Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Ken4Christ4ever on August 27, 2011, 10:31:32 PM
-
I ruled on this at an unofficial tournament a week ago and would like some clarification on if I ruled correctly, or if my ruling should have been different since I hadn't considered the situation before...
A hero and an evil character were in battle. The hero played a negate-able enhancement to get rid of the evil character. The evil character played an interrupt and band enhancement to bring in Egyptian Charioteers.
-Does Egyptian Charioteers prevent the special ability on the enhancement that was interrupted?
-Does it prevent the special ability on the next good enhancement that would be played after that?
-If it's the latter (or something else), is this still a legal play, and could the evil character then play another enhancement to interrupt/negate the good enhancement?
I ruled that Egyptian Charioteers prevented the special ability on the good enhancement that had already been played since it had been interrupted, but I am not confident in my ruling and am glad it was during an unofficial tournament!
Thoughts?
Egyptian Charioteers (H)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Gold • Ability: 6 / 8 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: Prevent the special ability of the next enhancement opponent plays this battle. • Identifiers: Generic OT Male Human, Egypt, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Exodus 14:7 • Availability: H Deck
-----------------------------------------------------------
Second question: Related to the first replies.
If a player defends with Egyptian Warden, discards an evil gold negate enhancement and targets the only hero in battle, and the hero plays something that negates his ability, can Egyptian Warden use the negate enhancement he was going to discard? I bring this up because I feel like it relates to what has been played/used/discarded/etc with interrupt/negate abilities, and I'm confused!
Egyptian Warden (FF)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Gold • Ability: 4 / 5 • Class: None • Special Ability: You may discard an evil gold Enhancement from hand to capture a human Hero in battle. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Egypt • Verse: Genesis 39:22 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)
-
Reserved for witty remark.
Also, I think he would prevent the next enhancement, since the previous one has already hit the table.
-
When you interrupt, you don't interrupt the playing of the last enhancement, just its ability. Since it has already been played, I do not believe Charioteers would prevent it, but I do believe you could still interrupt and band him in if you want.
-
Thanks for those replies. If that's the case, take a look at my second question I added. Obviously the easiest solution is to stop allowing Egyptians! ;)
-
If Warden's negated, the discarding of the enhancement is also negated, so it returns to hand.
-
Kittens is correct. However, if you then use that negate to negate their ability-negator his ability would fizzle anyway as the card you discarded is not in the discard pile when his ability resolves again and, thus, you didn't pay the cost.
-
Then to me those two rulings seem to be contradictory... In the first scenario I'm hearing that the enhancement is still in play and therefore isn't targeted as the "next enhancement" even though it will be the next ability to activate. In the second scenario the enhancement is back in my hand. Can someone help me understand this? Thank you!
-
Egyptian Warden isn't playing the enhancement, he is just discarding it.
In the first case the enhancement is still in play so it can't be the next enhancement.
In the second case Warden's ability is being negated so the enhancement is back in your hand so you can play it
-
Okay, I think I can see the difference. What about if the hero Egyptian Warden was capturing played an interrupt, play next enhancement, and then an enhancement that discarded a card at random from opponent's hand? Would the evil enhancement Egyptian Warden was discarding be in the discard pile already, or could it be targeted by the enhancement as being in hand? Perhaps this is a better scenario because the ability is being interrupted, like the other, but not negated.
-
I don't know if interrupt the battle interrupts the discard part of Egyptian Warden, since its not ongoing, an ability causing removal or the last enhancement played.
-
I don't know if interrupt the battle interrupts the discard part of Egyptian Warden, since its not ongoing, an ability causing removal or the last enhancement played.
actually the discard part of Egyptian warden IS causing him to lose by removal via capture.( he is discardsing the enhancement TO capture so its a cost and effect ability) so if that ability is intterupted then the enhancement would go to hand if then the enhancement was discarded somehow i believe wardens abilty would fizzle for the reason browarod said
^_^
-
Okay, I think I can see the difference. What about if the hero Egyptian Warden was capturing played an interrupt, play next enhancement, and then an enhancement that discarded a card at random from opponent's hand? Would the evil enhancement Egyptian Warden was discarding be in the discard pile already, or could it be targeted by the enhancement as being in hand? Perhaps this is a better scenario because the ability is being interrupted, like the other, but not negated.
It would be in hand, you'd have a chance of killing it. Though this is very convoluted to me.
-
I agree with ChristianSoldier that Interrupt the Battle would interrupt the capture, not the discard.
-
So there are two separate abilities?
-
So there are two separate abilities?
It is a cost/benefit. You can pay the cost and not get the benefit.
For instance, you could play a card that says "Make a nearly impossible hockey shot to get $50,000." Hypothetically you could make the shot, but not get the $50,000.
-
For instance, you could play a card that says "Make a nearly impossible hockey shot to get $50,000." Hypothetically you could make the shot, but not get the $50,000.
10 Points for a tie-in to current events!
However, here are my thoughts:
Say you interrupt the battle and prevent the special ability on an evil card in play (same thing as negating). Since negate applies to both cost and benefit, I would think that the interrupt/prevent also applies to both cost and the benefit. In that case, an interrupt/prevent ability would have to interrupt both the cost and the benefit in order to prevent them.
Thus justifying interrupting the cost. :o
-
The only thing is that Interrupt the Battle is not the same as a negate. ItB has very specific targets.
-
The REG uses King Zimri as the example for a special ability that can be interrupted with ItB and it says nothing about the cost not being interrupted (and everyone I know that's used abilities like that have always undone the cost if the card is interrupted), it just says "opponent's special abilites."
Elder confirmation either way would be nice since YMT is ruling it differently than I had thought (and been ruling it).
-
I was taught that ITB against cards like King Zimri and Egyptian Warden would put the discarded card back into the players hand. That's how I've always played it and seen it played.
I also see YMT's point of view on this and understand his logic.
Right now I don't have time to look into this in more detail but I'll try to get back to it soon.
-
I was taught that ITB against cards like King Zimri and Egyptian Warden would put the discarded card back into the players hand. That's how I've always played it and seen it played.
This has also been my experience, so that's probably the safest way to rule this issue at present. However, I don't feel strongly yet whether it should stay that way or change to YMT's way of thinking. I'm open to further discussion :)
-
I agree with Gabe and Prof Underwood. That has been the ruling.
-
So a couple of Elders agree with my logic, but we're ruling the way it always has been ruled anyway? :scratch:
I don't mind being wrong, but I would at least like to know why I am wrong. I realize that negate and negate all would return the discarded card, but why would ItB return the discarded card?
-
So a couple of Elders agree with my logic, but we're ruling the way it always has been ruled anyway? :scratch:
Understanding your point of view isn't the same as agreeing with you. ;)
Busy weekend ahead but I'll try to take the time to explain this soon.
-
No offense, butif there are arguments for both sides, I'd rather see it continue to be ruled the same way. Simpler for me.
-
Yeah, it pretty much boils down to having 2 options, both of which are workable systems. So we go with status quo.
-
Yeah, it pretty much boils down to having 2 options, both of which are workable systems. So we go with status quo.
So, I will not understand the ruling, but I will rule it that way anyway. Is that the conclusion of the Elders? I will do as I am told, but I want to be sure that there was not an explanation forthcoming. I can wait for a valid explanation.
This will affect how I rule other future combos. So in a cost/effect ability, the cost is not completed until the benefit is gained?
-
It might work better for you if you think of it this way. Cost/benefit abilities are usually one special ability with two parts, a cost and a benefit. If you interrupt/negate the ability you interrupt the whole thing, not just the benefit.
-
It might work better for you if you think of it this way. Cost/benefit abilities are usually one special ability with two parts, a cost and a benefit. If you interrupt/negate the ability you interrupt the whole thing, not just the benefit.
I would agree in the case of a negate or negate all, but ItB does not interrupt completed instant abilities. So the only way ItB could interrupt Egyptian Warden's cost is if the cost was not completed.
Again, I am not trying to be a pain (well, not this time). I just want to understand for when similar situations occur. If the verdict is "stick with the status quo," then I will do so willingly.
-
ITB does interrupt complete instant abilities if they are causing you to be removed from battle.
-
ITB does interrupt complete instant abilities if they are causing you to be removed from battle.
So you are saying that the answer to this question:
So in a cost/effect ability, the cost is not completed until the benefit is gained?
..... is "yes." You do not actually ever complete the cost (discard) until the benefit is completed (capture)? If this is true, then that is how we must rule every cost/benefit card. Correct?
-
You do not actually ever complete the cost (discard) until the benefit is completed (capture)? If this is true, then that is how we must rule every cost/benefit card. Correct?
I don't have a definitive answer to the original question yet, but I know that this last statement is NOT correct. You can pay the cost of a card without gaining the benefit of that cost. For example if a card lets you discard a hero to draw a card, but there is a card out that prevents all drawing, then you can still discard the hero (but not draw the card).
-
ITB does interrupt complete instant abilities if they are causing you to be removed from battle.
So you are saying that the answer to this question:
So in a cost/effect ability, the cost is not completed until the benefit is gained?
..... is "yes." You do not actually ever complete the cost (discard) until the benefit is completed (capture)? If this is true, then that is how we must rule every cost/benefit card. Correct?
This sounds like YMT's coming up with a combo.
-
I was not responding to that question, I was responding to the assertion that ITB does not interrupt completed abilities. I'm not even really sure what this thread is about, currently, I was just addressing that one point.
-
For example if a card lets you discard a hero to draw a card, but there is a card out that prevents all drawing, then you can still discard the hero (but not draw the card).
I don't see how this is different than an ItB on Egyptian Warden, then. Paying the cost is a completed instant ability. Only the benefit (capture) is being interrupted, just like only the drawing is being prevented in your example.
-
If the phrasing was "Do this. If you do that, do this other thing," I'd agree with you. In this case, it's one sentence, and in my mind, one ability.
-
I don't see how this is different than an ItB on Egyptian Warden, then. Paying the cost is a completed instant ability. Only the benefit (capture) is being interrupted, just like only the drawing is being prevented in your example.
I understand your point, and if the majority of the elders want to change the ruling on this, I'm fine with it. I just see it both ways, and therefore don't have enough interest in changing a standing ruling to lead a discussion on the other side about it.
-
If the phrasing was "Do this. If you do that, do this other thing," I'd agree with you. In this case, it's one sentence, and in my mind, one ability.
Reach of Desperation is one sentence but it is considered 3 separate abilities, why shouldn't Cost/Benefit be two separate abilities that one of them requires the other one to be completed.
-
In the end it comes down to the fact that cost/gain-type abilities are connected to each other. The question is whether their connection is treated like any other set of multiple special abilities (they activate and are carried out separately and can be prevented, interrupted, negated, or whatever separately, except that the second ability cannot work if the first does not) or one single special ability (it activates as one ability and is interrupted, prevented, negated as one ability except that the first part can be carried out even if the second is not).
-
If I have a card that says "Prevent capture abilities" would that prevent me from discarding a card for Egyptian Warden even though the capture is prevented?
-
If I have a card that says "Prevent capture abilities" would that prevent me from discarding a card for Egyptian Warden even though the capture is prevented?
No, you can still pay the cost without gaining the benefit. If you had something that said "prevent discard abilities" you would not be able to capture.
Three elders have confirmed the ruling. What's it going to take for this discussion to end?
-
I think I forgot that it was decided, I have nothing against the ruling, I would just prefer it to be the other way, but not seriously enough to make a big deal about it.
-
Three elders have confirmed the ruling.
A ruling that contradicts how those Elders have agreed cost/benefit abilities work:
No, you can still pay the cost without gaining the benefit.
------------------------------------
What's it going to take for this discussion to end?
Apparently all that is needed is for me to shut up and go away, since that is what your logic is telling me to do.
OK, you win, for no other reason than you are the Elders and there's nothing I can do about it.
-
I'm sorry it doesn't make sense to you. It's been explained several times over. If I understood why you're not making the connection you know I'd be glad to help you.
-
If I understood why you're not making the connection you know I'd be glad to help you.
I thought I had explained my dilemma in detail. To sum up:
No, you can still pay the cost without gaining the benefit.
Cost: Discard (Instant completed ability)
Benefit: Capture (Instant ability causing removal)
ItB interrupts the latter, not the former.
Earlier you said this:
It might work better for you if you think of it this way. Cost/benefit abilities are usually one special ability with two parts, a cost and a benefit. If you interrupt/negate the ability you interrupt the whole thing, not just the benefit.
And yet, in subsequent discussion it was decided that you can prevent one part without preventing the other. This would seem to indicate that they are separate. Why is prevent ruled differently than interrupt (in regard to cost/benefit)?
-
And yet, in subsequent discussion it was decided that you can prevent one part without preventing the other. This would seem to indicate that they are separate. Why is prevent ruled differently than interrupt (in regard to cost/benefit)?
The examples that are being cited are not a broad prevent ability, they are a very specific prevent ability. "Prevent capture abilities" is not the same as "prevent the special ability on an evil character". The broad prevent will stop both the discard and capture on Egyptian Warden. The specific prevent will not stop the discard even though it's tied to the capture as a cost.
A broad interrupt is going to interrupt the entire ability on a card. A specific interrupt may only negate part of an ability. "Interrupt capture abilities" is specific and only stop the capture of Egyptian Warden. "Interrupt the battle" is broad and interrupts the whole ability, both parts, the cost and the benefit.
As far as I can tell the thing that causing confusion is that a sentence is considered a special ability on a character. "Do [this] to gain [that]." is one ability that consists of two parts.