Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Legolas on August 13, 2017, 05:34:00 PM
-
My opponent attacks with an angel I play falling away on it. He wants to instead with heavenly temple and he does. Can I play the three woes to negate heavenly temple at that time? If so, would that angel be underdecked still?
Falling away- undrrdeck and angel or convert a human hero to an evil character in any brigade until the end of turn.
Heavenly temple- if your revelation hero is banished, captured, converted or undersecked by an opponent, you may discard 2 cards matching heros brigade from hand or a matte in territory instead.
Three woes- place in territory: negate a card of opposite alignment than this card for one round. Each upkeep, you may negate a card of different alignment than this card for one round.
-
Yes
-
Yes
That's what I initially thought as well but then I found this in the REG:
If the new effect activates and is later negated, the act of insteading does not get undone, as the new effect was still applied initially through instead.
If I understand this line correctly, it would mean the underdeck is still "insteaded" so the angel is not underdecked, but the new effect (discarding two cards or a martyr) can and would be undone by the negate. Intuitively it would seem like the angel would obviously be underdecked and that's how I would have ruled it had I not noticed this REG entry; now I'm not sure.
-
In gameplay with Guardian if I instead with herods temple after he martyred my hero he or I have played shipwreck to make it go through (one time it was advantageous to keep tsc/sog in the top cards so wrecking it made more sense pretty sure he wrecked his own to win clutch plays)
-
In gameplay with Guardian if I instead with herods temple after he martyred my hero he or I have played shipwreck to make it go through (one time it was advantageous to keep tsc/sog in the top cards so wrecking it made more sense pretty sure he wrecked his own to win clutch plays)
That would make sense but in that case do you know what the quoted line in REG refers to?
-
Any other thoughts on this?
-
KV is correct. The line that kevinthedude pointed out is situations where the new ability is negated (but the instead ability is not). In the original scenario, the instead ability was negated.