep. :)
-
Here are my thoughts on weapon-class or placed enhancements on withdraw-type heroes:
For a long time enhancements only activated in battle except for healing and set-aside enhancements. This was consistent and easy to understand. Then we got Altar of Burnt Offering. A very cool card but now some complexity was introduced. Initially a lot of players thought the enhancements were played on AoBO. Once it was straightened out that the enhancement was actually played on a character in territory, lo and behold, we had enhancements other than healing or set-aside that were activating in territory. Next up was territory-class enhancements, which also activate on a character in territory.
So here are the three possible scenarios for weapon-class or placed enhancements on a withdraw-type hero and my synopsis for each:
1) The hero withdraws, the enhancement does not activate and stays on the hero.
- This basically follows the long-time existing rule that enhancements other than healing or set-aside must activate in battle. Consistent and easy to understand so I like it.
2) The hero withdraws, the enhancement tries to activate but since the hero is no longer in battle it fizzles. If placed, the enhancement is discarded. Weapon-class stays on hero.
- This option relies on this theory: that a weapon-class or placed enhancement is considered "played" before the hero's SA completes JUST BECAUSE it's on the hero to begin with and is in battle. This option is the least intuitive and not as consistent with the current ruleset. I could live with it if we always played it where the enhancement becomes "detached" from the hero when they enter battle. Of course, in that case a weapon-class would fizzle and also be discarded.
3) The hero withdraws, the enhancement activates. Weapon-class stays on hero and placed enhancement is discarded.
- With AoBO and new territory-class enhancements, this option is also consistent, intutitive, and easy to understand with the current ruleset. I like this option the best.
Because I am not a card designer I would caution which option to choose IF a special type of banding ability is created where a character is placed on another character. I'm not saying an ability like this makes sense. I'm only bringing it up since the above options would have to be reevaluated.
-
Sort of an off topic question, but would I be allowed to play seige, and then band in some of their heroes, then ALL of my evil characters, and finish with a character that can play next, play an end the battle card, and discard a large number of their heroes without banding in EVERY one of their heroes?
since you brought up siege, what happens if siege is played in a side battle?
-
I've asked that before.
from a PM:
So... RR and I are having our late night evil gamebreaking combo brainstorms. ;D
What happens if I use say... Sword of the Lord to make an EC on EC side battle... and I play Seige?
Would all of my EC's join my side of the side battle, then after the side battle, all of my opponents heroes join my hero in the main battle?
"join the battle" refers to the singular battle you are in. Since ECs don't band to heroes, no heroes come into battle during a EC vs EC battle. Sorry. :)
-
darn, that would have been epic.
-
4. If you don't feel this question is worthy of a new thread specifically focused on your concern (and to be clear I do think you have a legitimate question that should be adjudicated), I am not sure what purpose you feel is being served by repeatedly bringing it up in other threads.
Because I am an arrogant whiner.
-
4. If you don't feel this question is worthy of a new thread specifically focused on your concern (and to be clear I do think you have a legitimate question that should be adjudicated), I am not sure what purpose you feel is being served by repeatedly bringing it up in other threads.
Because I am an arrogant whiner.
That can be the name of your nats card. ;)
-
The Nats card is not allowed to be evil, ergo there will never be YMT card.
-
Hm...you could be an animal? Technically trolls are not human.
-
I'm a non-demon beast. I'm nigh untouchable, since no one uses Cross Beams of the Cross anymore.
-
4. If you don't feel this question is worthy of a new thread specifically focused on your concern (and to be clear I do think you have a legitimate question that should be adjudicated), I am not sure what purpose you feel is being served by repeatedly bringing it up in other threads.
Because I am an arrogant whiner.
That can be the name of your nats card. ;)
May band to Complainers. Cannot be negated. ;)
-
I once saw a Troll in Central Park who was good.
-
I once saw a Troll in Central Park who was good.
Ugh, that was the worst movie ever...aside from maybe We're Back...
-
Actually Troll 2 was...
BEST WORST MOVIE (Trailer) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO8J5P2GcGs#)