Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: STAMP on March 09, 2010, 04:58:47 PM

Title: Negating Fortresses
Post by: STAMP on March 09, 2010, 04:58:47 PM
In researching the REG for TKVP's ruling question I came up with the following question:

If during the same battle phase Herod Agrippa II's (TexP) special ability is activated, and then later on in the phase I am allowed to put a fortress in play by some other card's special ability, does the special ability on the fortress ever get to activate?


Herod Agrippa II
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Gold • Ability: None • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: Negate protect abilities on Fortresses. If a Hero withdraws from battle, you may capture it. May band to a Sadducee. Cannot be negated. • Attributes: Jewish King • Identifiers: NT Male Human, King (Judah) • Verse: Acts 25:23 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()

Overview
The following phases are performed each turn, even if nothing is actively done on a particular phase.  A response is allowed between every separate phase. 

1.  Draw Phase – You draw three (3) cards and add them to your hand. Lost Souls are placed in territory.  For each Lost Soul you place in your territory, draw another card.

2.  Upkeep Phase – You must change counters if needed.

3.  Preparation Phase – You may perform any number of these actions in any order. Actions may be repeated unless a limit is stipulated:

•      Place a character (cross or dragon icon) into your territory.

•      Place an artifact, covenant, or curse face down in your artifact pile.

•      Activate an artifact, covenant, or curse by placing an artifact it face up on your artifact pile (limit once per turn).

•      Place a site into your territory.

•      Place a Lost Soul into a site.

•      Set aside a character.

•      Return a character from your set-aside area and place it back into your territory.

•      Place a weapon-class enhancement on a warrior-class character in your territory.

•      Place a fortress on the table as described on the fortress. At this time its special ability becomes active.

•      Place or remove a card in a fortress as described on the fortress.

Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: Cousin It on March 09, 2010, 05:17:57 PM
Herod Agrippa II's ability is a negate.  He interrupts all current fortresses then prevents protect abilities on all fortresses from then on.  If a new fortress was introduced, it's ability would kick in but if it had a protect ability, it would be prevent by HAII.  As for adding the a fortress bullet to the Prep phace, that makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: Bryon on March 10, 2010, 12:24:04 AM
The protect ability would activate as the next phase (discard phase) begins.
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: EmJayBee83 on March 10, 2010, 12:57:23 AM
Can I point out that "Negating Fortresses" would be a fairly awesome name for an indy rock group?
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: CountFount on March 10, 2010, 09:16:42 AM
Can I point out that "Negating Fortresses" would be a fairly awesome name for an indy rock group?

Sing us a few of lines Matt
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: STAMP on March 10, 2010, 10:21:49 AM
The protect ability would activate as the next phase (discard phase) begins.

Okay this is new (and I admit it's because it may be the only type of card for this scenario), but it's not in the rules/REG.  The ability never got to activate when it was put into play.  Why does it activate once the new phase starts?  I know, I know, ongoing abilities that are interrupted during a phase turn back on in the next phase.  BUT, in this scenario the fortress never activates in the first place.  For an ongoing ability to work in future phases it has to activate when put into play.

I'm just pointing this out so it gets documented.


And before anyone starts to wonder why I'm bringing all this up, I DON'T have broken combos.  I'm just trying to find everything that might need to be in the new REG.   :)
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: EmJayBee83 on March 10, 2010, 10:25:10 AM
And before anyone starts to wonder why I'm bringing all this up, I DON'T have broken combos.  I'm just trying to find everything that might need to be in the new REG.   :)
STAMP, if I ask nicely will you send me a PM with the broken combo you DON'T (wink, wink) have? Pretty pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese.
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: STAMP on March 10, 2010, 10:30:19 AM
And before anyone starts to wonder why I'm bringing all this up, I DON'T have broken combos.  I'm just trying to find everything that might need to be in the new REG.   :)
STAMP, if I ask nicely will you send me a PM with the broken combo you DON'T (wink, wink) have? Pretty pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese.


Sure.  But for extra security it will be in ASL.   ;)
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: EmJayBee83 on March 10, 2010, 10:46:02 AM
PM sent.
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: CountFount on March 10, 2010, 10:49:46 AM
PM sent.

Virus attached.
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: SirNobody on March 10, 2010, 02:15:04 PM
Hey,

It all depends on if Herod Agrippa II is a "negate" (negate) or a "negate all" (negate and prevent).  I'd be inclined to leave it as just a negate, so the Fortress played after Herod's ability took effect would work, although since Bryon seems to disagree with me...

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: Cousin It on March 10, 2010, 03:00:42 PM
Since when does 'negate' and 'negate all' mean different things?  If you're negating fortresses with protect abilities you're negating ALL fortresses with protect abilities, not just one or two.  And since negate = interrupt + prevent, if you're negating, you are prevent ALL, right?
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: SirNobody on March 10, 2010, 03:11:08 PM
Hey,

negate = interrupt + prevent

This is false.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: Cousin It on March 10, 2010, 03:18:17 PM
Quote
Negate is the same as ‘interrupt and prevent’ combined

From REG > Glossary of Terms > Negate
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: BubbleBoy on March 10, 2010, 06:21:02 PM
Quote
Negate is the same as ‘interrupt and prevent’ combined

From REG > Glossary of Terms > Negate
You silly out-of-the-loop players - we all go by the new REG now.

The only problem is, it isn't exactly out yet...
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: Cameron the Conqueror on March 10, 2010, 06:40:58 PM
Quote
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT OFFICIAL.
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: Korunks on March 11, 2010, 07:56:39 AM
Hey,

negate = interrupt + prevent

This is false.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Then I and all of the rest of this season's tournament host's/judge's would absolutely love to know what negate actually is, if not the REG definition of interrupt and prevent.
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: CountFount on March 11, 2010, 09:06:32 AM
Hey,

negate = interrupt + prevent

This is false.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Then I and all of the rest of this season's tournament host's/judge's would absolutely love to know what negate actually is, if not the REG definition of interrupt and prevent.
"SirNobody"+New Reg= Negate
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: browarod on March 11, 2010, 10:47:47 AM
Hey,

negate = interrupt + prevent

This is false.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Then I and all of the rest of this season's tournament host's/judge's would absolutely love to know what negate actually is, if not the REG definition of interrupt and prevent.
"SirNobody"+New Reg= Negate
You: I "SirNobody" your enhancement, which means you lose and I win.
Opponent: Aww :'(
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: BubbleBoy on March 11, 2010, 11:24:50 AM
"SirNobody"+New Reg= Negate
And since New REG = 0, that must mean SirNobody = Negate. ;D
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: Cousin It on March 11, 2010, 11:57:58 AM
I feel like I'm stuck in Limbo.  The official Document (REG) disagrees with what's being said.  What's being said agrees with the New REG.  But the New REG isn't official yet!  Rock, Paper, Scissors anyone?   ::)
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: BubbleBoy on March 11, 2010, 12:04:50 PM
I feel like I'm stuck in Limbo.  The official Document (REG) disagrees with what's being said.  What's being said agrees with the New REG.  But the New REG isn't official yet!
Don't worry, we're all kind of in Limbo until the new REG comes out. ...Which is why it should be out now...
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: STAMP on March 11, 2010, 02:14:57 PM
I feel like I'm stuck in Limbo.  The official Document (REG) disagrees with what's being said.  What's being said agrees with the New REG.  But the New REG isn't official yet!  Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock anyone?   ::)

I don't think that will work anymore.  Everyone chooses Spock.   ;)
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: Red Dragon Thorn on March 11, 2010, 10:24:17 PM
Nah, Someone will have to not choose Spock. But who?
Title: Re: Negating Fortresses
Post by: BubbleBoy on March 11, 2010, 10:25:31 PM
I'm sure I would, because I would as usual have absolutely no idea what was going on.
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal