Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Very true, but the remove occurs at the same time as the interrupt and is privy to the occupied trigger:

I think the key here is that the capture does complete (since it is an instant ability) and that causes a check for special initiative.  At that point the player plays an interrupt card, and at that point the capture becomes incomplete again.  Then the interrupt card's SA activates, and at that point the Herod's Dungeon site is empty again (since the capture is incomplete at this point).

or in this case shimei's malicious curse played on omri

Yes it would.

I may be confused about this, so bear with me a moment. My understanding is that the reason negating Omri is not enough, is that special initiative only extends to attempting to stop the card that is directly responsible. Is this not the case?

Yes, were talking that if Omri's effect was Negated later on, is the Site shuffled? That's what he's asking.

Madness.  Definitely madness.

This is about how mad it sounds.

I either play an interrupt on a hero that is not there or I play an interrupt that doesn't work because it is not fulfilling the requirement.

Wow... that would be weird.

I do disagree.  Personally, I prefer that "special initiative" is only used for the losing by removal scenario, and it indeed requires the impacted player to play an interrupt or negate in battle by itself (no hero) in order to reverse the losing by removal scenario.  Quit screwing around with timing of instant abilities.

Ideally, I think what would be best is too radical for the current Redemption community.  I think the interrupt/negate that is played in a losing by removal scenario should play like healing and territory class enhancements - it should match the brigade of a character in territory.  [unnecessary personal criticism]

Quote from: Minister Polarius on December 29, 2011, 12:39:05 PM

The prevailing ruling is that "special initiative" takes place during the state of the battle pre-resolution of whatever's doing the removing.

Pol is correct.  I understand what your are saying STAMP, and it's not a bad way to look at it.  But it's not the way that "special initiative" has been ruled in the past.  You are choosing to see the interrupt as happening after the capture.  The current ruling basically sees the interrupt as going back in time to before the capture.  Either one could make sense, but without compelling reason, it doesn't make sense to me to go against the status quo.

To be honest, I/P/N and CBI/CBP/CBN is so wack right now...whatever.

This is the most logical solution, though:

Ideally, I think what would be best is too radical for the current Redemption community.  I think the interrupt/negate that is played in a losing by removal scenario should play like healing and territory class enhancements - it should match the brigade of a character in territory.  [unnecessary personal criticism - yet nesessary for some]

Stamp, I think what you're suggesting would just be more confusing.

Interrupt by nature means that something has started to happen, but you don't let it finish.

By your definition, Taylor Swift would have been able to give her whole speech before Kanye's interruption.