Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: galadgawyn on December 09, 2008, 07:35:43 PM
-
Ok, what happens if my judge is blocked by Abimelech and I play Ambush the City?
Abimelech
S.A. "Evil Character repels all Heroes with a Judges reference."
Ambush the City
S.A. " If making a rescue attempt, set all cards in battle aside (regardless of immunity). Holder may begin a new rescue attempt against same player. Once new rescue attempt is completed, the original battle resumes as a battle challenge. Cannot be negated."
Since Abimelech is ignoring the hero, Ambush the City can't target him but it still targets the heroes and sets them aside. It then is supposed to start a new battle. So does Abimelech stay in battle and block the new rescue attempt (but it is a whole new rescue attempt which would imply choosing a new blocker)? Does he just go back to the territory since he can't be in the new battle and can't be set-aside (but that seems to make the ignore ability hurtful instead of helpful)? Or does he go to the set-aside area anyway to wait for his battle to resume?
-
I'd really like to know the answer to this. Is my question confusing or do people just not know the answer to this?
-
What is abimilech's ability?
-
It seems to me that if the EC is ignoring you, you shouldn't be able to play anything, since ignore(/repel) sends you back to your territory, right? The only way you could do anything is to interrupt first.
-
I think this is how it plays out.
1. Abimilech stays in battle cause you can't target him.
2. He goes back to territory cause he won the ra.
3. You make a new ra. That finishes.
4. You're guy comes back and wins the bc cause there is not ec to block you.
-
Is my question confusing or do people just not know the answer to this?
This is just a unique situation. Immunity was accounted for in the SA, but not ignore/repel. I am inclined to say that you cannot use Ambush the City in the original battle since Abimelech is ignoring it. You can not start a new rescue attempt if the first one cannot be postponed. The second sentence is conditional upon the completion of the first sentence, since the general rules allow only one RA per turn. In order for the game rule to be trumped, the first RA has to be set aside, which it cannot be.
I would rule that Ambush the City would fizzle.
-
I think this is how it plays out.
1. Abimilech stays in battle cause you can't target him.
2. He goes back to territory cause he won the ra.
3. You make a new ra. That finishes.
4. You're guy comes back and wins the bc cause there is not ec to block you.
Or: You set Abimilech aside with the judge. You aren't really effecting Abimilech at all, your just delaying the battle until you finish the new battle.
"Nah, Wild Bill isn't a liar. He has gotten a ruling wrong once or twice though. This could be one of those times."
-
Targeting Abimelech for set-aside is an effect, so the "ignore" would stop that.
-
That's what I think, although I'm not even sure you can play Ambush the city if you're being ignored, can you? I still get confused by ignore.
-
I have another question though (just thought of it): What if there's a NT human hero and/or EC in battle when you play Ambush, and then in the next battle your opponent blocks with Emp. Augustus (who sends all set-aside NT humans back to territory); what would happen then? Would everyone just go back to their territories and forget it ever happened?
-
I have another question though (just thought of it): What if there's a NT human hero and/or EC in battle when you play Ambush, and then in the next battle your opponent blocks with Emp. Augustus (who sends all set-aside NT humans back to territory); what would happen then? Would everyone just go back to their territories and forget it ever happened?
that's interesting.... I think they would go back to their territories, and that battle would not be able to resume, even as a battle challenge.
@ YMT, I think that you can't target abililech, but you can still be set - aside. For instance, if you attacked with Ehud and chose Red Dragon and then played samson's sacrafice, then you can still discard yourself, but Red Dragon is protected. He won the ra and goes back to territory. If you had played the long day(due to some crazy gold shield action or something), then you would still be able to make a new rescue, cause Red Dragon would return to his territory; he won the ra.
Back to the original example, your judge would now come back from the bc once the ra is over, and you would win the bc cause there is no one to block you. I still think that this would work. :)
-
@ YMT, I think that you can't target abililech, but you can still be set - aside. For instance, if you attacked with Ehud and chose Red Dragon and then played samson's sacrafice, then you can still discard yourself, but Red Dragon is protected. He won the ra and goes back to territory. If you had played the long day(due to some crazy gold shield action or something), then you would still be able to make a new rescue, cause Red Dragon would return to his territory; he won the ra.
This is not a Long Day situation. Long Day starts a new rescue at the end of the battle. All abilities from the first battle have resolved. The first sentence of Ambush the City is a prerequisite for the rest of the ability to complete. Since you cannot fulfill the first sentence, the rest of the SA does not take place, IMO.
I have another question though (just thought of it): What if there's a NT human hero and/or EC in battle when you play Ambush, and then in the next battle your opponent blocks with Emp. Augustus (who sends all set-aside NT humans back to territory); what would happen then? Would everyone just go back to their territories and forget it ever happened?
If Ambush the City activates successfully, then Emperor Augustus would send the "original battle NT humans" back to their territory. The secondary RA would still continue to its end. Once battle resolution is complete for the secondary battle, the original battle would resume with whoever did not get returned to territory by the Emperor. If no heroes remain, then the defender wins the Battle Challenge.
-
The first sentence of Ambush the City is a prerequisite for the rest of the ability to complete. Since you cannot fulfill the first sentence, the rest of the SA does not take place, IMO.
Why should that be the case? Several cards, like Goods Recovered ("Discard one Raiders' Camp and return all captured Heroes to owner's territory. Return one of your good cards discarded from draw pile by opponent to draw pile. Shuffle draw pile. Cannot be negated.") have multiple abilities not dependent upon each other.
-
Why should that be the case? Several cards, like Goods Recovered ("Discard one Raiders' Camp and return all captured Heroes to owner's territory. Return one of your good cards discarded from draw pile by opponent to draw pile. Shuffle draw pile. Cannot be negated.") have multiple abilities not dependent upon each other.
Because the other sentences here are contingent upon completion of the first sentence. Game rules do not allow simultaneous rescue attempts. Since the first rescue attempt has not stopped (Abimelech is still in battle) and the first rescue attempt has not ended (The Long Day), a second rescue attempt is not permitted.
There are also other cards that have second sentences that are contingent upon the first sentence. Enoch, for example, does not get returned to territory after battle if he was captured, even though there is a separate sentence in his SA that says, "Return Enoch to territory at end of battle." That final sentence is contingent upon the first, in that he was discarded.
-
I believe I'm going to have to side with Tim Mirezasaldfausdglui on this one.
If Ambush the City said "set all cards in battle aside to begin a new rescue attempt..." then YMT would be correct. As it's worded they are two different abilities that aren't reliant on one another. That leads me to believe that Abimelech would stay in battle to block the new rescue attempt since he's not a legal target to be set aside.
-
I'm entitled to be wrong. ;D
However, the idea of a "new rescue attempt" means starting over, and no rescue attempt starts with an EC already in battle.
-
Ambush the City
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If making a rescue attempt, set all cards in battle aside (regardless of immunity). Holder may begin a new rescue attempt against same player. Once new rescue attempt is completed, the original battle resumes as a battle challenge. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Joshua 8:19
Tim and Gabe are correct. The first sentence represents a special ability that must be done and has its own trigger. The second sentence is a special ability that may be done. The third sentence is a trigger that is tied to the second ability. Both special abilities cannot be negated.
So how many players have declined to use the second ability? Pretty nice to set-aside an EC band for the rest of the game, eh?
;)
-
I realize that I am being outnumbered here, but let me give another example:
I am Holy - "Upon activation, holder may discard a good card from hand to make opponent discard an evil card from hand. If opponent has no evil cards in hand, opponent must reveal hand."
Can I use I am Holy to force my opponent to reveal his hand (if he has no evil cards) even though I elect not to do the "may" from the first sentence?
-
Ambush the City
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: If making a rescue attempt, set all cards in battle aside (regardless of immunity). Holder may begin a new rescue attempt against same player. Once new rescue attempt is completed, the original battle resumes as a battle challenge. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: Joshua 8:19
Tim and Gabe are correct. The first sentence represents a special ability that must be done and has its own trigger. The second sentence is a special ability that may be done. The third sentence is a trigger that is tied to the second ability. Both special abilities cannot be negated.
So how many players have declined to use the second ability? Pretty nice to set-aside an EC band for the rest of the game, eh?
;)
Stamp, does this actually work? If you don't start a new attempt that is? I've never heard about this card doing anything like that!
-
No, it cannot be used as STAMP stated. IF you could just set-aside and forget the rest (which I still argue you can't), then your opponent could return his characters from set-aside on his next prep phase. From the REG:
When you set aside your opponent's card during a battle, after the battle you must put the set-aside enhancement with the card you set aside. The character can return during any preparation phase, unless the set-aside card has a specified endpoint. The set-aside card is then discarded.
I still await comment on my examples with Enoch and I am Holy.
-
Well, interesting comments but I'm actually less sure now than when I started. So far I think:
No, it cannot be used as STAMP stated. IF you could just set-aside and forget the rest (which I still argue you can't), then your opponent could return his characters from set-aside on his next prep phase. From the REG:
When you set aside your opponent's card during a battle, after the battle you must put the set-aside enhancement with the card you set aside. The character can return during any preparation phase, unless the set-aside card has a specified endpoint. The set-aside card is then discarded.
I'm thinking that the abilities are seperate. My guess is that they didn't mean the abilities to be optional but the second part does say "may". I think it does have a specified endpoint and that is after the other new rescue is done. So I think that Stamp's option is legal.
I would rule that Ambush the City would fizzle.
So because Abimelech is protected from the card then it negates Ambush the City's ability (which can't be negated) to set-aside the heroes? That doesn't sound right at all. I think the heroes have to get set-aside. If that is true but the rest of your idea is right (meaning you can't fulfill the first ability so you can't do the rest) then you would have your heroes stuck in the set-aside area. That doesn't sound right either.
Because the other sentences here are contingent upon completion of the first sentence. Game rules do not allow simultaneous rescue attempts. Since the first rescue attempt has not stopped (Abimelech is still in battle)
How can you say that the first rescue has not stopped? There are plenty of examples where only one side is removed from battle but that definitely means that the battle is over (withdraw cards). Regarding your examples:
Yes there are cards with contigent abilities but there are also plenty without. Cards that say "interrupt the battle, draw x cards, and play the next enhancement" have to use those abilities in order but if one of those abilities is prevented it doesn't affect the others. You do as much as you can (or want). So if the interrupt was prevented and you had 1 card left in your deck then you would: not interrupt, draw 1 card and play next.
-
I am Holy - "Upon activation, holder may discard a good card from hand to make opponent discard an evil card from hand. If opponent has no evil cards in hand, opponent must reveal hand."
Can I use I am Holy to force my opponent to reveal his hand (if he has no evil cards) even though I elect not to do the "may" from the first sentence?
There's nothing in the REG that says otherwise.
So how many players have declined to use the second ability? Pretty nice to set-aside an EC band for the rest of the game, eh?
Again, the REG has no official errata, so it seems this would probably work.
-
If Ambush the City said "set all cards in battle aside to begin a new rescue attempt..." then YMT would be correct. As it's worded they are two different abilities that aren't reliant on one another. That leads me to believe that Abimelech would stay in battle to block the new rescue attempt since he's not a legal target to be set aside.
Based on the wording I would agree, but then it seems like we'd have the problem that the player would be able to make two rescues in one turn.
-
The specified endpoint for Ambush the City is the culmination of a second rescue attempt. If it never happens then the cards in the original battle never come back.
As for the Abimilech example, after the new RA resolves the original battle comes back as a battle challenge with no EC so hero returns to territory.
The "If" in I Am Holy ties the two special abilities together. Otherwise that would be a cool card, eh?!
-
I think it does have a specified endpoint and that is after the other new rescue is done. So I think that Stamp's option is legal.
If the claim is that the sentences are independent, then the last sentence has no bearing on the first. The set-aside has no endpoint, unless the rest is triggered.
So because Abimelech is protected from the card then it negates Ambush the City's ability (which can't be negated) to set-aside the heroes?
I said nothing about negating. The rest of the SA is not triggered. That is not the same as a negate.
How can you say that the first rescue has not stopped?
If the first sentence is not completed, then the rest of the SA cannot trigger. If the heroes in the first RA are removed from battle, but the EC is not, then Battle Resolution begins. If the second sentence should somehow go on anyway, then the third sentence would not be possible since the first battle has already gone through its Resolution phase.
Yes there are cards with contigent abilities but there are also plenty without. Cards that say "interrupt the battle, draw x cards, and play the next enhancement" have to use those abilities in order but if one of those abilities is prevented it doesn't affect the others. You do as much as you can (or want). So if the interrupt was prevented and you had 1 card left in your deck then you would: not interrupt, draw 1 card and play next.
These are examples of SAs with independent abilities. Interrupt, draw and play do not require any of the others. Stop a battle, start a new battle and finish the old battle do require the others. They are not independent, but rather successive.
-
The "If" in I Am Holy ties the two special abilities together.
No it does not. The "if" ties the reveal to my opponent having no evil cards in his hand.
-
I believe I'm going to have to side with Tim Mirezasaldfausdglui on this one.
I know it's a late response, but you forgot the 'j' in my name.
-
We already have a precedent in the game for this: your garden-variety side battle. Now the typical nature of a side battle is that two characters of the same alignment are fighting and it is never a rescue attempt. But in the case of Ambush the City, I'm not sure why you couldn't just set aside all non-ignored characters, start the new RA with the ignored characters still sitting in the first battle waiting, then return the rest from set-aside to the original battle, now a battle challenge, with the EC waiting to go back to work. I think this is being made more complicated than it needs to be.
-
We're talking about a completely different issue now: Can you set aside all the characters and then just choose not to start a new rescue so that no one ever comes back? Myself, I don't see why not. :dunno:
-
The original battle would still resume, I would think.
-
Ambush the City:
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Yellow • Special Ability: If making a rescue attempt, set all cards in battle aside (regardless of immunity). Holder may begin a new rescue attempt against same player. Once new rescue attempt is completed, the original battle resumes as a battle challenge. Cannot be negated.
So here's what I think: After you set everything in battle aside, you have a choice on whether or not to begin another rescue. If you do, then when you finish the next RA, everything comes back as normal; if not, then the trigger (Once new rescue attempt is completed) never activates, and the cards that were set aside never come back. I believe that's what STAMP was saying, correct?
-
Exactly.
-
Wouldn't opting not to make the rescue attempt complete the act anyway?
-
If something never begins, it can never complete. :dunno:
-
But you've completed the option to have it or not.
-
And you decided not to; thus the RA never begins, so it can never end, and thus the "Once new rescue attempt is completed" is never triggered.
-
I think this is how it plays out.
1. Abimilech stays in battle cause you can't target him.
2. He goes back to territory cause he won the ra.
3. You make a new ra. That finishes.
4. You're guy comes back and wins the bc cause there is not ec to block you.
I think this still stand. If you play pentacost in battle on a hero with blue and purple(like paul, let's just say), and he had red dragon? Would red Dragon stay in battle? No, that's obserd. He won the ra, and therefore goes back to territory. But you played the long day. So now you make a new ra. Red Dragon doesn't stay cause he can't be removed, he goes back to territory and now they can block again.
This is just like Ambush the City. Abimilech won the ra, cause you can't target him. Then you start a new one and it's completely different. Then, once that is done, you take your guys back and resume your bc. There is no evil character left, so you are considered "winning" the battle challenge. Right? Can we get an official on that, Bryon, Mike?
@Galadywin(was it you?), you said that you can't have abimilech negate ambush the city since it can't be negated. But ignore I think would fall into the "protect" group, so he's not negated ambush, he's just protecting himself from the ability.
-
I don't think that's protection at all. It falls into its own category - ignore. That's why I think in this case you wouldn't even be able to play anything unless it somehow negated that ability.
-
Bubbleboy: ignore doesn't kick a character out of battle or stop a player from playing enhancements. It stops a character from entering battle in the first place. If the characters are already in battle then it protects both sides from hurting each other and gives the win to the player of the ignore ability. The downside to ignoring is that since you are winning the battle then it gives endless initiative to the opponent.
@Galadywin(was it you?), you said that you can't have abimilech negate ambush the city since it can't be negated. But ignore I think would fall into the "protect" group, so he's not negated ambush, he's just protecting himself from the ability.
I know but thats not what I meant. I was referring to what YMT said "I would rule that Ambush the City would fizzle." I could be wrong here but it sounded like he meant that since you couldn't set Abimelech aside then you couldn't fulfill the ability and Ambush the City would do nothing. I was saying that the idea of Ambush doing nothing means you're having it indirectly negated since there is nothing stopping the heroes being set-aside.
To Schaef: I don't know that side battles are the right precedent here. I see the comparison but I think this may be its own thing. Consider that you could have the first ability without the rest; it would set everything in battle aside except for protected characters like Nebby's Pride and then the battle would end. It is a seperate ability (the original battle resumes as a battle challenge) that brings them back into battle. I don't think there is any other ability that does this. So it seems like Abimelech could legitimately be sitting in the field of battle or the territory until that battle resumes. If he is in the territory and the heros are returned to the territory by the emperor during the second rescue attempt, are we sure that those characters would not come back into battle to fulfill the third ability? There is already precedent (the pg panic demon) that a card can be sent somewhere and then its ability is triggered and that card comes back to fulfill the ability. So I wonder if the third part of Ambush would take those characters from wherever and put them back in battle.
But you've completed the option to have it or not.
Yes, but the trigger is when the rescue attempt (an actual one) is completed not an option being completed.
So if you're right that the evil character waits in battle until the battle resumes and Stamp's option is legal then you would have an evil character left sitting in battle indefinitely. That doesn't sound right. So my guess is:
Abimelech is not set-aside and then returns to territory since that battle is over. Then if the rescue attempt is completed the third sentence is triggered and the good and evil characters go into battle to resume their battle like it had never stopped.
-
Here's what I don't understand from these two posts.
2. He goes back to territory cause he won the ra.
4. You're guy comes back and wins the bc cause there is not ec to block you.
...
Abimilech won the ra, cause you can't target him. Then you start a new one and it's completely different. Then, once that is done, you take your guys back and resume your bc.
Abimelech is not set-aside and then returns to territory since that battle is over. Then if the rescue attempt is completed the third sentence is triggered and the good and evil characters go into battle to resume their battle like it had never stopped.
In both of these cases, there are two statements being made: 1). that Abimelech wins the first battle, and then 2). that the first battle resumes with the remaining characters. They cannot both be true at the same time, there is only one battle taking place there. Besides that, Abimelech has not won a battle because the ability on Ambush the City has not completed until the second battle is finished. Therefore, the state of the first battle is not yet determined.
To Schaef: I don't know that side battles are the right precedent here.
Why not? You have two battles taking place in the same phase. It's not exactly the same, but I said from the beginning that it's not exactly the same, just like I would not say that The Long Day is exactly the same.
I don't think there is any other ability that does this.
There are lots of abilities that set aside and then bring back characters. I don't understand this statement at all. There is also, as I said, the precedent of side battles which occur while the first battle is unresolved. The only difference here is that the cards from the first battle are in the set-aside area temporarily, instead of sitting in the Field of Battle. If that's what you mean by no other card having this ability, I agree, but that's like saying Scarlet Line is a unique card instead of a card very much like other ignores but with different conditions.
Yes, but the trigger is when the rescue attempt (an actual one) is completed not an option being completed.
Yes, but consider the way a battle works as described in the rulebook. The attacking player has the option to put a character into battle, or not. The defender has the option to block a presented Hero, or not. If any, or all, or none of these options are carried out, or if for example no Enhancements are played before ending the battle, each player still had the opportunity, and therefore all the steps have been fulfilled to some degree.
-
But in this case, the card specifically mentions the option of starting a new rescue attempt, which would be initiated by a character being presented. If you don't present a character, then you never started a rescue.
BTW, what you just described as a battle sounded more like the battle phase to me. A battle can't start with you not presenting a character; that's silly.
-
But in this case, the card specifically mentions the option of starting a new rescue attempt, which would be initiated by a character being presented. If you don't present a character, then you never started a rescue.
Right, and then after you do that, or not, then the characters return.
BTW, what you just described as a battle sounded more like the battle phase to me. A battle can't start with you not presenting a character; that's silly.
A battle can occur whether or not you block, and it can occur whether or not you play Enhancements. That is specifically why I listed all the different things that can but do not always happen in a battle. So it's no more silly than, say, trying to win the same battle twice.
-
And you decided not to; thus the RA never begins, so it can never end, and thus the "Once new rescue attempt is completed" is never triggered.
The r.a. did complete. It ended as soon as you opted to not make a r.a. In my battle phase I can make a r.a. if I don't make a r.a. am I stuck in the battle phase forever? I didn't go into battle :-p
-
As I have only been on the fringes of the game the past year or two, I'm curious to how the current Redemption Administration would rule the cards in this discussion.
-
The issue with Ambush the City was recently discussed in a similar situation (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/couple-of-'in-tournament'-ruling-questions/msg519538/#msg519538). My take (not sure there was consensus?): If you cannot set aside an EC from the battle in which AtC was played, then it stays in the Field of Battle, but cannot join the battle caused by AtC (or other battles that turn); then, it is placed back in the battle that returns from set-aside. Just being in the Field of Battle doesn't mean it gets to join the new battle, it just sits there waiting for the rest of the battle to return from AtC.
So, Abimelech, being immune-through-ignore, stays in the Field of Battle and is not set-aside, but cannot block the new rescue attempt. He rejoins the original battle when it resumes. However, since his repel ability is still targeting the Field of Battle, no Judges-reference heroes could be used in subsequent battles.
I Am Holy has been ruled to be clarifying text (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/i-am-holy-33557/).
And I'll be honest, I lost track of what else was being argued that wasn't resolved or would have a ruling debate now. As this is over 5 years old, and we have a new rulebook, a new REG, and 5 years of updated rulings, I'm not sure that there is much here that would be solid to base any rulings on.
-
I'm interested in the set-aside until end of game effect. If you chose not to start a new ra, would youstill rue that the heroes and evil characters are stuck in set-aside indefinitely?
-
I'm interested in the set-aside until end of game effect. If you chose not to start a new ra, would youstill rue that the heroes and evil characters are stuck in set-aside indefinitely?
Doesn't work. Someone pointed it out earlier in this thread, but here's from the new REG for reference:
If a set-aside ability does not specify a duration, the controller of the card(s) set aside may return
them during any of their preparation phases.
If you do not do the other RA, then there is no duration specified. Therefore, the controller of each card set-aside may return them to his territory during their next prep phase.