Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: The M on November 29, 2010, 07:50:08 PM
-
What happens if you draw 2 of them and lay them down at the exact same time?
Would they cancel out or would you say that the "first one" would negate the other?
Also, I'm a bit fuzzy about if the Hopper would be negated by the Negate all.
Would Hopper's ability:
(A) Work and go to opponent's territory.
(B) Be negated and go to your territory.
(C) Work, go to opponent's territory, become negated, and come back to your territory.
HELP! :)
-
1. If they're both drawn at the same time, if it was the first draw of the game, the player's going first takes precedence. If they were both drawn by the same draw ability, whichever player's who played the card causing the draw takes precedence.
2. B
-
Source for answer 1? ;)
I agree though, that's logical and should be the rule.
-
1) Everything would be negated. You'd have to get both rescued to not have them negated
2) If you drew the hopper on the same phase, it would hop over but in a different phase it wouldn't
-
negate all ls questions
Sounds more useful for the judge.
-
2. B
This is incorrect, as that would mean the negater LS was targeting out-of-play cards. I think the answer is C, it hops but is negated so the end result is it goes to your territory like a normal LS.
-
The SA must activate to hop, so it has to go into play first. Although that makes me wonder what "when drawn" means.
-
1. If they're both drawn at the same time, if it was the first draw of the game, the player's going first takes precedence. If they were both drawn by the same draw ability, whichever player's who played the card causing the draw takes precedence.
What if they are both drawn by you at the same time?
-
1. If they're both drawn at the same time, if it was the first draw of the game, the player's going first takes precedence. If they were both drawn by the same draw ability, whichever player's who played the card causing the draw takes precedence.
What if they are both drawn by you at the same time?
Then you chose. I can't think of a single situation in which it would matter, though.
-
1. If they're both drawn at the same time, if it was the first draw of the game, the player's going first takes precedence. If they were both drawn by the same draw ability, whichever player's who played the card causing the draw takes precedence.
What if they are both drawn by you at the same time?
Then you chose. I can't think of a single situation in which it would matter, though.
Would you choose at the time they enter play or at the time their ability would take effect?
-
Not a single situation was given that day.
-
Not a single situation was given that day.
So? If you're not gonna answer the posed question(s) then don't post.
-
Sometimes there's not an answer to a question because it's a bad question. Oftentimes people will try to be clever and ask questions about hypothetical situations that could occur due to make-believe cards. Seasoned players typically know not to answer these questions because they're irrelevant. There are enough ruling gaps on things that do matter to be splitting hairs about questions that literally do not matter.
-
Scenario: You play Mayhem in your prep phase, and you draw 2x FBTN LSs. You put one in a site (assume opponent doesn't have access). Do you have to choose which one wins when you draw it or when it activates? It makes a difference, as if it is when drawn you have to guess if you want to have it active (put that one in a site) or you want it gone (keep it out of a site so opponent can rescue). Whereas if you decide when the negation kicks in, you'll have an opportunity to play something like U+T to help you decide.
Now, this scenario is far less likely (who plays with Mayhem?) and important than many fake scenarios I've thought of, but I digress....
-
Doesn't matter. If one is negated, the other will kick in. If one is removed from play, it will keep working until the end of phase when the other kicks right back in.
-
Is there a single target LS negate anyway? They're all negate all, so anything negating one negate LS is a negating both negate LS.
-
Is there a single target LS negate anyway? They're all negate all, so anything negating one negate LS is a negating both negate LS.
What about Ears to Hear? Oh snap.
-
Wouldn't the second negate LS "miss the timing" if the first and active one is removed from play after the phase in which they both enter play? The ability says something like "beginning the phase after this is put in play" so if it's negated beyond that, what game rule makes it suddenly activate and start working when the other one leaves play?
-
LS's refresh every phase.
-
LS's refresh every phase.
By that logic, wouldn't there then be a phase in between where they're not negated? The removed from play one still negates til end of phase, then the second would trigger and wait til the third phase.
-
LS's refresh every phase.
Can I get a source for that?
-
Logic. FbtN LS gets rescued, next phase do LS's work? Obviously yes, so backward extrapolation dictates that LS's refresh every phase.
No, there wouldn't be a phase in between, because every phase other than the one the card is drawn in is after "starting next phase" even if the SA is prevented at first.
-
Isn't there an AW enhancement that says "place on a soul to negate the ability" or something like that? If so, it matters.
-
Isn't there an AW enhancement that says "place on a soul to negate the ability" or something like that? If so, it matters.
Is there a single target LS negate anyway? They're all negate all, so anything negating one negate LS is a negating both negate LS.
What about Ears to Hear? Oh snap.
I'm still trying to think of any situation where it would matter which FBTN LS is active. Anyone care to provide one?
-
Scenario: You play Mayhem in your prep phase, and you draw 2x FBTN LSs. You put one in a site (assume opponent doesn't have access). Do you have to choose which one wins when you draw it or when it activates? It makes a difference, as if it is when drawn you have to guess if you want to have it active (put that one in a site) or you want it gone (keep it out of a site so opponent can rescue). Whereas if you decide when the negation kicks in, you'll have an opportunity to play something like U+T to help you decide.
Now, this scenario is far less likely (who plays with Mayhem?) and important than many fake scenarios I've thought of, but I digress....
-
Nope, still won't matter.
-
A far more likely one, you draw both Negate-alls in 1 draw phase in T2.
-
when you have multiple triggers trying to activate at the same time you choose what order the triggers activate in.
next phase:
1. ls trigger
2. ls trigger
1. ls activate
2. ls negated
Luke 19_10 (Di)
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Beginning in the phase after this card is put in play, negate all special abilities on Lost Soul cards (except this one). • Identifiers: None • Verse: Luke 19:10 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
In the case of a Mayhem play, and both players draw thier FBTN LS the active player chooses what order the triggers activate. Im not sure who the active player would be in this game. Either the player who took the last action or whose turn it is...
-
It literally doesn't matter ever. I consider it a compliment that other people are saying as much as well, but I'm the one getting thumbed down. lol u mad?
-
Exhibit A: An answer that I understand and I see reasoning.
when you have multiple triggers trying to activate at the same time you choose what order the triggers activate in.
next phase:
1. ls trigger
2. ls trigger
1. ls activate
2. ls negated
Luke 19_10 (Di)
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Beginning in the phase after this card is put in play, negate all special abilities on Lost Soul cards (except this one). • Identifiers: None • Verse: Luke 19:10 • Availability: Disciples booster packs ()
In the case of a Mayhem play, and both players draw thier FBTN LS the active player chooses what order the triggers activate. Im not sure who the active player would be in this game. Either the player who took the last action or whose turn it is...
Exhibit B: An answer possibly, but with no reason to justify it, I disregard it.
Nope, still won't matter.
Thank you both.
-
Here's what happens when there are two FBTN LS's drawn at any point in the game: If they are drawn in the same phase, and they activate on the following phase, you choose the order of activation, sure. But I don't see it really mattering at all: as soon as one of them leaves play (or is negated by Ears to Hear, lol), the other is no longer negated, and then starts negating all other LS's. Just like you can play Son of God on the shuffler immediately after burying the Thorns LS, Lost Souls SA's are only active for as long as they are in play and not negated (with the exception of anti-burial, which is just weird). So like I have said, and Polarius has said, I don't think it will ever matter which activates first, and there is no time in between one leaving play/being negated and another negating all LSs.
I don't see anything broken, inconsistent, or logically troubling with that, so unless someone besides Rawrlolsauce! ( ;)) can demonstrate otherwise, I will rule it that way.
-
what i dont understand is why a ruling would change from one to another just based on if it was "broken" or not. fun and fellowship of the game? pretty soon wouldnt it seem inevitable that these changes in rulings would indirectly affect other rulings as well?
-
what i dont understand is why a ruling would change from one to another just based on if it was "broken" or not. fun and fellowship of the game? pretty soon wouldnt it seem inevitable that these changes in rulings would indirectly affect other rulings as well?
chamber of angels + i am holy is coming back to haunt you... wooooooo...
-
ikr
-
what i dont understand is why a ruling would change from one to another just based on if it was "broken" or not. fun and fellowship of the game? pretty soon wouldnt it seem inevitable that these changes in rulings would indirectly affect other rulings as well?
It wouldn't, but if a ruling isn't set in stone/obvious already, then broken situations are considered as part of the formula for deciding upon the ruling. If a ruling could go either way based on precedent/logic, then it will probably lean toward the side of avoiding brokenness if possible.
chamber of angels + i am holy is coming back to haunt you... wooooooo...
That ruling was not changed because it was broken, in fact, according to Rob, it was never changed at all. Someone thought it worked a long time ago, and it was never questioned until "instead" abilities came in vogue and needed to be more clearly defined. The ruling was really an effect of "instead" being defined, and had nothing to do with supposed brokenness of the combo.
-
chamber of angels + i am holy is coming back to haunt you... wooooooo...
That ruling was not changed because it was broken, in fact, according to Rob, it was never changed at all. Someone thought it worked a long time ago, and it was never questioned until "instead" abilities came in vogue and needed to be more clearly defined. The ruling was really an effect of "instead" being defined, and had nothing to do with supposed brokenness of the combo.
Did I say it changed?
Nooooooooooo....
Did I say it would haunt you?
Yup.
Am I saying I like or dislike the ruling?
Noooooooooooo....
Am I saying it will affect a lot of controversial rulings in the future until we can get more playtesters?
Yup.
That's my opinion on the matter.
-
chamber of angels + i am holy is coming back to haunt you... wooooooo...
That ruling was not changed because it was broken, in fact, according to Rob, it was never changed at all. Someone thought it worked a long time ago, and it was never questioned until "instead" abilities came in vogue and needed to be more clearly defined. The ruling was really an effect of "instead" being defined, and had nothing to do with supposed brokenness of the combo.
Did I say it changed?
Nooooooooooo....
Did I say it would haunt you?
Yup.
Am I saying I like or dislike the ruling?
Noooooooooooo....
Am I saying it will affect a lot of controversial rulings in the future until we can get more playtesters?
Yup.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Did you quote a post that referred to ruling changes then make your statement?
Yup.
Would it therefore be logical for me to infer that you implied that I am Holy/Chamber was a ruling change?
Yup.
Did I say it wouldn't haunt you or me or anyone else?
Nooooooooooo...
Did I suggest anything about your opinion of the ruling?
Nooooooooooo...
Are you clairvoyant?
Doubtful
Those are the facts of the matter.
-
Everyone that thought Chamber+IamHoly worked, raise your hand. How many years has it been? Louisiana?
That ruling was not changed because it was broken, in fact, according to Rob, it was never changed at all. Someone thought it worked a long time ago, and it was never questioned until "instead" abilities came in vogue and needed to be more clearly defined. The ruling was really an effect of "instead" being defined, and had nothing to do with supposed brokenness of the combo.
::) whatever. SO...I wander what else we take for granted that someone (all of us) thinks work and hasnt been questioned.
-
*hand raised*. It all comes down to what activates first.