Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: 3-Liner And Bags Of Chips on November 30, 2009, 11:10:41 AM
-
I had a question. If I play arrogance, then a capture card, then Belshazzar's banquet, does my opponent get inititive or would that end the battle, unnegatable?
Arrogance: Holder may play as many enhancements as holder chooses. Inititive passes when holder is done playing enhancements.
Belshazzar's Banquet: Discard all evil cards in battle. Protect all lost souls from being rescued this turn
-
Good question. I'm interested to see the answer to this as well.
-
There are several ways to negate an enhancement.
"Negate all enhancements" wouldn't work because it only targets ones that are in play and Bel's Banquet already sent them to the discard pile so they aren't in play.
"Negate the last enhancement" would negate Bel's Banquet even though it is in the discard pile, however it couldn't target the capture because it wasn't the "last enhancement played". Therefore, it couldn't even be played because the only cards that can be played when a hero is being removed from battle (by capture in this case) are cards that interrupt that removal.
"Negate any enhancement in battle" would normally let the hero choose to negate the capture played earlier. But in this case it can't because once again it also targets enhancements that are in play, and the capture card is in the discard pile already.
This being the case, I don't think that there is anyway to negate the particular scenario that you have described.
-
There is no way to Negate this, because removal from battle only grants special initiative if it causes the removed to lose the battle. At least for Heroes. For some reason, Samson's Sacrifice gives EC's special initiative. But that's beside the point. Except for Samson's Sacrifice, you only get initiative via numbers or special initiative from removal when that removal causes you to be losing the battle.
-
removal from battle only grants special initiative if it causes the removed to lose the battle
I don't think this is correct. I think that characters ALWAYS get "special initiative to negate" if they are being removed from battle by an opposing character.
Edit:
This is obviously assuming that there are no other characters on their side of the battle, or that the characters that remain on their side of the battle are losing (by the numbers, being ignored, etc.)
-
Oh? RA Armorbearer and King Saul. Block Sabbath Breaker. Snare on King Saul. Five Smooth Stones? If yes, that's news to me.
-
characters ALWAYS get "special initiative to negate"
IF their removal will result in a lost battle.
+1 with MP.
-
There is no way to Negate this, because removal from battle only grants special initiative if it causes the removed to lose the battle. At least for Heroes. For some reason, Samson's Sacrifice gives EC's special initiative. But that's beside the point. Except for Samson's Sacrifice, you only get initiative via numbers or special initiative from removal when that removal causes you to be losing the battle.
I actually thought this was decided the other way, but It seemed to be one of those threads that have no conclusion.
-
Hey,
After Arrogance (and Belshazzar's Banquet) completes, the hero is being defeated and the evil character is being defeated, so it's mutual destruction by mutual removal caused by the evil character and the evil character played the last card in battle. So the hero gets initiative but can only play a card that negates or interrupts the ability that is defeating the hero. As Prof Underwood pointed out most negates will not work in this scenario, but an interrupt the battle ability would.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Oh? RA Armorbearer and King Saul. Block Sabbath Breaker. Snare on King Saul. Five Smooth Stones? If yes, that's news to me.
Thanks for pointing that out. I updated my post to include the obvious conditions that I was assuming :)
-
The rulebook clearly states that in a mutual destruction situation, the player who did not play the last card has initiative. There is nothing "special" about Samson's Sacrifice.
-
Here is some more reading about this argument if you fancy... about 19 pages worth:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14506.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=14506.0)
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16772.15 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16772.15)
-
My favorite all time thread on the boards was the Samson's Sacrifice Thread!!!
-
Agreed, I love how we went 9 pages with Schaef vehemently arguing one side, then a page lul where nothing happened besides small jokes, then another 9 pages with Schaef vehemently arguing the other side.....
-
On a slightly related note regarding "special initiative," if there are two heroes in battle and I capture one and CM the other, can my opponent get a chance to negate?
-
Agreed, I love how we went 9 pages with Schaef vehemently arguing one side, then a page lul where nothing happened besides small jokes, then another 9 pages with Schaef vehemently arguing the other side.....
Just remember that thread the next time someone tells you I don't consider multiple sides of an issue or admit to being wrong about something.
On a slightly related note regarding "special initiative," if there are two heroes in battle and I capture one and CM the other, can my opponent get a chance to negate?
If the capture transfers initiative apart from the Dominant, you can negate it. If the rescuer was still winning after the capture, then no.
http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/specialconditions26.htm (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/specialconditions26.htm)