Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Crashfach2002 on April 26, 2010, 07:28:40 PM
-
I know this is on here somewhere, but I don't feel like looking through 90 something pages!
RA started by Claudia bands to ET, plays Book of Hozai twice, then Reach of Desperation.
Then get blocked by 12-Fingered Giant.
What happens?
-
the drawing stays I'm pretty sure
-
I don't think the drawing stays, based on this thread:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18250.15 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18250.15)
and this quote from that thread:
We're not going to make draw abilities cannot be interrupted. They are powerful enough as it is.
-
I don't think the drawing stays, based on this thread:
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18250.15 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18250.15)
and this quote from that thread:
We're not going to make draw abilities cannot be interrupted. They are powerful enough as it is.
The drawing stays. The ability to play an enhancement cannot be interrupted by game rule. TFG negates the band, but he isn't negating the drawing, and he can't indirectly negate the drawing because he would have to indirectly negate the play abilities (which can't happen).
-
You cannot interrupt the fact that Reach was played, but the draw ability can be interrupted. Reach cannot reactivate on Claudia, so the draw would not activate and Reach would be discarded.
-
You cannot interrupt the fact that Reach was played, but the draw ability can be interrupted. Reach cannot reactivate on Claudia, so the draw would not activate and Reach would be discarded.
I'm pretty sure Prof is right. Once an enhancement with an instant ability is played and completes, it cannot be indirectly negated.
-
There is precident for negating half of an ability before this you know BB.
If Paul enters into a FBTN battle, his immunity to poisions and diseases is negated, but enhancements played on him still are CBN.
Based on that, I'd say you can negate half of reach.
-
You must be able to indirectly Negate instants. You're telling me that if I start a side-battle with Sword of the Lord, play Wrath of Satan, and then you play Devourer (Wa), Wrath sticks?
-
Yes cuz ITB wouldn't stop the side battle ;)
-
Well, I re-read the original question again... and I'm honestly confused as well right now.
My point above is still true, but I wasnt paying attention to the entire situation. Heres one possible way to go about this...
When you block with 12FG, ET is kicked out of battle, everyone agrees on this. There is a rule that cards cannot be "unplayed" by a negate. However... I do think that their effects should be negated as much as possible. So, the cards would still be played, you would negate as much as possible (in this case, the drawing would be negated), and then the cards are discarded as they have no legal place to go.
Maybe...?
-
I'm not sure if I'm confused or if I just don't know how to explain why what I thought made sense, but my sentiments are now reflected by the title of this thread, and I would like an official's input on this matter...
-
but the draw ability can be interrupted
So what is interrupting the draw ability? TFG negates the band, nothing else. Reach never has to reactivate, because it was played via a play ability, which cannot be interrupted.
I'm pretty sure Prof is right. Once an enhancement with an instant ability is played and completes, it cannot be indirectly negated.
That's not quite true either. Say you attack with Claudia and Elders of Jerusalem (8/8 total). I block with The Rabshakeh, so you are losing. You decide to play Moses and Elders to get back you're favorite good card, and I play Rage to band to Spirit of Doubt and negate Claudia. Now, Elders was never in battle for all intents and purposes, meaning that Moses and Elders was never played, so the card goes back. So basically, the playing of an enhancement can be undone, indirectly negating the enhancement, the difference in the other situation is that it was an ability that allowed the enhancement to be played, not normal initiative. Enhancements can only be unplayed if the enhancement is able to be indirectly negated however. So if Elders had instead played Love at First Sight, it would stick.
It may seem silly, but it's kind of one of those things that was done as a band-aid for a play that just seemed too wrong. Say I attack with Ethiopian Treasurer and play Authority of Christ. You then decide to block with King of Tyrus from hand. Now we know that AoC could not be indirectly negated, but since the ability to play it was negated, then it was at first ruled that you would get it back in hand. Other situations like this were also possible, so it was decided that the ability to play an enhancement could not be negated.
-
So you're saying that not only can the ability to play an enhancement not be interrupted, but also an enhancement played with a play ability cannot be indirectly negated...? If that's not what you're saying then I am utterly confused.
-
So you're saying that not only can the ability to play an enhancement not be interrupted, but also an enhancement played with a play ability cannot be indirectly negated...if not then I am utterly confused.
Indirect negation means negating a card by negating the ability (not special ability, ability in a more general sense) to play that card. The special ability to play an enhancement cannot be negated, so no, an enhancement played via a play ability cannot be indirectly negated.
-
Wait...now I'm confused too. And I thought I was 100% certain how this worked.
-
I thought it would indirectly negated, but it would still have been played. That was my understanding of what the "Playing an enhancement cannot be interrupted"
-
We ended up ruling that even though ET was forced out of battle that the drawing stayed because ET's special ability is an instant ability and can not be interrupted. I'm pretty sure this was ruled correctly.
-
Even if that's the ruling, that isn't the logic behind the ruling. Instant abilities most certainly can be interrupted.
-
So in summary, everyone is confused. :P This seems like a good opportunity for someone to wipe our slates clean and reintegrate the rules of this scenario in our minds.
-
Where does it say that instant abilities can be interrupted? To my knowledge interrupt works on the following:
1. Ongoing abilites (Protection etc)
2. Last enhancement if it was played by your opponent.
3. Any ability removing you from battle (warden, zimri etc.)
However, if it was Bringing Fear played then ET's ability would be negated I think as BF negates all special abilities.
-
You're thinking of Interrupt the Battle, not Interrupt. Even so, ITB interrupts instant abilities if they were the last one played.
-
However, if it was Bringing Fear played then ET's ability would be negated I think as BF negates all special abilities.
But ET's play ability cannot be interrupted, even by Bringing Fear.
From the REG:
The ability to play an enhancement cannot be interrupted.
So let me break it down for the confused:
There are two ways that things can be negated--directly, and indirectly.
Direct negation is the obvious one. I play an enhancement, you play something that negates it. Direct negation. Bam.
Indirect negation is where an enhancement is negated by negating the circumstance (special ability or condition of battle) that allowed you to play it. So if you play Coat of Many Colors, then several other enhancements, and then I negate Coat, then all of the off-color enhancements are negated. Why? Because by negating Coat, the condition of the battle now becomes one where the hero was never able to play those enhancements. You can't "unplay" cards, so they don't return to hand, but they also can't take effect, because of the fact that no hero was ever able to use them (according to the idea of negate). Of course, if one of the off-color cards was CBN/CBI, then it still takes effect, since CBN/CBI includes indirect interruption/negation.
In order for indirect negation to take place, however, one must interrupt whatever allowed you to play the enhancement. A "play" ability is, by game rule, CBI. So you can't indirectly negate anything played by a "play" ability. Since ET used his ability to play Book (with Claudia's help) then Book's ability allowed you to play the other Book, then that book's ability allowed you to play Reach, all cards were played as the result of uninterruptable abilities, and thusly cannot be interrupted indirectly.
Phew. It would be so much simpler to just block with KoT.
-
Yes I agree that 12FG was the most complicated card he could have blocked with, but I did have Holy of Holies up so KOT's SA was negated. However, if I wouldn't have had HoH would KOT have negated everything?
-
Yes I agree that 12FG was the most complicated card he could have blocked with, but I did have Holy of Holies up so KOT's SA was negated. However, if I wouldn't have had HoH would KOT have negated everything?
Yep. He would negate all special abilities on cards in play activated during the battle phase, as he usually does. He wouldn't negate the play abilities though, so it would be Claudia and two books vs. KoT, with ET returned to territory and Reach discarded for lack of purple heroes. All drawing would be negated, since KoT would directly negate it.
-
So I would have to return the 9 cards I drew?
-
That's correct.
-
In this case I would have drawn 9 cards and would have to put back the ones I hadn't already played. How are you supposed to keep up with what cards you drew? Once I get up to 16 cards in my hand I usually don't remember exactly when I drew specific cards.
-
This is why I usually insist that my opponent keep the cards in his hand in the order he drew them while there is still a chance of the drawing being negated. If you forgot, I would rule as a judge that your opponent picks nine cards at random from your hand and shuffles them into your deck. It penalizes you for forgetting something that was your responsibility to remember, but not as harshly as it could be (your opponent gets to discard cards from your hand if you failed to get down to 8 at the end of your turn and he notices).
-
So let's say Claudia bands to ET who plays Reach. If I block with TFG, the enhancement is not negated? Is this correct? And the reson behind this is that the ability to play an enhancement is ininterruptable? Is this true?
-
So let's say Claudia bands to ET who plays Reach. If I block with TFG, the enhancement is not negated? Is this correct? And the reson behind this is that the ability to play an enhancement is ininterruptable? Is this true?
That is correct. The enhancement is not negated, because TFG did not directly negate it, and because the ability to play it can't be interrupted, it was not indirectly negated. So you keep the cards you drew, but the enhancement no longer stays in battle, since Claudia is not purple.
-
This is why I usually insist that my opponent keep the cards in his hand in the order he drew them while there is still a chance of the drawing being negated. If you forgot, I would rule as a judge that your opponent picks nine cards at random from your hand and shuffles them into your deck. It penalizes you for forgetting something that was your responsibility to remember, but not as harshly as it could be (your opponent gets to discard cards from your hand if you failed to get down to 8 at the end of your turn and he notices).
Wait thats the rule if you bust someone with 9+ cards in their hand?
-
So let's say Claudia bands to ET who plays Reach. If I block with TFG, the enhancement is not negated? Is this correct? And the reson behind this is that the ability to play an enhancement is ininterruptable? Is this true?
That is correct. The enhancement is not negated, because TFG did not directly negate it, and because the ability to play it can't be interrupted, it was not indirectly negated. So you keep the cards you drew, but the enhancement no longer stays in battle, since Claudia is not purple.
However, if I just play an enhancement, and then the character who played it is removed from battle and there are no more characters with that brigade color, that enhancement is indirectly negated? Is this true also?
-
However, if I just play an enhancement, and then the character who played it is removed from battle and there are no more characters with that brigade color, that enhancement is indirectly negated? Is this true also?
Only if that character was removed from battle by a negate ability. Like my Rabshakeh + Spirit of Doubt vs. Claudia and Elders of Jerusalem playing Moses and Elders. In this case, Moses and Elders was indirectly negated, because the ability (not special ability) to play it depended on Elders being in battle. When you negate the band, you negate the fact that Elders was in battle, so M&E can never have taken effect.
When you block Claudia and ET with TFG, you negate the fact that ET was in battle, but you can't negate his play ability, which means whatever happened as a result of that ability can't be indirectly negated. It could be directly negated (by blocking with KoT, say) but the only thing TFG directly negates is banding.
-
So you are saying that if played by an ability an enhancement can't be negated by cascading, but if played by natural game functions, it can? This is completely new to me, and I don't think it makes any sense.
-
For consistancy's sake, why not make it work like this:
If played by initative: The card is taken back to players hand and negated.
Example: Claudia bands to Elders of Jerusalem, and a white enhancement is played by initative. Negating the band would result in Elders leaving battle, the ability on Elders being negated, the enhancement returning to its owners hand, and the ability on the enhancement would be negated.
If played by an ability: The card is not taken back to hand, but it is negated.
Example: Claudia bands to ET, who then plays Reach, and a blue enhancement. Negating the ban would result in ET returning to hand, negating ET's ability (minus the play next), Reach would be negated (minus the play next) and would remain "in battle" where it would be discarded because there is no purple hero for it to go to, and the blue enhancement would remain in battle but its effect would be negated.
Is there any reason that rule would not work? It would be consistant, as its essentially a "negate as much as you can" play.
-
For simplicity's sake, I think we should say this:
Enhancements cannot be unplayed. Period. If a band is negated, then the negates cascade down to the currently unsupportable enhancements, effectively negating and discarding those cards if possible. This is a very, very simple rule, and is how I would probably play it if in question.
-
Why can't negates just work like Flash....
Negate.onEnterFrame = function() {
gotoAndPlay(frame you essentially reversed the fight to)
}
That'd make things so much simpler.... :D