Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Nameless on September 25, 2011, 08:34:09 PM
-
When you play it on a multi color magician in battle it would go under deck, right. And would they be able to negate it? I think that I heard that cards that go out of play cannot be negated.
voking Terror (FF2)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Crimson/Pale Green • Ability: 4 / 0 • Class: Territory • Special Ability: Place a human Hero beneath owner’s deck. If used by a multi-color Magician, you may place this card beneath deck. Cannot be prevented. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Isaiah 47:12 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers Extended booster packs (None)
See also:
Cannot be Prevented
Place
-
Another member of my playgroup asked this question, and they asked the same question on the forums, and the answer was that since it is removing the Hero from battle, your opponent would have initiative to interrupt. I do not agree with this ruling, but eh, it is what it is.
-
Every couple hours they seem to change what it is. I recently asked Gabe the same question and he didn't really know either.
-
Another member of my playgroup asked this question, and they asked the same question on the forums, and the answer was that since it is removing the Hero from battle, your opponent would have initiative to interrupt. I do not agree with this ruling, but eh, it is what it is.
You cannot play a card that says negate/interrupt an evil enhancement, but you can play an interrupt the battle card, since interrupt the battle interrupts abilities causing you to be removed from the battle, which Invoking Terror is.
-
I think negate last works on it too.
-
Another member of my playgroup asked this question, and they asked the same question on the forums, and the answer was that since it is removing the Hero from battle, your opponent would have initiative to interrupt. I do not agree with this ruling, but eh, it is what it is.
You cannot play a card that says negate/interrupt an evil enhancement, but you can play an interrupt the battle card, since interrupt the battle interrupts abilities causing you to be removed from the battle, which Invoking Terror is.
See, that's even a different answer than I got last time. I asked about this and the answer that ended up being given is that any time you are losing by removal, special initiative takes place during the state of the battle as you are being removed. This would allow even a normal negate. Both rulings are different from the ruling I got last year for Herod Phillip II. The elders need to get on the same page with this question.
-
Another member of my playgroup asked this question, and they asked the same question on the forums, and the answer was that since it is removing the Hero from battle, your opponent would have initiative to interrupt. I do not agree with this ruling, but eh, it is what it is.
You cannot play a card that says negate/interrupt an evil enhancement, but you can play an interrupt the battle card, since interrupt the battle interrupts abilities causing you to be removed from the battle, which Invoking Terror is.
See, that's even a different answer than I got last time. I asked about this and the answer that ended up being given is that any time you are losing by removal, special initiative takes place during the state of the battle as you are being removed. This would allow even a normal negate. Both rulings are different from the ruling I got last year for Herod Phillip II. The elders need to get on the same page with this question.
More like with alot of questions...
I.E.: Is there an official ruling for grapes + asahel?
-
That one has been resolved. Shuffle is not a return ability.
-
My understanding at this point is that it could work that if a card is played that removes a character from battle (capture, discard, convert, whatever), then (assuming that there isn't a banding situation such that the character who played the first card still has initiative) the character being removed gets special initiative to play a negate of whatever is causing that removal. This would include a card that negates an enhancement or artifact or site or character ability or whatever else is causing that removal.
Therefore, if I rescue with Jephthah and my opponent blocks with Egyptian Warden and tries to use his SA to capture me by discarding an EE, then I could play "Might of Faith" to negate EW's SA. Then he could play that EE that captures a hero if used by an Egyptian, and I could play "Holy Ground" to negate that EE. Then he could use his Unholy Writ that is active to capture me, but I could play "Foreign Sword" to negate the neutral artifact.
This seems to be consistent, and makes things probably a bit more simple than perhaps they have been in the past regarding whether something was a "negate" or a "negate last" or an "interrupt the battle". It seems to me that we could just treat all those the same at this point regarding whether how they treat instant SAs that cause removal of a character from battle.
I do think this is probably a bit of a chance from the traditional ruling, so don't consider this an official ruling as much a me thinking out loud and seeking input on whether this could work.
-
My understanding at this point is that it could work that if a card is played that removes a character from battle (capture, discard, convert, whatever), then (assuming that there isn't a banding situation such that the character who played the first card still has initiative) the character being removed gets special initiative to play a negate of whatever is causing that removal. This would include a card that negates an enhancement or artifact or site or character ability or whatever else is causing that removal.
Therefore, if I rescue with Jephthah and my opponent blocks with Egyptian Warden and tries to use his SA to capture me by discarding an EE, then I could play "Might of Faith" to negate EW's SA. Then he could play that EE that captures a hero if used by an Egyptian, and I could play "Holy Ground" to negate that EE. Then he could use his Unholy Writ that is active to capture me, but I could play "Foreign Sword" to negate the neutral artifact.
This seems to be consistent, and makes things probably a bit more simple than perhaps they have been in the past regarding whether something was a "negate" or a "negate last" or an "interrupt the battle". It seems to me that we could just treat all those the same at this point regarding whether how they treat instant SAs that cause removal of a character from battle.
I do think this is probably a bit of a chance from the traditional ruling, so don't consider this an official ruling as much a me thinking out loud and seeking input on whether this could work.
I agree that this would greatly simplify things. My previous post was going off of my understanding of long-standing rulings that as far as I knew had never changed (I know there was a long ago discussion about Going Into Captivity as an enhancement, and how that could be undone). Obviously, what the other Prof suggests would take a bit of deliberation to see if there are any big issues, but on the surface, I don't see a problem, and rather like the suggestion.
-
As far as I knew, cards that were removed from play could not be negated, which means even if the hero being removed has special initiative, there is nothing that hero could do about it.
-
The hero has the opportunity to respond to the enhancement before the ability completes.
-
Can this card be played on a captured Hero (by placing it below deck)?
-
Can this card be played on a captured Hero (by placing it below deck)?
Captured heroes are "captured heroes", not "heroes", so no you could not.
-
That's what I thought, but I wanted to be sure.