Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Jeremystair on July 05, 2018, 11:47:38 AM
-
#1 If it's my opponents turn and he draws, complete his upkeep and moves into prep phase and wants to play a card in his territory after he is done do I have dominant initiative since he technically past dominant initiative by playing a card?
#2 Or does he have dominant initiative after he played the card in his territory?
The REG is a little vague about this. the only thing that I can find is that it says the active player has opportunity to play dominance first during each phase.
REG
Dominant
The active player has the first opportunity to play Dominant cards during each phase of their turn. Then the opportunity to play Dominant cards is given to inactive players in turn order. The opportunity to play Dominants can be passed multiple times if needed. When all players have declined to play a Dominant the game may move to the next phase or turn.
#3 after the beginning of the phase is over is it just slapjack again whoever dominant hits the table first?
-
My understanding is that at any point during a player's turn, he as initiative to play dominants before the opponent. However, the opponent has the right to request dominant initiative before the active player moves to the next phase or takes another action that does not involve playing a dominant.
If I understand your scenario right, #2 would be accurate. The active player can play a card (for example Birth Foretold) and then he has the first opportunity to play a dominant (i.e. Son of God) before the opponent can play something like Vain Philosophy or Mayhem.
-
I have thought the same thing for a long time because it does specify during a battle but it doesn't specify during any other phase and I can't seem to find any ruling anywhere. So it makes me think it might not be played that way.
-
Here's another scenario if my opponent plays hypocrisy can he immediately play Mayhem before I have a chance to play Gamaliel's speech that sitting in my territory?
If that's how the rules play then what happens once Mayhem is completed and I used Gamaliel's speech after Mayhem how do we put all of those Heroes that he returned to my hand and some were Shuffle back in the place that they were?
By the way it is my opponents turn.
-
Great question!
-
Yes, he can do that.
Any Heroes that were returned to hand and are still in your hand after the redraw would get put back down. Any that were shuffled into deck were shuffled by a CBN ability (Mayhem) so they stay in deck.
-
I understand that mayhem's shuffling ability cannot be negated. But if I negate hypocrisy then the cards were never in my hand so Mayhem could never have Target those cards for Shuffle. What exactly am I missing? I also have not seen any rules to answer my previously asked question.
-
I understand that mayhem's shuffling ability cannot be negated. But if I negate hypocrisy then the cards were never in my hand so Mayhem could never have Target those cards for Shuffle. What exactly am I missing?
Negate doesn't mean go back in time. That's a bad illustration some people (with good intention) have used to explain how negate works to new people. Hypocrisy moves cards from territory to hand so negating it would cause the game to undo that by taking any of those Heroes in your hand and put them back in play. It doesn't go through your deck looking for the other Heroes that got returned.
-
Putting the Heroes back in play would be trying to indirectly negate Mayhem which you cannot do.
-
I don't believe that negating hypocrisy is indirectly trying to negate Mayhem in any way.
REG Negate
A negate effect undoes active or completed abilities, or completing effects of abilities, and keeps the ability and its effects from ever completing.
REG Targeting
Targeting the next or last card played targets those cards based on when they were played in relation to the initial activation of targeting effect, regardless of the current location of those cards.
Reading the above rules and realizing hypocrisy targeted those Heroes in Play to be returned to my hand prior to Mayhem being played. I still don't understand why the heroes wouldn't be put back in play from the deck.
-
Because before that negate happened, another ability targeted the Heroes and they are no longer in the location that Hypocrisy put them.
-
A different question can hypocrisy return Jacob (who protects my hand and deck) back to my hand?
-
A different question can hypocrisy return Jacob (who protects my hand and deck) back to my hand?
Hypocrisy doesn't target the hand, so yes.
-
+1
-
Okay so it's only targeting that specific character or characters by name?
-
Okay so it's only targeting that specific character or characters by name?
That specific character.
-
Technically Hypocrisy target specific cards (limited to Heroes and chosen by the player who used it), not characters.
If a card was played that said "Return Jacob to hand" then all Jacobs in play would return to their owners' hands.
-
So I'm targeting a specific hero and moving him to a location that I'm not specifically targeting?
-
So I'm targeting a specific character and moving him to a location that I'm not specifically targeting?
In the case of Hypocrisy, yes.
-
So how is it that when I try to negate (undo the targeting of the heroes in my territory) hypocrisy it doesn't retarget them to be put back in play from the deck and put them back in territory location?
-
Because before that negate happened, another ability that cannot be negated targeted the Heroes and they are no longer in the location that Hypocrisy put them. did something to them that cannot be negated.
I think this better explains it. If Mayhem was not CBN, Hypocrisy should be able to be fully negated and the heroes returned to territory.
-
I don't see how the shuffling of the cards has anything to do with this because it was Shuffle (Mayhem special ability was fulfilled) and it cannot be negated but that's over with. Negating hypocrisy retargets the specific cards wherever they're located and puts them back in play.
-
Negate doesn't target anything except Hypocrisy and undoes what Hypocrisy did (put Heroes in a hand). However, if some of the Heroes are no longer there because another effect targeted them, then it only "undoes" Hypocrisy to the extent that any Heroes still in hand are put back in play. It actually doesn't matter that Mayhem is CBN--even if it wasn't, the negate would not undo the effect of the shuffle.
-
I don't see how the shuffling of the cards has anything to do with this because it was Shuffle (Mayhem special ability was fulfilled) and it cannot be negated but that's over with. Negating hypocrisy retargets the specific cards wherever they're located and puts them back in play.
Mayhem put the Heroes back in the deck. Mayhem is CBN. Therefore, a negate causing them to come back from deck would be negating something that is CBN.
In addition to that, the card you negated was Hypocrisy, which only moves Heroes to a hand so negating it shouldn't even be attempting to do anything but bring Heroes back from a hand.
-
Let's break it down if hypocrisy Target's my specific card not a location. Then if I negate (undo) the targeting that hypocrisy did. It makes no difference where the card is hypocrisy untargets them and puts them back to the place they were.
-
I would agree with you if hypocrisy targeted two locations my hand and the cards but it doesn't.
-
Let's break it down if hypocrisy Target's my specific card not a location. Then if I negate (undo) the targeting that hypocrisy did. It makes no difference where the card is hypocrisy untargets them and puts them back to the place they were.
You're reading more into target that what it actually means. Negate undoes the whole special ability and the special ability of Hypocrisy is:
Move [target] from play to hand.
Therefore, negating Hypocrisy causes the following to happen:
Move [target] from hand to play.
-
Negate doesn't target anything except Hypocrisy and undoes what Hypocrisy did (put Heroes in a hand).
Undoing what hypocrisy did would be put heroes in play
-
A negate ability targets another ability and can only undo that ability (and abilities that stemmed from that ability--i.e. a cascade negate). It does not undo other abilities that happened in between the original ability and the negate being played.
-
I understand that why would that make any difference Mayhem got to fulfill its ability and is completed. But now that I am negating hypocrisy, the opposite of targeting a card to return to hand would be Target at card to return to play.
-
Negate doesn't target anything except Hypocrisy and undoes what Hypocrisy did (put Heroes in a hand).
Undoing what hypocrisy did would be put heroes in play
Yes but only from hand.
-
I understand that why would that make any difference Mayhem got to fulfill its ability and is completed. But now that I am negating hypocrisy, the opposite of targeting a card to return to hand would be Target at card to return to play.
No--the opposite of returning a card to hand from (location) is returning a card from hand to (location).
-
I think the way you guys want this to work it would have to Target hand and the hero. The way I see it is hypocrisy is Target's a card to put it in a location. Not a specific one because it's not targeting a specific location. So if I undo the targeting of a specific card then i put it back in the location it came from.
-
No, while Hypocrisy does not target a location with its ability, it does state where the card is being returned to (hand). Just like a card that withdraws a Hero to territory does not target that territory, it simply states the location of where the targeted card ends up.
-
No, while Hypocrisy does not target a location with its ability, it does state where the card is being returned to (hand).
Exactly so if we negate (undoing the targeting of the cards, no matter where their location now) hypocrisy Returns the cards back to play.
-
I know Redemption doesnt exactly work this way, and im not quite sure the ramifications, but this is how I understand what is happening...
-When a card moves from one zone to another, it becomes a new identity. This way the game cant "confuse" an old ability after a new ability. Let's use the above example:
Hypocrisy moves target heroes(s) to a new zone, they are no longer treated as old identity (#1 in play) but a new identity (#2 in hand).Thus, you can play them the next time the cards could legally be played. If Hypocrisy should be negated, it simple undoes the ability (no longer #2), and put's them back down into play, and they regain their old identity (#1 hero in play).
But if Mayhem should be played before Hypocrisy is negated, the game put's the cards into a new zone, this makes them yet again a new identity (#3 in deck). Now when if Hypocrisy should be negated, the game is looking for cards that are identity #2, but the heroes are now #3.
-
I asked earlier what exactly hypocrisy is targeting. If hypocrisy is targeting a specific card it does not matter its location. And as far as I can tell it is targeting a specific hero and returning it somewhere to hand in this case. But if it gets negated it targets those cards again and puts them back in play I don't see how their location matters anymore. Unless hypocrisy is targeting on both ends the hand and the hero. Which it is not as of right now.
-
It's targeting Heroes and specifying a location. The location is not a "Target" for resolution, but a requirement so the game knows where to put them (if it targeted, hand protection would be odd). If something changes that zone, when you go to negate hypocrisy, you negate as much as you can. Put heroes from the hand that were put there by the negated card.
If hypocrisy said to put the heroes into "Draw pile" and Mayhem shuffles, there would be no issue retrieving them once Hypocrisy was negated (unless they were now in the hand from drawing), because they are still in the same location the game put them.
-
That would all make sense except for I haven't seen any rules that say what you're saying. As far as I know there are no zones. An exchange targets both ends of the exchange makes sense. Confusion targets a card that was named out loud and then searches for that card and removes it from the game. When something Target something it makes no difference it's location if it doesn't specify. And in this case it doesn't specify when it targets the card to be put back into play.
-
That would all make sense except for I haven't seen any rules that say what you're saying. As far as I know there are no zones. An exchange targets both ends of the exchange makes sense. Confusion targets a card that was named out loud and then searches for that card and removes it from the game. When something Target something it makes no difference it's location if it doesn't specify. And in this case it doesn't specify when it targets the card to be put back into play.
The issue is that you have a misunderstanding of what target means and it is causing you to misinterpret everything else. The only application of target is that it allows protect to work. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with how a negate undoes a given ability.
-
The issue is that you have a misunderstanding of what target means and it is causing you to misinterpret everything else. The only application of target is that it allows protect to work. No more, no less. It has nothing to do with how a negate undoes a given ability.
^Correct.
There is no "second targeting" of the Heroes when the negate is played. The negate targets the ability of Hypocrisy--nothing else.
-
When something Target something it makes no difference it's location if it doesn't specify. And in this case it doesn't specify when it targets the card to be put back into play.
Negates target abilities, not cards. Negating Hypocrisy does not target the heroes that were initially placed in hand by Hypocrisy.
For example, a hand being protected from opponents (Crowds LS, Simon Zealot, etc) won't stop them from negating a card that forces you to put cards back in play from hand.
-
However, if some of the Heroes are no longer there because another effect targeted them, then it only "undoes" Hypocrisy to the extent that any Heroes still in hand are put back in play. It actually doesn't matter that Mayhem is CBN--even if it wasn't, the negate would not undo the effect of the shuffle.
Careful, I've used this exact same logic to argue that Cascade Negate is silly, most especially Cascade Negate through a Play An Enhancement ability ;)
To wit:
However, if some of the Heroes cards are no longer there in hand because another effect a Play An Enhancement ability targeted them, then it only "undoes" Hypocrisy the Draw ability to the extent that any Heroes cards drawn by Reach of Desperation still in hand are put back in play on top of deck. It actually doesn't matter that Mayhem is CBN a Play ability is CBI--even if it wasn't, the negate would not undo the effect of the shuffle Played enhancement.
-
This scenario is not actually a cascade negate situation, which is why at the end I clarified that it doesn't matter if the ability is CBN or not.
If I play a "Withdraw a Hero" card followed by a "Discard a Hero in a territory" card to discard that same Hero, and then later you negate the withdraw card, the Hero stays in the discard pile because the discard ability was a completely separate ability that is not affected by the negate (cascade or otherwise). The negate can only result in the Hero going back to battle from territory (where the original ability sent it), it cannot bring the Hero out of the discard pile.
-
Okay I get it it's just one of those mom and dad things because I said so.
-
Okay I get it it's just one of those mom and dad things because I said so.
If by mom and dad you mean the rules that define how the game is played, sure.
-
I haven't really seen any of those rules yet.
-
I haven't really seen any of those rules yet.
We have shown them to you and explained them several times. I think the problem is that you seem to be listening with intent to disagree rather than with intent to understand. You need to let go of the misconceptions you have invented for yourself.
Negate: "A negate effect undoes active or completed abilities"
Hypocrisy: "Return any number of Heroes to owners hands"
Hypocrisy takes a specified group of cards and moves them to a specified location. Undoing that means taking the previously specified group of cards from the specified location and returning them to their original location.
The word "target" has no relevance to this discussion whatsoever.
-
Okay I get it it's just one of those mom and dad things because I said so.
I'm just trying to help, and if my explanations (and those of others) don't make sense to you, then I'm sorry that's the case. There's no need to be petty though.
-
This scenario is not actually a cascade negate situation, which is why at the end I clarified that it doesn't matter if the ability is CBN or not.
I agree, and I make the same claim that GEs played via Reach stay in battle and are not negated when the Draw ability of Reach is negated.
The two scenarios are exactly the same, which is why I'm glad you've taken the stance you have in this thread ;)
Ability A (Hypocrisy/Reach) takes cards in one location (territory/deck) and puts them in another location (hand/hand). Ability B then does something to a subset of those cards (shuffles heroes in hand/plays a GE from hand). Ability C then tries to negate Ability A. Ability A can't be negated - or at least, not all of the cards in the new location can be returned to their original location, since Ability B moved those cards somewhere else. Therefore, the cards moved by Ability B remain where they are.
Seems to me that saying "The GE you played off of Reach stays in battle but is negated" makes no sense based on current Redemption rules. This thread is evidence of that. In fact, it no longer matters that Play abilities are CBI - all that matters is that a different ability moved that card somewhere else.
* And no, the fact that there is a rule that states the GE in this exact situation is "Cascade-negated" does not support the position. The only reason this rule was created is either that the rules were misapplied in the past, or they've been changed/reinterpreted since then. Either way, that rule cannot defend itself, as that is circular reasoning (the conclusion is in the premises), akin to asking a company to audit their own books ;)
-
Okay I get it it's just one of those mom and dad things because I said so.
I'm just trying to help, and if my explanations (and those of others) don't make sense to you, then I'm sorry that's the case. There's no need to be petty though.
I know man it's all good!
-
This scenario is not actually a cascade negate situation, which is why at the end I clarified that it doesn't matter if the ability is CBN or not.
I agree, and I make the same claim that GEs played via Reach stay in battle and are not negated when the Draw ability of Reach is negated.
The two scenarios are exactly the same, which is why I'm glad you've taken the stance you have in this thread ;)
Ability A (Hypocrisy/Reach) takes cards in one location (territory/deck) and puts them in another location (hand/hand). Ability B then does something to a subset of those cards (shuffles heroes in hand/plays a GE from hand). Ability C then tries to negate Ability A. Ability A can't be negated - or at least, not all of the cards in the new location can be returned to their original location, since Ability B moved those cards somewhere else. Therefore, the cards moved by Ability B remain where they are.
Seems to me that saying "The GE you played off of Reach stays in battle but is negated" makes no sense based on current Redemption rules. This thread is evidence of that. In fact, it no longer matters that Play abilities are CBI - all that matters is that a different ability moved that card somewhere else.
* And no, the fact that there is a rule that states the GE in this exact situation is "Cascade-negated" does not support the position. The only reason this rule was created is either that the rules were misapplied in the past, or they've been changed/reinterpreted since then. Either way, that rule cannot defend itself, as that is circular reasoning (the conclusion is in the premises), akin to asking a company to audit their own books ;)
The scenarios are not exactly the same. This one is about where cards end up. The one you bring up is about whether cards are negated or not.
-
FWIW I have always felt a protected hand should not be able to have heroes added to it via an opponent's Hyprocrisy.
I've heard dozens of explanations why it "works the way it does" but still feel the same way about it - save your explanations.
Self Control does protect us from Hypocrisy in reality!
Now referring to the OP dominant initiative is determined by both players just as phase changes are as well. If someone plays a hero into the next phase for example, you can tell your opponent to rewind to the previous phase and play a dom as they have passed initiative by moving to the next phase on their own.
-
This scenario is not actually a cascade negate situation, which is why at the end I clarified that it doesn't matter if the ability is CBN or not.
I agree, and I make the same claim that GEs played via Reach stay in battle and are not negated when the Draw ability of Reach is negated.
The two scenarios are exactly the same, which is why I'm glad you've taken the stance you have in this thread ;)
Ability A (Hypocrisy/Reach) takes cards in one location (territory/deck) and puts them in another location (hand/hand). Ability B then does something to a subset of those cards (shuffles heroes in hand/plays a GE from hand). Ability C then tries to negate Ability A. Ability A can't be negated - or at least, not all of the cards in the new location can be returned to their original location, since Ability B moved those cards somewhere else. Therefore, the cards moved by Ability B remain where they are.
Seems to me that saying "The GE you played off of Reach stays in battle but is negated" makes no sense based on current Redemption rules. This thread is evidence of that. In fact, it no longer matters that Play abilities are CBI - all that matters is that a different ability moved that card somewhere else.
* And no, the fact that there is a rule that states the GE in this exact situation is "Cascade-negated" does not support the position. The only reason this rule was created is either that the rules were misapplied in the past, or they've been changed/reinterpreted since then. Either way, that rule cannot defend itself, as that is circular reasoning (the conclusion is in the premises), akin to asking a company to audit their own books ;)
The scenarios are not exactly the same. This one is about where cards end up. The one you bring up is about whether cards are negated or not.
I agree with the principal that Josh is using here for his logic, in that, when you cascade negate a GE, it could make people think that all game mechanics work that way, which is why this thread went to where it went. Basically, if undoing an ability cascades through all abilities used after the undone ability, most people would guess that you would bring cards back from the deck in the Hypocrisy/Mayhem example, BECAUSE the game has a precedent to allow things to worm through. The location vs negation isnt really the issue on this principal - it's how much of the game state gets undone (read "fix") after an ability is negated - logically, if things get "fixed" due to cascade negation (ability B targets A but affects N), then logically things getting "fixed" due to moving zones would follow (ability B targets A and affects N) essentially.
I would rather it all be consistent like Josh mentioned because it makes logical sense that shuffled heroes would not be returned. </insert two cents here>
-
The scenarios are not exactly the same. This one is about where cards end up. The one you bring up is about whether cards are negated or not.
If you take a step back, you can see they are actually identical.
First, entertain the thought for a second that the "Enhs played by Play abilities that were drawn via a Draw ability are cascade-negated when the Draw ability is negated" rule does not exist. Set it aside for a moment.
Second, think about what is happening in the Reach scenario. Reach moves cards from one location to another (deck to hand). Then the Play ability moves cards from that location somewhere else (moves a GE from hand to battle).
Then, the opponent tries to negate Reach's Draw ability. Just like with Hypocrisy, you go to the location that Reach's Draw ability moved cards to (which was to hand) and find all cards that Reach moved to that location. You find 2, since Reach put the 3rd in play and it isn't in hand anymore. So those 2 cards to back to deck.
At this point, the discussion should end. Everything is exactly like the Hypocrisy/Mayhem scenario. The fact that the GE was played in battle (as opposed to going to some other location, like Reserve, Discard, etc) is completely irrelevant. It's not in the location that the Draw ability put it, so when the Draw ability is negated, the GE stays where it is.
This is why the Cascade-negate ruling on enhancements played by Play abilities is an antiquated artifact of olden days. We know better now. The Hypocrisy/Mayhem scenario is exactly the same - the only thing that seems to be throwing us for a loop is the fact that the GE moved to a new location actually activates. If we slow down and take a look at the situation assuming that "Cascade negate of the GE" doesn't exist, then you realize it shouldn't exist. Our existing rule structure handles the situation perfectly.
-
I see what you're saying, but the difference is that Reach has two abilities (well three, but we're not worried about the ItB right now), one of which is negatable (the draw) and one of which is not (the play).
Ergo Reach is actually moving the card twice (deck to hand and hand to play) whereas Hypocrisy is only moving cards once (play to hand), which is why these scenarios are not the same.
Because the "deck to hand" is negatable, the GE is cascaded even though it remains in play due to the "hand to play" being CBI.
-
I see what you're saying, but the difference is that Reach has two abilities (well three, but we're not worried about the ItB right now), one of which is negatable (the draw) and one of which is not (the play).
Ergo Reach is actually moving the card twice (deck to hand and hand to play) whereas Hypocrisy is only moving cards once (play to hand), which is why these scenarios are not the same.
Because the "deck to hand" is negatable, the GE is cascaded even though it remains in play due to the "hand to play" being CBI.
Im not trying to be silly...
I followed Josh's logic pretty easily, but I really do not understand what you are saying. Could you repeat it in different words? It may be the way I learn or communicate, but Im having a hard time seeing the difference of principal, which makes me "feel" confused by your statement.
-
I see what you're saying, but the difference is that Reach has two abilities (well three, but we're not worried about the ItB right now), one of which is negatable (the draw) and one of which is not (the play).
Ergo Reach is actually moving the card twice (deck to hand and hand to play) whereas Hypocrisy is only moving cards once (play to hand), which is why these scenarios are not the same.
Because the "deck to hand" is negatable, the GE is cascaded even though it remains in play due to the "hand to play" being CBI.
I am not quite understanding what you are getting at either. It seems like JM found (basically) an identical situation. Yes reach has two abilities, but in the hypocrisy mayhem scenario there are also two distinct abilities vs a negate.