Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: waffledodger on August 13, 2008, 10:55:42 AM
-
The scenario:
My opponent makes an RA with Miriam (4/4), I block with Sabbath Breakers (3/2), it's my initiative so I play Gold Shield (0/5, You may discard this card to convert a human Hero in play to a Hero in the brigade of your choice) to make Miriam white. It's still my initiative because Gold Shield is in the discard pile, so I play Dishonest Trader (3/3) to give Miriam initiative.
The question:
Can she play a green negate?
-
No.
-
Yeah, that's why this card is so nice. ;)
-
The scenario:
I make an RA with Miriam (4/4), blocked by King Rezin holding Gold Shield, who discards it to make Miriam white. Can I play a green negate-last?
-
no.
-
The scenario:
I make an RA with Miriam (4/4), blocked by King Rezin holding Gold Shield, who discards it to make Miriam white. Can I play a green negate-last?
Based on all the evidence from the rulebook, REG and past discussions, you can play a negate-last in green or any negate in white.
-
The scenario:
I make an RA with Miriam (4/4), blocked by King Rezin holding Gold Shield, who discards it to make Miriam white. Can I play a green negate-last?
Based on all the evidence from the rulebook, REG and past discussions, you can play a negate-last in green or any negate in white.
what evidence?
i seem to recall a similiar discussion with third heaven. if you choose an evil negate with third heaven, they cannot use that negate to negate third heaven because it is in the deck...giving substance to the notion that special abilities are allowed to fulfill before being negated. since the hero is now white, a green negate cannot be used.
-
Here's how to fix the problem: Always use Gold Shield with Naman*! :D
*Naaman
-
I think STAMP's referring to the CTB/exchange scenarios that transfer initiative.
-
What we're talking about here is a new precedent since Golden Shield is the first card to convert a Hero but allow it to keep it's Hero status. In the past convert cards removed the character from battle which caused initiative to be passed. Since Golden Shield doesn't cause the character to leave battle and the SA does not (directly) cause them to lose, I would rule that the Hero does not get initiative to play an interrupt/negate in their prior brigade, only in the new brigade that is chosen by Golden Shield.
Gabe
-
I think STAMP's referring to the CTB/exchange scenarios that transfer initiative.
Exactly. I'm treating the conversion of Miriam as though I kicked green Miriam out of battle and put in white Miriam.
-
clearly no hero is being kicked out of battle though...
-
man... if you CANT negate it... then i just got a super evil defensive combo.
-
If I convert Mirian to a gold evil character, can I only negate with a gold evil Enhancement?
-
No, because she is leaving battle because she has turned into an EC... so you may interrupt it...
-
Would she not also be leaving battle because Rezin is beating her numerically?
-
Yes but.. Gold Shield is NOT the reason she is being beaten, so that isnt giving her initiative, being beaten by Rezin is, meaning there is no reason to interrupt the battle, since you dont need to interrupt numbers.
-
But in choose-blocker scenarios, the character in battle is not the original, but whichever was chosen by e.g. Obedience of Noah.
So I'm still trying to understand why you can play an interrupt in every other instance I can think of where initiative is transferred, including in a brigade no longer in battle, but you can't interrupt this in green.
Lambo - interrupt the battle interrupts the last Enhancement if it was played by an opponent. There is no qualifier of "if the Enhancement is beating your Hero", since last I checked, I could still interrupt Hard Bondage with ITB. "who" or "what" is beating Miriam does not factor into the scenario.
-
The difference between your examples and the situation at hand is that in your examples a character is leaving battle (converted to a EC or forced out by choose the blocker). The REG talks about gaining intitative to interrupt/negate when a character is being removed, not when they remain in battle. A Hero who's brigade is changed is still a Hero and is not being removed from battle. Initiative is not transfered by a brigade change.
-
Choose Blocker situations do not transfer initiative due to the character leaving battle. It transfers initiative due to the new character having the appropriate numbers to transfer initiative.
The REG does NOT talk about interrupting ONLY when a character is being removed. I want you to show me the passage that says if you play Hard Bondage, I cannot interrupt it because no Hero is removed from battle.
Any time initiative transfers, you may play an interrupt, and I am not aware of any rule that says otherwise. Every argument that I have seen as to why a green interrupt should not be allowed, we have rules and scenarios that allow interrupts in every single one of those situations.
-
Another way to look at it is Gold Shield is allowing the blocker to choose the rescuer. By converting it's brigade, the blocker is choosing a different rescuer.
-
That seems to be a very strange way to look at it. I don't see it as choosing anyone different at all, just changing one attribute of the same one that was there, is there, and will be there.
-
also, look at it this way. since miriam is now white and has initiative, she can play white enhancements. so lets say for the sake of argument that she plays a slew of white enhancements that do not transfer initiative to the evil character in battle. since she still has initiative after all that, do you think its right that she now proceeds to play a green negate-last to negate gold shield?
of course not.
-
Hey, I'm not saying this is a new type of card, because it is. I'm just saying I agree with Schaef that the current rule scheme supports being able to negate Gold Shield with either brigade.
-
John: RA Leah, block King Tiglath-Pileser with 2kH, he plays Confusion. Leah proceeds to convert, discard, and do whatever she feels like to your territory. Since she still has initiative after all that, I *do* think it's right that she plays Bow and Arrow to negate Confusion. This is a parallel situation, and so I think the "of course not" was unmerited.
-
since miriam is now white and has initiative, she can play white enhancements. so lets say for the sake of argument that she plays a slew of white enhancements that do not transfer initiative to the evil character in battle. since she still has initiative after all that, do you think its right that she now proceeds to play a green negate-last to negate gold shield?
I'm pretty sure you can't do that with choose-blocker either, so I don't know what is your point in saying it's not fair to make an illegal play.
But if you can do it with one, you can do it with both.
Besides, negating the switch would also negate all the Enhancements played in the new brigade. So that doesn't seem advisable to me.
-
I think that I agree with Schaef as well.
If a hero is given initiative following the playing (and discarding) of Gold Shield, then I think that they could play a negate last enhancement in either their original brigade or their new brigade.
-
If I play a white enhancement other than an interrupt or negate on Mirian when she is converted to white, I forfeit the ability to play a green negate-last. If at some point later on I play Blessings, guess what? Miriam is back to green and the white enhancements go bye-bye.
-
John: RA Leah, block King Tiglath-Pileser with 2kH, he plays Confusion. Leah proceeds to convert, discard, and do whatever she feels like to your territory. Since she still has initiative after all that, I *do* think it's right that she plays Bow and Arrow to negate Confusion. This is a parallel situation, and so I think the "of course not" was unmerited.
except in your situation here, leah is not trying to play an enhancement that does not match her color. big difference there, buddy.
-
If I play a white enhancement other than an interrupt or negate on Mirian when she is converted to white, I forfeit the ability to play a green negate-last.
evidence, please.
-
1) Show me how a white brigade Hero can use a green brigade enhancement.
The same way a blue Hero can interrupt when it's a green Hero that has initiative after Lies.
2) Show me how a green Miriam, losing by the numbers is losing any worse by becoming a white Miriam.
A green Miriam that has not yet been blocked is not losing by the numbers, and if there is an Evil Character in battle, and has initiative to play gold Shield, the green Miriam cannot be losing by the numbers in that case either. Therefore, there is no need to demonstrate this scenario to come to this conclusion.
-
If I play a white enhancement other than an interrupt or negate on Mirian when she is converted to white, I forfeit the ability to play a green negate-last. If at some point later on I play Blessings, guess what? Miriam is back to green and the white enhancements go bye-bye.
I don't think Blessing will negate Golden Shield when it's in the discard pile.
Excellent point. But I'm handicapped by age. ;)
2) Show me how a green Miriam, losing by the numbers is losing any worse by becoming a white Miriam.
Because green Miriam lost. She's gone. No longer in battle. It doesn't matter whether she changes to an evil or good brigade, green Miriam lost. The rescuer has initiative and can play an interrupt on the brigade color of any losing character.
If everyone is hung up on the unique character aspect, let's look at a choose the blocker scenario involving a unique character: the blocker chooses their green David to replace the King David in battle. It's still David just like it's still Miriam. But in the former the rescuer can play a purple or green negate.
-
That's not the same Hero though, is it?
I don't know why that is relevant. Initiative has transferred. There is no rule I'm aware of that says you may or may not interrupt based on which of multiple Heroes is in battle. If you played Coliseum Lions on a banded Hero, I'm pretty sure I can interrupt on that Hero and not ONLY on the colors remaining in battle.
Now do you see the need to demonstrate?
No. There was never an instance where green Miriam was losing, and then converted to white Miriam. Miriam was unblocked, and then the blocker was presented, and then she was losing. One play transferred initiative to her. I thought this was the scenario we had been discussing this whole time, and don't understand your compulsion to lay out a scenario we're already talking about.
-
My point exactly. So how does white Miriam get initiative to play a green enhancement?
Because green Miriam was in battle prior to the previous play. Just like a green Hero was in battle before Coliseum Lions was played. Just like a green Hero was in battle before Lies was played.
The green Hero cannot interrupt Lies because she is being removed from battle. The green Hero can interrupt Lies because the resulting numerical difference transfers initiative. If the EC had initiative after Lies, the green Hero could not play an interrupt just for the sake of stopping her removal. The transfer of initiative is the keystone, and this play transfers initiative.
-
There was never an instance where green Miriam was losing, and then converted to white Miriam.
My point exactly. So how does white Miriam get initiative to play a green enhancement?
There was never an instance where green Miriam was losing by the numbers.
-
Coliseum Lions?
Obedience of Noah?
-
I fail to see whatever connection it is that you make between those cards and Golden Shield.
You seem to think that Gold Shield precludes interrupts from a color that's no longer around because it completes. Those cards do the same thing. I assume you do not claim they cannot be interrupted with a green card if only a white Hero remained.
-
How do you play Golden Shield and give initiative to Miriam without transferring initiative.
If you don't have initiative, you can't play Gold Shield. If you don't give away initiative, Miriam doesn't get to interrupt anyway.
-
Golden Shield is a weapon. Sorry, I assumed that you knew that.
I really don't think there's any need to be sarcastic. Again, we all have been proceeding from the same dataset.
You don't need initiative to activate a weapon in this manner.
How do you play an Evil Character if it's not your turn to play a card? Alternately, barring "end the battle immediately", under what situation does playing a card into battle not result in an initiative check?
-
The green Hero cannot interrupt Lies because she is being removed from battle. The green Hero can interrupt Lies because the resulting numerical difference transfers initiative. If the EC had initiative after Lies, the green Hero could not play an interrupt just for the sake of stopping her removal. The transfer of initiative is the keystone, and this play transfers initiative.
so to clarify for my understanding:
White Miriam gets to play a green interrupt because the act of converting her to white coincided with giving her initiative, even though the conversion itself didn't have anything to do with initiative transferring.
-
The conversion is an ability on the weapon. The weapon activates as part of playing the Evil Character. You playing the Evil Character (plus weapon) is what gave Miriam initiative.
In every other instance I have seen in the game where a certain color Hero is no longer in battle, the transfer of initiative allows you to play an interrupt in the color that was there prior to the last play. I see no reason why a color change would be any different, since the deciding factor is not whether or not a certain ability causes a player to be losing, but the transfer of initiative. Hard Bondage does not remove a Hero from battle, but the 2/2 can transfer initiative and allow the player to interrupt, even though the ability is not causing the Hero to be removed from battle. Obedience of Noah can be interrupted by the old EC, not because it is being removed from battle, but because the new EC has initiative by numbers. And so on.
-
Gotcha. That clears things up for me somewhat.
I think my confusion stems from the fact that while there used to be a green hero in the battle and now there isn't, no one was removed from battle. In the other instances where you can play an interrupt of a brigade that isn't in battle it is because someone was removed from battle (to my knowledge).
-
Right, but I don't see how the removal from battle is a necessity. All you have to do is transfer initiative. Every other time you get to play an interrupt, all you need is initiative passed to you. And every other instance where Heroes of another color are and then are not in battle, you're allowed to interrupt based on the state prior to the playing of the card, even if you have other-color Heroes still around to fight.
If my conclusion is not the case, it's based on an extremely narrow set of circumstances that seem counter-intuitive. You can interrupt every time initiative goes to you, every time there's a change in the battling brigades, and every time there's a conversion, but not if you have a conversion that changes the brigade and passes initiative to you? I understand this card is different from most others, as we haven't really had cross-color conversion within the same alignment before, but every comparable situation I've seen so far tells me allow the green interrupt.
-
Scenario: Naaman w/ Gold Shield blocks King David. It's stalemate by the numbers but I decide to use Gold Sheild when it's ability activates,making King David gold brigade, which makes it my inititive by the numbers.
Is that true?
-
Of course it is. I have not ignored anything. I asked you counter-questions already to question the relevance of your question. I have not seen a response from you on that front, so I'm not the one stalling this line of thought.
Since you also responded to me a couple of times continuing that exact discussion, I don't know why you would even claim I've ignored the question; such a claim is very demonstrably false. I'm really baffled by this whole situation, which you've brought forth numerous times, where you're either explaining a scenario to me while we're in the middle of discussing it, or accusing me of ignoring it under the same circumstances. I mean, if we're talking about it, obviously I'm aware of what we're talking about, and I can't be ignoring it if I'm discussing it. What's going on?
-
I think I might get it. So can I safely say that if a single act passes initiative, I can interrupt based on the state of things before that single act?
-
I think I might get it. So can I safely say that if a single act passes initiative, I can interrupt based on the state of things before that single act?
this is the hole in schaefs logic. how can you possibly play an interrupt based on what the state of the game was before you played that interrupt? you can only interrupt based on what the state of the game is NOW, unless a hero/ec is being targeted for removal that causes you to lose the battle.
scenario: claudia bands to ethiopian treasurer. block 1/1 black king. king initiative, proceeds to play net on claudia. still king initiative. proceeds to play pushed back, which would transfer initiative to the rescuing player because it is now causing him to lose the battle. is it feasible to say that you may then play ehuds dagger because claudia was in the field of battle way back when? of course not.
special abilities are allowed to resolve before an interrupt. again, i bring up my third heaven scenario: if you choose an evil negate card to put back into opponents deck with third heaven, the defending player cannot play that negate card, even to negate third heaven, because third heaven has resolved successfully, and the negate card is no longer there. same scenario. briangabe is absolutely correct. the resolution of gold shield and the check to see if miriam now has initiative based on losing by the numbers does NOT happen simultaneously. gold shield is allowed to resolve first. game checks to see if rescuing player would possibly have initiative to play an interrupt because they are losing the battle by the effect of gold shield. they are not. game then checks for intiative based on the numbers in battle. initiative now transfers to miriam, of which it is now too late to play a green interrupt because she is no longer green. end of story.
-
this is the hole in schaefs logic.
Better make sure before you make that claim.
You can only interrupt based on what the state of the game is NOW, unless a hero/ec is being targeted for removal that causes you to lose the battle.
Choose the rescuer does not cause you to lose the battle.
Discarding one of a collection of banded characters does not cause you to lose the battle.
My logic is supported by the rules. The hole is in your understanding of them.
is it feasible to say that you may then play ehuds dagger because claudia was in the field of battle way back when? of course not.
That's not even remotely close to the argument. Among other problems with that scenario, Gold Shield is discarded when played and can only be targeted by a negate-last. Playing additional Enhancements prior to Ehud's Dagger makes it impossible to use it to negate Net as the "last" Enhancement.
again, i bring up my third heaven scenario: if you choose an evil negate card to put back into opponents deck with third heaven, the defending player cannot play that negate card, even to negate third heaven, because third heaven has resolved successfully, and the negate card is no longer there. same scenario.
It's not the same scenario because the situation is completely different. We are talking about the state of characters in battle, not the state of your hand.
the resolution of gold shield and the check to see if miriam now has initiative based on losing by the numbers does NOT happen simultaneously.
This does not happen with ANY special ability. What is the point of this statement?
game checks to see if rescuing player would possibly have initiative to play an interrupt because they are losing the battle by the effect of gold shield. they are not. game then checks for intiative based on the numbers in battle.
This is completely wrong. There is no "initiative to interrupt" that is different from "initiative". You either have initiative or you don't. If you have initiative, you can interrupt.
Otherwise, show me in the rules where two separate initiative checks are made.
-
you're right, if you have initiative, you may interrupt. however, your miriam is WHITE now. feel free to use your white negate-last enhancements. what makes you think you can rewind the current state of the game and play a card based on what it was before (hence, the claudia/et scenario)?
also, the passing of initiative is a never-ending state. play a card, check for initiative. miriam turned to white? check for initiative based on the resolution of gold shield. causing miriam to lose? no. check for initiative based on numbers. miriam now losing, she may play enhancements as she chooses. however, they must be white or multi-color, because gold shield was already resolved previously.
-
Everything I typed above. Did you read any of it?
-
I did, and I agree with the KChief.
-
The KChief's conclusion is contradictory to the rules, and invents other rules where none exist.
-
Everything I typed above. Did you read any of it?
absolutely, but it basically boils down to a 'you're wrong, im right' kind of ideal with no supporting arguments whatsoever. i choose to ignore narrow-minded statements.
let me break this down to you: special abilities are allowed to R-E-S-O-L-V-E before the interrupt. miriam has changed to a white hero by the time she is able to play a negate. she can not magically turn herself into green to play that negate.
-
absolutely, but it basically boils down to a 'you're wrong, im right' kind of ideal with no supporting arguments whatsoever.
This is another completely untrue statement. I have given you numerous examples where your conclusion does not hold up under the rules. No response from you. I have pointed out where your examples are wrong. No response from you. I have pointed out where your statements of fact are flat-out wrong. No response from you. You have demonstrated in great detail what you choose to ignore, but sadly, it is not the thing you wrongly accuse me of making.
Now, at what point can we actually start talking honestly about what's being discussed?
miriam has changed to a white hero by the time she is able to play a negate. she can not magically turn herself into green to play that negate.
Why not? None of your previous reasons make sense; do you have one that does?
-
how many times are you going to gloss over the fact that gold shield has already
~~***RESOLVED***~~~
and is now long gone? miriam cannot play a negate because of gold shield resolving; she can only play an enhancement later on because initiative was transferred by numbers. not because of gold shield.
not because of gold shield.
not because of gold shield.
not because of gold shield.
-
It's a maturity war!
-
how many times are you going to gloss over the fact that gold shield has already RESOLVED and is now long gone?
Grand total for the entire thread? Zero. So how many times are you going to gloss over the fact that Obedience of Noah and Coliseum Lions have already resolved and are long gone.
This is a point that I've already made and you have yet to answer. I'm not holding up this disucssion.
miiriam cannot play a negate because of gold shield resolving; she can only play an enhancement later on because initiative was transferred by numbers. not because of gold shield.
The Evil Character and weapon were played together. Whether or not the Hero is losing because of Gold Shield's special ability is no more relevant than whether or not the Hero is losing because of Hard Bondage's special ability (hint: not).
Again, this is a point I've already made and you have yet to answer. I can't say it looks very dignified when you use huge fonts and repeated sentences to make a point I already answered pages ago. It makes much more sense to read what I already wrote long ago and answer that instead.
-
Hey,
* skips the last two pages of this dscussion *
If the last ability used in battle was a character defeating ability then you can play any negate that you can play in the current state of battle (after the character defeating ability), or you can play any negate that you could have played immediately prior to the last ability used in battle (before the character defeating ability).
If the last ability used in battle was not a character defeating ability then you can only play a negate that you can play in the current state of battle (after the last ability happened).
Choose the blocker (after a blocker was presented), Convert (from a Hero to an Evil Character), and Discard an evil card from hand or battle (if it discards an Evil Chracter in battle) are character defeating abilities. Thus you can negate based on the state of battle before or after the event.
Converting a hero from one brigade to another brigade is not a character defeating ability. Thus you can only negate it based on the state of battle after the abilty completes (i.e. with the new brigade).
For more information see the very old debate about Third Heaven discarding Devourer from hand (as previously referenced by Nesfeder.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Choose the blocker...are character defeating abilities.
In no way is this correct. Where do you get this?
Further, playing Coliseum Lions on one of several banded characters also does not defeat the opponent. Even skipping the previous two pages, you can see these were already brought to the table.
-
Hey,
* skips the last two pages of this dscussion *
If the last ability used in battle was a character defeating ability then you can play any negate that you can play in the current state of battle (after the character defeating ability), or you can play any negate that you could have played immediately prior to the last ability used in battle (before the character defeating ability).
If the last ability used in battle was not a character defeating ability then you can only play a negate that you can play in the current state of battle (after the last ability happened).
Choose the blocker (after a blocker was presented), Convert (from a Hero to an Evil Character), and Discard an evil card from hand or battle (if it discards an Evil Chracter in battle) are character defeating abilities. Thus you can negate based on the state of battle before or after the event.
Converting a hero from one brigade to another brigade is not a character defeating ability. Thus you can only negate it based on the state of battle after the abilty completes (i.e. with the new brigade).
For more information see the very old debate about Third Heaven discarding Devourer from hand (as previously referenced by Nesfeder.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
*breathless* thank you...thank you maly.
-
Converting a hero from one brigade to another brigade is not a character defeating ability.
How can you make that statement? This is the first time it is available in the game. Schaef has explained that based on how similar situations are handled in the game, this new situation works the same.
-
Scheaf, what does your position boil down to? You can negate based on the current or previous state of the battle, regardless of what the last enhancement was?
If you stated it, maybe I missed it - I skipped the last 2 pages, like Tim.
-
Converting a hero from one brigade to another brigade is not a character defeating ability.
How can you make that statement? This is the first time it is available in the game. Schaef has explained that based on how similar situations are handled in the game, this new situation works the same.
Because of logic. In the example, Miriam is losing by the numbers, not because she's white. In absolutely no case (unless white was being ignored or something) would converting her to white cause her to be losing the battle except by the numbers.
-
+1
yes, the ability to change a hero to the color of your choice is a new one, but its just logic. she is not losing the battle because she switched wardrobes. she is losing the battle because of numbers.
-
Scheaf, what does your position boil down to? You can negate based on the current or previous state of the battle, regardless of what the last enhancement was?
When initiative goes to you, you have the opportunity to interrupt the last Enhancement.
Based on several other existing scenarios in the game, it also seems that you can play an interrupt of a brigade no longer in battle, regardless of whether the special ability causes a loss by removal or not.
Because of logic. In the example, Miriam is losing by the numbers, not because she's white. In absolutely no case (unless white was being ignored or something) would converting her to white cause her to be losing the battle except by the numbers.
Obedience of Noah does not cause you to be losing the battle except by the numbers.
Coliseum Lions on one of several does not cause you to be losing the battle except by the numbers.
In both cases, you can play interrupts on the outgoing character.
Your logic proves my position.
yes, the ability to change a hero to the color of your choice is a new one, but its just logic. she is not losing the battle because she switched wardrobes. she is losing the battle because of numbers.
For what reason is that relevant as to the capacity to interrupt the last Enhancement played? It is not the case with any of the numerous other examples I have posted.
-
Obedience of Noah does not cause you to be losing the battle except by the numbers.
But Obedience of Noah forces an Evil Character out of battle, to which you may respond with an interrupt because the evil character is be removed from battle.
In the green to white Miriam case, she is not being forced out of battle.
-
since the 'intent' of the R&D team on some cards has been tossed around alot, maybe we should revisit it for this issue. schaef...do you have any idea on what the original 'intent' of the special ability on gold shield was meant to neuter?
-
furthermore fact or fiction?
If I play Lies on your hero, can you interrupt it?-yes. What about Sarah's Jealousy? Yes. In essence all I am doing is changing the color of the hero, even though it is someone new, the fact remains I could cause you to lose by numbers but the ability still gets interrupted. Gold Shield will work the same way, unless you make it CBN, end of story...I don't understand how we get any other result...
And while I agree about the removal from battle, by changing a color, in essence you are doing just that, removing the ability for primary colors to be played on a hero. So let's just change it to removal of anything causes a chance to interrupt, whether color, character or whatever...
-
But Obedience of Noah forces an Evil Character out of battle, to which you may respond with an interrupt because the evil character is be removed from battle.
No. You may respond with an interrupt because the new EC is losing by the numbers. If your opponent chose a high EC to give himself initiative, he gets to play more Enhancements and your opportunity to interrupt is gone.
Again, the notion that forcing out of battle is what allows the interrupt is not correct. Choose blocker resolves with initiative decided by the numbers, not by the removal of a character.
-
But Obedience of Noah forces an Evil Character out of battle, to which you may respond with an interrupt because the evil character is be removed from battle.
No. You may respond with an interrupt because the new EC is losing by the numbers. If your opponent chose a high EC to give himself initiative, he gets to play more Enhancements and your opportunity to interrupt is gone.
Again, the notion that forcing out of battle is what allows the interrupt is not correct. Choose blocker resolves with initiative decided by the numbers, not by the removal of a character.
Can you site the REG on this one?
-
Can you site the REG on this one?
Are you saying you don't check numbers for initiative after choosing a new blocker?
It is also a good strategy to NOT give your opponent initiative while replacing their characters so they can’t immediately negate it. (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/howtoplay.htm)
-
And while I agree about the removal from battle, by changing a color, in essence you are doing just that, removing the ability for primary colors to be played on a hero. So let's just change it to removal of anything causes a chance to interrupt, whether color, character or whatever...
yeeeeeeeah...thats really stretching it...
-
And while I agree about the removal from battle, by changing a color, in essence you are doing just that, removing the ability for primary colors to be played on a hero. So let's just change it to removal of anything causes a chance to interrupt, whether color, character or whatever...
yeeeeeeeah...thats really stretching it...
Why? it seems to me to be the path of logic people are trying to go with it...
-
Or not change it at all, and leave it at transfer of initiative. Since that's what allows you to negate a choose-character, or the removal of one of several characters from battle, even though the ability has resolved, and even though it is not a battle-winning/ending ability.
-
Moral of the story: play Gold Shield as a weapon on King Cushan-Rishathaim and prevent the negate, whatever color it is.
-
leave it as is? no ones officially ruled on it yet. you have arguments supporting your side (see case no. 4563.23 Several Heroes vs. Coliseum Lions, case no. 6756.32 Obediance of Noah vs. Big EC), we have arguments supporting ours (case no. 5654.76 Third Heaven vs. Devourer). both are valid arguments, and until official say-so, i have sufficient evidence to rule my side as such at tournaments i judge.
if anything, both points seem to be contradictory of each other. *sigh* only in redemption, only in redemption...
-
Moral of the story: play Gold Shield as a weapon on King Cushan-Rishathaim and prevent the negate, whatever color it is.
or naaman. wow, two nice ec's to use it on! :D
-
Hey,
Choose the blocker...are character defeating abilities.
In no way is this correct. Where do you get this?
Forcing a character out of battle is a character defeating ability. Choose the blocker after an initial blocker has been presented forces the initial blocker out of battle. Thus choose the blocker (after an initial blocker is presented as I specified) is a character defeating ability. Yay syllogisms!
Further, playing Coliseum Lions on one of several banded characters also does not defeat the opponent.
It's not about defeating the opponent, it's about defeating a character. If you have banded heroes such that Coliseum Lions removes the only hero of say Green Brigade from battle and gives the heroes initiative, you can use a green negate to bring back the green character.
Converting a hero from one brigade to another brigade is not a character defeating ability.
How can you make that statement? This is the first time it is available in the game.
Does changing a character's brigade necessarily bring harm to that character or stop it from redeeming a lost soul? Those are the characteristics of an effect that make it character defeating (by my understanding) and Gold Shield does not satisfy them.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Ok Im on Schaef's side with this one.
MCK, please define Interrupt for me?
If an interrupt doesnt temporarily UNDO the cards it interrupts, then what DOES it do? When I interrupt Gold Shield, I'm back to a Green Miriam.
With the way your arguing it, you couldnt interrupt Coliseum lions, because it already (ready for your favorite word?) RESOLVED and your in the discard pile now. How can you interrupt from the discard pile?
Same deal.
-
This week on WWRRWN World Wide Redemption Ruling Wars Network*
The scheaf and his mighty bannhammer of doom vs J. Nesfedder and his escelator kick of death....
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi22.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb317%2FRedemption_rocks%2Fredmage.jpg&hash=35574ca4f931e171db38d3b879906472d40a9cde) (https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi22.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb317%2FRedemption_rocks%2Fblackmage.jpg&hash=fe6a73f3c7e15b6da43267ad3a91177ea51f9960)
Who will win? Check out the fight this SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! ...SUNDAY!
* Brought to you by the "Lack of Ruling Awareness for a Better Tomorrow Community"
-
Ok Im on Schaef's side with this one.
MCK, please define Interrupt for me?
If an interrupt doesnt temporarily UNDO the cards it interrupts, then what DOES it do? When I interrupt Gold Shield, I'm back to a Green Miriam.
With the way your arguing it, you couldnt interrupt Coliseum lions, because it already (ready for your favorite word?) RESOLVED and your in the discard pile now. How can you interrupt from the discard pile?
Same deal.
read: maly's explanation. sweet, sweet logic ftw.
tkprr: i need a bigger hadoken.
-
Hey,
Choose the blocker...are character defeating abilities.
In no way is this correct. Where do you get this?
Forcing a character out of battle is a character defeating ability. Choose the blocker after an initial blocker has been presented forces the initial blocker out of battle. Thus choose the blocker (after an initial blocker is presented as I specified) is a character defeating ability. Yay syllogisms!
Further, playing Coliseum Lions on one of several banded characters also does not defeat the opponent.
It's not about defeating the opponent, it's about defeating a character. If you have banded heroes such that Coliseum Lions removes the only hero of say Green Brigade from battle and gives the heroes initiative, you can use a green negate to bring back the green character.
Converting a hero from one brigade to another brigade is not a character defeating ability.
How can you make that statement? This is the first time it is available in the game.
Does changing a character's brigade necessarily bring harm to that character or stop it from redeeming a lost soul? Those are the characteristics of an effect that make it character defeating (by my understanding) and Gold Shield does not satisfy them.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
For what little it's worth, I agree completely with Tim.
-
I would but it looked better with smaller hadokens.
-
read: maly's explanation. sweet, sweet logic ftw.
Please answer yourself. I want a direct answer... >.>
-
i can merely reiterate what maly said in laymans terms...
you may play the enhancement (using the example) on the green brigade hero that was discarded because the initiative was transferred as a result of him being discarded. gold shield in no way whatsoever has anything to do with miriam gaining initiative to play an enhancement...she would have it regardless of WHAT color she was.
-
i can merely reiterate what maly said in laymans terms...
you may play the enhancement (using the example) on the green brigade hero that was discarded because the initiative was transferred as a result of him being discarded. gold shield in no way whatsoever has anything to do with miriam gaining initiative to play an enhancement...she would have it regardless of WHAT color she was.
But... you said cards MUST RESOLVE. You made it very clear in your arguments.
~~***RESOLVED***~~~
because gold shield was already resolved previously.
So... using YOUR words, wouldnt Coloseum Lions resolve before an interrupt, meaning your hero is ALREADY in the discard pile, unable to play enhancements?
-
absolutely. but current rules state you may interrupt the battle if your hero is being removed from battle, which then causes you to lose the battle.
-
Ok well... if i can interrupt CL on my way to the discard pile, I can interrupt Gold Shield on my way to converting to a diff brigade, provided I have initiative.
-
you're looking at the situations as two parallel examples, when they are not.
in my example, you only have initiative because of numbers, not as a result of a card i played (besides my EC itself) that is making you lose the battle.
in your example, initiative transferred as a result of my playing of coliseum lions. therefore, you can interrupt it.
again, please see case Third Heaven vs. Devourer. Even if the EC has initiative after Third Heaven is played targeting the Devourer, the EC cannot 'reach back' to a state of the game that was happening prior to Third Heaven going off and play the targeted Devourer to negate Third Heaven.
-
Wow 7 pages on this simple of a question.
I predict that when the powers to be answer the question Miriam will not be able to play a green interrupt.
Everytribe (Multi Color Prophet, visited by the Redemption Ruling Angel)
-
This is like 12 angry men.
-
The woman wasn't wearing her glasses, the train made it too hard to hear. He isn't guilty.
-
Hey,
With the way your arguing it, you couldnt interrupt Coliseum lions, because it already (ready for your favorite word?) RESOLVED and your in the discard pile now. How can you interrupt from the discard pile?
Um, if you've checked the origin of the current rulings you will find that, by the current rules, Coliseum Lions does in fact resolve and the hero is in fact in the discard pile before you have a chance to play an interrupt or negate to counter it. Note the whole, "instantaneous abilities must complete before any other cards can be played," thing. The reason that, by the current rules, you can negate Coliseum Lions is that negate and interrupt abilities do not have to follow the rules that enhancements have to be played on a character of matching brigade that is in battle when they are negating or interrupting a character defeating ability.
Ok well... if i can interrupt CL on my way to the discard pile, I can interrupt Gold Shield on my way to converting to a diff brigade, provided I have initiative.
You seem to be missing the fact that there are two different kinds of abilities that are negated differently. Trying to negate a character defeating ability is different than trying to negate a non-character defeating ability. This is why negating Third Heaven, Foolish Advice, or a negate that negates Coat of Many Colors works differently than negating Coliseum Lions or Net.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Hey,
Choose the blocker...are character defeating abilities.
In no way is this correct. Where do you get this?
Forcing a character out of battle is a character defeating ability. Choose the blocker after an initial blocker has been presented forces the initial blocker out of battle. Thus choose the blocker (after an initial blocker is presented as I specified) is a character defeating ability. Yay syllogisms!
on this note, would that also mean the defending player is allowed to play a negate even if the evil character they switched into battle does transfer initiative to the rescuing opponent? would that not make the REG entry that schaef quoted obsolete?
-
leave it as is? no ones officially ruled on it yet.
Yes. Leave the ability to interrupt as it is currently played with other abilities.
we have arguments supporting ours (case no. 5654.76 Third Heaven vs. Devourer).
I already pointed out that Third Heaven is not relevant to the state of characters in battle.
Forcing a character out of battle is a character defeating ability.
Forced withdrawal is a "character defeating ability" (by which I can only assume you mean "causing to lose by removal", since that term is in the rules but "character defeating ability" is not). The REG entry for this specifically draws a distinction between choose-character and withdrawal ("This special ability differs from Withdraw from Battle on page 51"). So this analogy is false.
It's not about defeating the opponent, it's about defeating a character.
Defeat is determined in Battle Resolution. Defeated characters are characters who participated in the losing side of a battle. The two are equivalent.
Does changing a character's brigade necessarily bring harm to that character or stop it from redeeming a lost soul? Those are the characteristics of an effect that make it character defeating (by my understanding) and Gold Shield does not satisfy them.
Every other instance of initiative transferred to the opponent allows them to interrupt the last Enhancement played. There is no distinction made for a "character-defeating ability" and I see no reason why such a distinction has to be made.
gold shield in no way whatsoever has anything to do with miriam gaining initiative to play an enhancement...she would have it regardless of WHAT color she was.
I already gave examples of how you can interrupt an Enhancement using a brigade no longer in battle even when the ability does not result in losing by removal. You have not answered this point, nor has anyone else in the 8 pages of discussion thus far.
but current rules state you may interrupt the battle if your hero is being removed from battle, which then causes you to lose the battle.
I already gave you multiple examples of cases where you are not stating/applying the rules correctly. See above.
Trying to negate a character defeating ability is different than trying to negate a non-character defeating ability.
See above. I have been waiting for six pages for a satisfactory answer to this. Obedience of Noah et al do not defeat a character. Else, explain to me why I cannot interrupt Obedience of Noah immediately if you replace the blocker with a 12/12 EC and have initiative to continue playing cards. Because the two concepts are wholly incompatible (and only the second is supported by the rules).
-
Scenario: Naaman w/ Gold Shield blocks King David. It's stalemate by the numbers but I decide to use Gold Sheild when it's ability activates,making King David gold brigade, which makes it my inititive by the numbers.
Is that true?
Ok, so this scenario was agreed to be true. So let's do this the opposite way.
Naaman w/ Gold Shield blocks Prince Jonathon. Naaman is winning by the numbers, but decides to activate Gold Shield's ability to make Jonathon gold brigade. So, now, both characters are 8/8 AT THE TIME OF THE INITIATIVE CHECK. So, since blocker played last card, it is rescuer's initiative.
Now, why on earth can I can a Purple interrupt (or any purple card for that matter), when the state of he battle says Jonathon is gold? It makes no logical sense that the gold Jonathan is able to interrupt with his former color, seeing as changing colors is not making him lost the battle. Therefore, he gets intiative not by removal, but by losing the battle, hence, he has no time to interrupt the instant ability that was Jonathon switching bigades via Gold Shield.
That's just how I see it.
-
Now, why on earth can I can a Purple interrupt (or any purple card for that matter), when the state of he battle says Jonathon is gold? It makes no logical sense that the gold Jonathan is able to interrupt with his former color, seeing as changing colors is not making him lost the battle. Therefore, he gets intiative not by removal, but by losing the battle, hence, he has no time to interrupt the instant ability that was Jonathon switching bigades via Gold Shield.
I RA with Tribal Elder banded to Jonathan, you block with Babylonian Forces bearing Swift Horses, draw two and play Coliseum Lions to discard Tribal Elder. Now why on earth can a blue interrupt when the state of battle has only a purple Hero? It makes no logical sense, seeing as discarding Tribal Elder is not making Jonathan lose the battle. Therefore, he gets initiative not by removal, but by losing the battle, hence, there is no time to interrupt the instant ability that was Tribal Elder being discarded via Coliseum Lions.
See what I'm saying?
-
No, because I disagree with the ruling there. I don't see why I shuold get to play a blue negate when it's a purple hero in battle. Makes no sense. There is no blue hero in battle.
But, Golden Shield wise, Jonathon wouldn't be losing via special ability. He is losing the battle via numbers. Why should I get to use my purple interrupt just because he used to be purple a second ago?
I would go as far as amending the rules because I think that they are just ridiculous, but that's definatley not my call and definately won't happen.
-
But, Golden Shield wise, Jonathon wouldn't be losing via special ability.
He's not losing via special ability in my example either.
-
But, Golden Shield wise, Jonathon wouldn't be losing via special ability.
He's not losing via special ability in my example either.
That depends on how you look at it. I would say he is, because before the special ability of Coliseum Lions, he would be winning. After it he, he is losing. I am aware this is not how Redemption looks at it, but that's how I would see it (I think that's a fairly logical way to look at it).
-
Hey,
Defeat is determined in Battle Resolution. Defeated characters are characters who participated in the losing side of a battle. The two are equivalent.
I disagree with this, among other things in your post. If Potiphar's Wife blocks a banding chain, converts one of them, and then looses the battle to the rest, she defeated the character she converted and would cause it to be captured despite the fact that it was not on the loosing side of battle.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
Hey,
Defeat is determined in Battle Resolution. Defeated characters are characters who participated in the losing side of a battle. The two are equivalent.
I disagree with this, among other things in your post. If Potiphar's Wife blocks a banding chain, converts one of them, and then looses the battle to the rest, she defeated the character she converted and would cause it to be captured despite the fact that it was not on the loosing side of battle.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
zing!
i have no further need to add anything to this discussion. the top players (that just happen to think very analytically) have all made it known you indeed cannot use a negate-last card to interrupt the conversion, while others close their ears to the voice of reason. so im already fairly confident which way the PTB will rule this. logic will always win over those who blow hot air all over the place. people tend to lose credibility when its known they simply argue just for the sake of arguing. it gets prety old, pretty quick.
-
people tend to lose credibility when its known they simply argue just for the sake of arguing.
Is that why no one listens to me?
-
I disagree with this, among other things in your post. If Potiphar's Wife blocks a banding chain, converts one of them, and then looses the battle to the rest, she defeated the character she converted and would cause it to be captured despite the fact that it was not on the loosing side of battle.
Except this is not correct (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/gloss_defeat.htm). If she loses, she captures no Heroes (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/potipharswife1.htm).
the top players have all made it known you indeed cannot use a negate-last card to interrupt the conversion
I would disagree that this has been "made known" considering all the reasons given are either not being played correctly or have counter-examples to show that we do in fact play X when Y condition exists. I'm also a little puzzled that you seem to want to define "the top players" as being limited to Gabe Isbell and Tim Maly (and one might assume, yourself); on top of which, Gabe has come to understand my position and does not seem to subscribe to your rant that logic is a one-way street in this discussion.
...while others close their ears to the voice of reason. so im already fairly confident which way the PTB will rule this. logic will always win over those who blow hot air all over the place. people tend to lose credibility when its known they simply argue just for the sake of arguing. it gets prety old, pretty quick.
I have responded to every point you have tried to make, using the facts and the rules. You have typed in gigantic font and typed the same sentence repeatedly as if doing so would preclude you from actually explaining why that would take precedence over my examples and responses. Not to mention these little sidebars where you like to stop talking about the cards and turn the threads into personal attacks. Are these the kind of methods that you equate with logic and analytical thinking?
-
I disagree with this, among other things in your post. If Potiphar's Wife blocks a banding chain, converts one of them, and then looses the battle to the rest, she defeated the character she converted and would cause it to be captured despite the fact that it was not on the loosing side of battle.
Except this is not correct (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/gloss_defeat.htm). If she loses, she captures no Heroes (http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/potipharswife1.htm).
Zing!
Is it just me... or is Schaef the only one that seems to be looking in the REG to back up all his statements?
-
Quote shortened for brevity.
And can I request that all around, we do away with the whole zing and zowie and booyah and whatever? This is not some contest for people to punk each other, and I am concerned that it's just going to continue to escalate and result in cheap shots and hurt feelings all around.
-
I'm also a little puzzled that you seem to want to define "the top players" as being limited to Gabe Isbell and Tim Maly (and one might assume, yourself);
Don't forget me.
-
I didn't want to embarrass the others by having you dwarf their presence.
-
The Schaef has provided excellent analysis which I feel supports the idea that a negate-last can be played in either brigade of a hero that has its brigade changed by Gold Shield.
And I also feel that in addition to being the correct way to rule it now, it is well-equipped to handle these possible future special abilites:
"If a multi-color hero is in battle, hero is converted to one of the single brigades depicted on the hero."
- Seeker would be able to interrupt in red, gold and blue.
"Opponent's heroes have no brigade color."
- We have this special ability available now in a different "flavor" (see Demonic Blockade). We certainly can't interrupt with no brigade color, but we'll be able to interrupt with their former brigades.
-
I didn't want to embarrass the others by having you dwarf their presence.
Good point.
-
"If a multi-color hero is in battle, hero is converted to one of the single brigades depicted on the hero."
- Seeker would be able to interrupt in red, gold and blue.
One can already convert Seeker of the Lost into any single brigade (losing the three previous brigades).
-
If Miriam can play a green negate, I think that this example needs to be specifically put in the REG. As Gold Shield is a new type of card (converting a hero to another brigade), it causes alot of confusion. I, for one, would love it to work where Miriam cannot play a green negate. I agree with the logic of that side. Please let me know if the PTB decide to rule differently than what Schaef has posted.
Kirk
-
"If a multi-color hero is in battle, hero is converted to one of the single brigades depicted on the hero."
- Seeker would be able to interrupt in red, gold and blue.
One can already convert Seeker of the Lost into any single brigade (losing the three previous brigades).
True. But I was thinking of a possible example that shows a multi-brigade character simply losing brigades, without the process of conversion. It's pretty much the same thing with Demonic Blockade which is N to 0. My example was trying to show N to 1. That's all.
-
This really is 12 angry men. Shaef v.s. everyone.
-
Everybody thought Henry Fonda was crazy for sticking to his guns, too...
-
Well, I'd say you're crazy, but since we are all krazy that makes you the anti-krazy?
Are you from Romania?
-
Although Schaef is official, my stance hasn't changed since Reply #5, which is the first to refute all you angry [young] men.
Schaef,
I told you know one listens to me. ;)
-
I'm a young man and I side with Schaef and Stamp...maybe it's my bits of gray that are deluding me... ;D
-
Hey,
If you attack with Jacob banded to Michael, I block with Potiphar's Wife, and I play Evil Spirit on Jacob. I then loose the battle and die. Did I stop Jacob from achieving his goal in battle? Sure seems like it to me, in which case by the very definition you quoted Potiphar's Wife defeated Jacob.
As far as Potiphar's Wife's play as, I have never seen it before, and it kinda baffles me because it is simply wrong. It limits defeat (as it appears on Potiphar's Wife) to only apply to the first part of the definition of defeat, which doesn't make any sense because the second part of the definition of defeat was added _because_ of Potiphar's Wife's ability.
I have responded to every point you have tried to make, using the facts and the rules.
I believe these threads would be much more profitable and much shorter if you spent more time trying to understand the opposition's position and less time trying to respond to their every point.
And if you are going to try to tell me that you have successfully rebuttled every point made by the people that disagree with you I will be forced to disbelieve you entirely and disregard all comments you make on this thread. Because with the level of skill and intellegance of the players that you disagree with, it is simply absurd to claim that they have not made a single valid point in nine pages.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
If you attack with Jacob banded to Michael, I block with Potiphar's Wife, and I play Evil Spirit on Jacob. I then loose the battle and die. Did I stop Jacob from achieving his goal in battle? Sure seems like it to me, in which case by the very definition you quoted Potiphar's Wife defeated Jacob.
You are not reading the definition of defeat correctly. It is determined at battle resolution based on who wins the battle. Potiphar's Wife is one of the key cards used to help develop the resolution steps.
which doesn't make any sense because the second part of the definition of defeat was added _because_ of Potiphar's Wife's ability.
And the specific example given is stalemate, an end-of-battle condition.
I believe these threads would be much more profitable and much shorter if you spent more time trying to understand the opposition's position and less time trying to respond to their every point.
You might want to pause for a moment and consider that one has to understand before one can properly respond. If I'm responding, maybe you can give me the same courtesy that I give you, and give benefit of the doubt that I understand. The only part of your argument I do not understand is where you got the term "character-defeating ability", and I expressed such confusion quite explicitly.
I will be forced to disbelieve you entirely and disregard all comments you make on this thread.
I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this would be any different from how you've been treating my comments to this point.
Because with the level of skill and intellegance of the players that you disagree with, it is simply absurd to claim that they have not made a single valid point in nine pages.
Feel free to list the valid points in question, which are relevant to the topic and which are not contradictory to the rules.
For example, one can argue that Jon's Third Heaven example is "valid", in that it is an accurate statement of the ruling, but to say that the ability resolves has been a known quantity for the entire discussion, and does not address the issue at hand. Further, since it deals with whether or not you have a card in hand to play, its relevance to characters in battle is suspect at the very very best credit I can give it.
For example, your explanation of Potiphar's Wife is not correct because you have the ruling wrong, and the Play As which I quoted to you lays this out even more clearly.
So far, I have seen and/or given examples where a character with initiative can interrupt-last under the following conditions:
- being removed by the special ability
- being affected but not removed by the special ability
- being completely unaffected by the special ability
- having no characters in battle after resolving the abilty
- having no matching brigades in battle after resolving the ability
- losing/mutual/stalemate by special ability
- losing/mutual/stalemate by the numbers
What I have not seen is a single example of a card, played against an opponent, which gives him initiative, but that character is unable to interrupt the last Enhancement played, provided a). he has an interrupt in hand which matches any brigade (immediately) previously or currently in battle, and b). the card CAN be interrupted. If someone has shown such an example, I must have missed it, and will welcome a correction.
-
Hey,
You are not reading the definition of defeat correctly.
I disagree.
What I have not seen is a single example of a card, played against an opponent, which gives him initiative, but that character is unable to interrupt the last Enhancement played, provided a). he has an interrupt in hand which matches any brigade (immediately) previously or currently in battle, and b). the card CAN be interrupted. If someone has shown such an example, I must have missed it, and will welcome a correction.
I'm having a hard time following all of those words correctly, but the example that comes to mind is as follows:
Stalemate situation. Attacker plays Coat of Many Colors. Defender plays Disobedience to negate Coat of Many Colors. It is my understanding that at that point the attacker can only negate disobedience with a negate that does not depend on Coat of Many Colors to be playable.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
I disagree.
You're welcome to have an opinion about anything you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Defeat is an end-of-battle condition. The winning characters defeat the losing characters.
Stalemate situation. Attacker plays Coat of Many Colors. Defender plays Disobedience to negate Coat of Many Colors. It is my understanding that at that point the attacker can only negate disobedience with a negate that does not depend on Coat of Many Colors to be playable.
So you have nine pages of material to choose from, you complain that I'm not giving anyone credit for making a valid point, and your response is to generate a brand new example? How am I being unfair, again?
This has been the closest thing to what one might call a "valid point", depending on how much arguing about that really matters. But you're talking about negating an Enhancement, which means you are stopping a special ability from taking place. Under that circumstance, you do have to negate under the present conditions, specifically because the ability to play more colors was negated.
How do you apply that to a situation where the ability to play green Enhancements was not based on a special ability and was not negated?
-
Hey,
You're welcome to have an opinion about anything you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Defeat is an end-of-battle condition. The winning characters defeat the losing characters.
So we disagree on this topic. Is there any chance that I am right and you are wrong?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
So we disagree on this topic. Is there any chance that I am right and you are wrong?
Zero. The definition of defeat is factual and established. It has absolutely nothing to do with someone being right or wrong, that's just what it says.
Defeat is caused when a character’s toughness is less than or equal to an opposing character’s strength.
Winning by the numbers.
A defeat also occurs when a character is stopped from achieving his goal in battle.
How exactly does one stop a character from "achieving his goal"?
A Hero(es) is defeated when the Hero(es) in battle are discarded, repelled or otherwise fails to make a successful rescue such as in a stalemate.
Defeated by special ability or stalemated, in addition to losing by the numbers above.
The Evil Character(s) is defeated when the Evil Character(s) in battle are discarded, ignored or otherwise fails to stop the Hero from making a successful rescue such as in a mutual destruction by numbers.
Defeated by special ability or number-mutualed, in addition to losing by the numbers above.
The first part describes winning/losing by the numbers. The second part generally states that there are other ways to cause a defeat. The third and fourth part elaborate on the second by describing how that works for Heroes and ECs, respectively. All situations described are situations listed in the ways the battle outcome is determined in Battle Resolution: win, loss, mutual, stalemate, either by numbers or by special ability.
-
What we're talking about here is a new precedent since Golden Shield is the first card to convert a Hero but allow it to keep it's Hero status. In the past convert cards removed the character from battle which caused initiative to be passed. Since Golden Shield doesn't cause the character to leave battle and the SA does not (directly) cause them to lose, I would rule that the Hero does not get initiative to play an interrupt/negate in their prior brigade, only in the new brigade that is chosen by Golden Shield.
This is correct. I'm playing catch-up on 4 pages of ruling questions, so I'm going to pass on reading beyond the first page on this thread.
The rules give a player a chance to play a negate based on "prior state" in only one case: Losing By Removal. Gold Shield does not remove the hero from the battle, so the hero does not get the chance to use a negate based on prior state. The player may only play a negate of the new brigade color.
-
nice. i've been waiting for this ruling for awhile.
-
That is awesome, and I agree completely. Thanks Bryon. :)
-
+1 and support.
-
What we're talking about here is a new precedent since Golden Shield is the first card to convert a Hero but allow it to keep it's Hero status. In the past convert cards removed the character from battle which caused initiative to be passed. Since Golden Shield doesn't cause the character to leave battle and the SA does not (directly) cause them to lose, I would rule that the Hero does not get initiative to play an interrupt/negate in their prior brigade, only in the new brigade that is chosen by Golden Shield.
This is correct. I'm playing catch-up on 4 pages of ruling questions, so I'm going to pass on reading beyond the first page on this thread.
The rules give a player a chance to play a negate based on "prior state" in only one case: Losing By Removal. Gold Shield does not remove the hero from the battle, so the hero does not get the chance to use a negate based on prior state. The player may only play a negate of the new brigade color.
Just so I'm straight on this: if my King David in battle is replaced with red David with a CTR card, is King David considered removed?
You see, to me this is the same situation as a hero that changes brigade with Gold Shield. Same hero, different brigades. The only difference between the two situations is that in one the hero is on two separate physical cards. And that's a distinction that can become confusing to some.
-
I'm happy with the new ruling, but I wonder how long it will take before MN decides to accept this ruling as well.
-
if my King David in battle is replaced with red David with a CTR card, is King David considered removed?
yes
-
What we're talking about here is a new precedent since Golden Shield is the first card to convert a Hero but allow it to keep it's Hero status. In the past convert cards removed the character from battle which caused initiative to be passed. Since Golden Shield doesn't cause the character to leave battle and the SA does not (directly) cause them to lose, I would rule that the Hero does not get initiative to play an interrupt/negate in their prior brigade, only in the new brigade that is chosen by Golden Shield.
This is correct. I'm playing catch-up on 4 pages of ruling questions, so I'm going to pass on reading beyond the first page on this thread.
The rules give a player a chance to play a negate based on "prior state" in only one case: Losing By Removal. Gold Shield does not remove the hero from the battle, so the hero does not get the chance to use a negate based on prior state. The player may only play a negate of the new brigade color.
Just so I'm straight on this: if my King David in battle is replaced with red David with a CTR card, is King David considered removed?
You see, to me this is the same situation as a hero that changes brigade with Gold Shield. Same hero, different brigades. The only difference between the two situations is that in one the hero is on two separate physical cards. And that's a distinction that can become confusing to some.
Obviously this is illegal, you cannot control 2 of the same unique character.
-
I'm happy with the new ruling, but I wonder how long it will take before MN decides to accept this ruling as well.
Are you kidding? We were already playing it that way.
Essentially non-negatable evil battle winner, for...uh...for the win, I guess.
-
I'm happy with the new ruling, but I wonder how long it will take before MN decides to accept this ruling as well.
Don't blame MN for the mistakes of one Hobbit.
-
I basically agree with the logic and ruling posted by Byron (and people on that side of the argument).
I do have a question though:
If I make a rescue with a green Miriam and they block with Rezin and Gold shield and use it to convert Miriam to white, What happens when I play Words of Encouragement? Since that would interrupt Gold Shield, is my Miriam temporarily green again and I have to play a green enhancement with the play next ability?
-
I basically agree with the logic and ruling posted by Byron (and people on that side of the argument).
I do have a question though:
If I make a rescue with a green Miriam and they block with Rezin and Gold shield and use it to convert Miriam to white, What happens when I play Words of Encouragement? Since that would interrupt Gold Shield, is my Miriam temporarily green again and I have to play a green enhancement with the play next ability?
Yes, which means then that Words couldn't be played, which then means Miriam is back to white so she can play Words, etc. etc. etc.
-
Not so, the playing of cards cannot be negated.
-
words only interrupts the battle. gold shield discards itself when used, so it is no longer in battle.
-
words only interrupts the battle. gold shield discards itself when used, so it is no longer in battle.
Actually...
http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/howtouse14.htm
‘Interrupt the battle’ interrupts all active ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements (e.g. Red Dragon), abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal (e.g. King Zimri), as well as the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent. Interrupting the battle interrupts the battle flow at the point where you played the interrupt. It does not send you back to the beginning of the battle and does not include special abilities completed prior to the interrupt being played that are no longer pending.
So if you had initiative and an interrupt the battle card of the right brigade, you would be able to use it to stop golden shield.
-
Not so, the playing of cards cannot be negated.
I was being facetious. This circular reference error also occurs with the scenario when you ITB a CTR. I have no idea what was ruled. Guess I'll go glean the REG and see if it was addressed.
-
words only interrupts the battle. gold shield discards itself when used, so it is no longer in battle.
Actually...
http://www.redemptionreg.com/REG/howtouse14.htm
‘Interrupt the battle’ interrupts all active ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements (e.g. Red Dragon), abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal (e.g. King Zimri), as well as the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent. Interrupting the battle interrupts the battle flow at the point where you played the interrupt. It does not send you back to the beginning of the battle and does not include special abilities completed prior to the interrupt being played that are no longer pending.
So if you had initiative and an interrupt the battle card of the right brigade, you would be able to use it to stop golden shield.
gold shield is an instant ability, not an ongoing ability. it cannot be interrupted, only negated.
-
gold shield is an instant ability, not an ongoing ability. it cannot be interrupted, only negated.
You can interrupt the battle to interrupt Gold Shield, provided you have a card in the appropriate brigade to do so.
-
Right. I think the wording can be a bit confusing.
Since it says " ‘Interrupt the battle’ interrupts all active ongoing abilities on characters and enhancements", if it only interrupted ongoing abilities then there would be no need for it to also say "as well as the last enhancement played in the current battle if it was played by your opponent."
I think the phrase you bolded is just reiterating that it doesn't interrupt instant abilities that are NOT the last enhancement played by opponent.
-
im fairly certain words, reach, etc cannot interrupt instant abilities. the part i bolded looks pretty clear to me, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. if its not a pending/ongoing ability, it cannot be interrupted via words/reach/etc. its not a reiteration of the first clause, its a clarification.
-
You can interrupt the battle to interrupt Gold Shield, provided you have a card in the appropriate brigade to do so.
-
from the REG:
does not include special abilities completed prior to the interrupt being played that are no longer pending.
special ability? check.
completed prior to interrupt? check.
no longer pending/ongoing? check.
crystal clear.
-
im fairly certain words, reach, etc cannot interrupt instant abilities. the part i bolded looks pretty clear to me, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. if its not a pending/ongoing ability, it cannot be interrupted via words/reach/etc. its not a reiteration of the first clause, its a clarification.
Next time someone plays reach against my battle winner I will tell them your ruling.
-
from the REG:
abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal
-
from the REG:
abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal
You can interupt most battle winners with reach.
In Him :)
H13
-
from the REG:
abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal
If an ability causing you to lose by removal is instant, your logic says it cannot be interrupted.
If you allow the play for abilities that cause you to lose by removal, you must necessarily allow also the play for the last Enhancement if your opponent played it.
In other words, if you acknowledge that any one of those conditions is considered first, and then the last sentence to address cards outside that condition, you must give the same consideration to all those conditions.
Therefore, you can interrupt the battle to interrupt Gold Shield, provided you have a card in the appropriate brigade to do so.
-
from the REG:
abilities that are causing you to lose the battle by removal
If an ability causing you to lose by removal is instant, your logic says it cannot be interrupted.
If you allow the play for abilities that cause you to lose by removal, you must necessarily allow also the play for the last Enhancement if your opponent played it.
In other words, if you acknowledge that any one of those conditions is considered first, and then the last sentence to address cards outside that condition, you must give the same consideration to all those conditions.
Therefore, you can interrupt the battle to interrupt Gold Shield, provided you have a card in the appropriate brigade to do so.
you're being far too analytical with this.
the reg says i can interrupt the last enhancement, yes. however, it says i CANNOT interrupt special abilities that have already completed and are no longer pending. as far as i know, cannot always trumps can in this game. therefore, using that logic, i am free to interrupt the last enhancement as long as its special ability has not yet completed.
-
you're being far too analytical with this.
No, I'm trying to tell people how it works.
the reg says i can interrupt the last enhancement, yes. however, it says i CANNOT interrupt special abilities that have already completed and are no longer pending. as far as i know, cannot always trumps can in this game. therefore, using that logic, i am free to interrupt the last enhancement as long as its special ability has not yet completed.
So why did you quote the part of the REG that talks about abilities causing you to lose by removal? If those have completed, they don't count either, right?
-
John, Would you kindly listen to The Scheaf? He is not trying to be a big bad boogieman about this. He is just saying it how it is.
-
the reg says i can interrupt the last enhancement, yes. however, it says i CANNOT interrupt special abilities that have already completed and are no longer pending. as far as i know, cannot always trumps can in this game. therefore, using that logic, i am free to interrupt the last enhancement as long as its special ability has not yet completed.
What does it mean that you can interrupt the last enhancement played by opponent?
You're saying that it can't interrupt instant abilities.
You're saying that it only can interrupt ongoing abilities.
But it already says that you can interrupt ongoing abilities, so that would make that statement entirely redundant and pointless.
-
John, Would you kindly listen to The Scheaf? He is not trying to be a big bad boogieman about this. He is just saying it how it is.
schaef is not the 'end-all, be-all' when it comes to rulings. he has been wrong in the past. namely, he has been proven wrong in the very thread youre posting in.
i still keep my stance. im simply going by how the rules state i can play. yes, it says it DOES interrupt 3 specific situations: ongoing special abilities, removal, and the last enhancement played in current battle. thats not the problem; i can definately adhere to the rules of those situations. but you must ALSO adhere to the rule that says it DOES NOT interrupt special abilities that have already completed. again, as i have stated before, 'cannot/does not' trumps 'can/does' in the game of redemption. therefore, the situations that are interruptable and that also follow ALL of the precedents as set by the REG are as follows:
(a) all ongoing special abilities
(b) loss by removal
(c) the last enhancement played by opponent in battle, AS LONG AS it is not an ability that has already completed (and since B is also a rule, the instant ability must not be one that causes loss by removal).
-
Under that interpretation, what does (c) cover that the (a) and (b) don't? If it's not ongoing or causing your loss by removal, wouldn't it have already completed?
-
Ok, do you not see that according to your definition C is completely pointless? It adds nothing that A and B don't already cover. There would be NO purpose to having C in the rules then. We might as well add option D,E,F,etc. - abilities that ignore, abilities that protect, immune abilities, etc.. Sure we don't need to say any of these because A already covers that but let's add in extra words for fun.
Since it says that in fact you CAN interrupt the last enhancement as an ADDITIONAL option, then maybe you should think of the last enhancement's ability as still pending.
instaposted
-
Hey,
John, interrupt the battle does interrupt ongoing abilities, removal abilities, and the last enhancement. The statement that it does not interrupt special abilities that have already completed is only refering to completed special abilities that do not qualify as "removal abilities" or "the last enhancement."
I realize that that is not overly clear, but think about it practically...
If I play Net can you interrupt it with Reach of Desperation? Of course you can. But Net is a special ability that has already completed (all instantaneous abilities take immediate effect) so by your logic you couldn't. The "does not interrupt special abilities that have already completed" does not apply to Net because it is a removal ability and it is the last enhancement played in the battle.
What that phrase is intended to explain is that interrupt the battle does not interrupt abilities like gabriel that are not removal abilities or the last enhancement and thus are not interrupted because they have already completed.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly, WildCard Secretary of Defense
www.freewebs.com/redemptionne
-
schaef is not the 'end-all, be-all' when it comes to rulings. he has been wrong in the past. namely, he has been proven wrong in the very thread youre posting in.
If you're referring to Gold Shield, I don't know how you equate having a ruling go against me with "being proven wrong". For one to be "wrong", I would have to have said something contrary to a ruling already in place, and the whole point of this thread was that a ruling for Gold Shield did not yet exist. I'll be the first to admit I've had rulings go againt me, and that I've been wrong as often as I've been right. But you seem to be beating your chest needlessly in this case, and inaccurately to boot.
im simply going by how the rules state i can play.
No you are not, because the way you are reading those rules is contradictory in two different places. You highlight both contradictions below.
but you must ALSO adhere to the rule that says it DOES NOT interrupt special abilities that have already completed.
There are many special abilities that can have already completed, the shuffling of a Lost Soul, for example, or an Evil Character brought into battle by Unknown Nation. These abilities do not hold to any of the three conditions listed, and they are already completed, therefore, they are not stopped by an "interrupt the battle" ability. That is what that phrase means.
By my reading, the rule is internally consistent and allows this interrupt to be played the way interrupts have been played for years. Your reading causes a contradiction between the two paragraphs, and is therefore logically inconsistent.
(b) loss by removal
(c) the last enhancement played by opponent in battle, AS LONG AS it is not an ability that has already completed (and since B is also a rule, the instant ability must not be one that causes loss by removal).
This is the other place your logic falls down. You say that since B is a rule, it trumps the phrase about special abilities already completed. And yet C is also a rule, every bit as complete and valid as B, but you are not treating it the same.
If Loss by Removal can be interrupted, then the last Enhancement can be interrupted.
If Loss by Removal cannot be interrupted, then the last Enhancement cannot be interrupted.
In fact, laying this out in such a manner has unveiled yet a THIRD place your logic falls down.
- If the last Enhancement played is ongoing, then it is already covered by condition A
- If the last Enhancement played causes loss by removal, then it is already covered by condition B
So if all abilities are either ongoing or instant, and all instant abilities either cause a loss by removal or do not, then the only kind of ability not covered by A or B is an instant that does not cause a loss by removal. So if we were to take your version, and make the second paragraph a (contradictory and inconsistently applied) restriction on the first, and not an extension of it, then there is no possible Enhancement that could EVER satisfy condition C by itself, and therefore, no reason for the rule to exist. The rule DOES exist, and therefore MUST be applied to the last Enhancement played before you apply the restrictions of the second paragraph to OTHER cards.
-
gotcha, thanks for putting it clearly tim.
-
Was there ever a definite ruling given on this? Does Gold Shield transfer initiative or not?
-
I don't believe there was ever an official ruling.
-
What we're talking about here is a new precedent since Golden Shield is the first card to convert a Hero but allow it to keep it's Hero status. In the past convert cards removed the character from battle which caused initiative to be passed. Since Golden Shield doesn't cause the character to leave battle and the SA does not (directly) cause them to lose, I would rule that the Hero does not get initiative to play an interrupt/negate in their prior brigade, only in the new brigade that is chosen by Golden Shield.
This is correct. I'm playing catch-up on 4 pages of ruling questions, so I'm going to pass on reading beyond the first page on this thread.
The rules give a player a chance to play a negate based on "prior state" in only one case: Losing By Removal. Gold Shield does not remove the hero from the battle, so the hero does not get the chance to use a negate based on prior state. The player may only play a negate of the new brigade color.
Yes. This is official. It doesn't pass initiative.
-
Well then, that could be quite useful. Thank you. :)
-
Well then, that could be quite useful. Thank you. :)
Gold Shield could also be useful as a converted weapon.
-
I know, like on Naaman.