Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Josh on June 26, 2013, 05:05:08 PM
-
I attack, my opponent blocks with Am Slave, captures to my LoB, searches for an EC, puts it in battle. I play new SoG on Am Slave, putting Am Slave back in battle and undoing the search, but I don't rescue anything because I can't rescue Am Slave. Then, on my turn, I attack with Angel at Tomb and shuffle SoG back into my deck, since it was discarded without rescuing a LS.
Is there anything wrong with the logic above?
-
I dont think that the New SoG would negate Aslave like that.
-
I think that like Uzzah he cannot be negated after his ability is activated
-
I don't think you can even target Ls in your own territory.
-
I don't think you can even target Ls in your own territory.
You can target then (with Burial for example) but you can't rescue them.
-
I think I actually agree with the posted ruling
-
This doesn't work. If DON can't target lampstand then Sog can't target souls in your Territory.
-
This doesn't work. If DON can't target lampstand then Sog can't target souls in your Territory.
Why? The rule prevents it from rescuing, not targeting.
-
This doesn't work. If DON can't target lampstand then Sog can't target souls in your Territory.
DoN can't target Lampstand because Lampstand is protected entirely from it. The rule on souls is that you can't rescue the ones in your own LOB, not that you can't target them for negation.
-
The ability of AM as an EC does not convert when it becomes a LS. The FBTN LS doesn't negate it. Neither does SoG. As a LS it has no SA.
-
This doesn't work. If DON can't target lampstand then Sog can't target souls in your Territory.
so, wait DoN can't target Lampy? Since when? Did I miss something?
-
This doesn't work. If DON can't target lampstand then Sog can't target souls in your Territory.
so, wait DoN can't target Lampy? Since when? Did I miss something?
DoN cannot target Lampstand.
-
DoN cannot target Lampstand because of the way DoN is worded.
+1 w/ Gabe
-
Hey,
The ability of AM as an EC does not convert when it becomes a LS...As a LS it has no SA.
Just like a converted character still has an ability even if the ability doesn't work when converted, Amalekites Slave still has an ability when captured. Once it's captured it's ability will not activate again while it remains a lost soul, but during the phase it activated as a character it can still be negated.
The FBTN LS doesn't negate it. Neither does SoG.
The FBTN soul is a prevent, and when The Amalekites Slave activates it's a character not a lot soul, so the FBTN soul doesn't negate it. But I see no reason why Son of God wouldn't negate it.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Just like a converted character still has an ability even if the ability doesn't work when converted, Amalekites Slave still has an ability when captured. Once it's captured it's ability will not activate again while it remains a lost soul, but during the phase it activated as a character it can still be negated.
It can be negated as an Evil Character, or if a card existed that said to negate a capture ability. The Evil Character's ability will not be negated by any card that only negates a Lost Soul.
-
The only precedence I can think of is Deafening Spirit. Once played Deafening changes card type. If Samuel's Edict's negate ability targets Deafening Spirit, I see no reason why Deafening's negate and subsequent conversion would not be negated.
Isn't SoG on A Slave the same concept?
Kirk
-
Deafening spirit remains an evil card. Sam's Edict negates an evil card.
-
DoN cannot target Lampstand because of the way DoN is worded.
+1 w/ Gabe
So, because it says "Discard an active artifact in play." it can't target Lampy because Lampy protects all cards not in battle from evil doms. I get it. Makes sense....i think.
-
The ability of AM as an EC does not convert when it becomes a LS. The FBTN LS doesn't negate it. Neither does SoG. As a LS it has no SA.
So, if I activate Judas Iscariot (or Simon the Zealot types of cards), and then later they are captured, does the protection still remain in effect while they are a captured character?
-
Clarification regarding DoN -> It cannot discard Lampstand but it CAN still negate it (you can't protect from negation). 2 DoNs played by 2 different players on the same Lampstand, for example, would be able to get rid of it.
Regarding Am Slave, I have the same question as YMT. I always thought StZ's protect remained active even if he was captured.
-
Clarification regarding DoN -> It cannot discard Lampstand but it CAN still negate it (you can't protect from negation). 2 DoNs played by 2 different players on the same Lampstand, for example, would be able to get rid of it.
False, to negate with DoN you have to discard the artifact to negate it, because of the way the card is worded. Thus you cannot discard lampstand with 2 DoNs
-
Clarification regarding DoN -> It cannot discard Lampstand but it CAN still negate it (you can't protect from negation). 2 DoNs played by 2 different players on the same Lampstand, for example, would be able to get rid of it.
False, to negate with DoN you have to discard the artifact to negate it, because of the way the card is worded. Thus you cannot discard lampstand with 2 DoNs
I've always seen it played/ruled that you could still negate Lampstand with DoN (at the Nationals I went to, back when Lampy protected LoR, someone played DoN to negate Lampy for a phase so they could play Falling Away). Did that change recently?
Also, I don't see what you mean about the wording. It targets an artifact to discard and then negate. I see nothing that says the negate hinges on the discard.
Strictly speaking, I'm not sure why DoN can negate any Artifact at all since it says "Artifact's ability" (and abilities are numbers ;) ).
-
Clarification regarding DoN -> It cannot discard Lampstand but it CAN still negate it (you can't protect from negation). 2 DoNs played by 2 different players on the same Lampstand, for example, would be able to get rid of it.
False, to negate with DoN you have to discard the artifact to negate it, because of the way the card is worded. Thus you cannot discard lampstand with 2 DoNs
I've always seen it played/ruled that you could still negate Lampstand with DoN (at the Nationals I went to, back when Lampy protected LoR, someone played DoN to negate Lampy for a phase so they could play Falling Away). Did that change recently?
Also, I don't see what you mean about the wording. It targets an artifact to discard and then negate. I see nothing that says the negate hinges on the discard.
The negate hinges on the discard because it says "Discard an artifact. Artifact's ability is negated." In the second ability the "Artifact" is the artifact that was discarded. If you couldn't target the artifact for discard, there is nothing to target to negate.
EDIT: Here's a thread confirming this ruling if you want it.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/don-vs-lampstand-(related-to-poa-vs-12fg)/msg294240/#msg294240
-
For those interested in further reading on this topic you can find the discussion about TAS and the FBTN LS here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/tas-and-the-fbtn-ls/msg414740/#msg414740).
-
Should I start a new thread for my question, then?
-
Should I start a new thread for my question, then?
If you read the ability on the cards I think you might be able to answer at least half the question yourself. ;)
Because of that I just assumed you were being facetious.
-
Should I start a new thread for my question, then?
If you read the ability on the cards I think you might be able to answer at least half the question yourself. ;)
Because of that I just assumed you were being facetious.
Rather than insult me you could just answer my question. You assumed wrong.
I did read the cards. I have them right in front of me. Is the "this hero" and "this evil character" the key, since they would have to say "captured character?"
-
Rather than insult me you could just answer my question. You assumed wrong.
I'm sorry. I was in no way trying to insult you. You make sarcastic posts often. Wasn't the title above your avatar "Jester" at one time?
I did read the cards. I have them right in front of me. Is the "this hero" and "this evil character" the key, since they would have to say "captured character?"
Correct, that is the key.
-
You make sarcastic posts often. Wasn't the title above your avatar "Jester" at one time?
I actively avoid sarcasm, so you will have to provide evidence that I am sarcastic "often." And I haven't had the "Forum Jester" label for quite a while now. I asked Schaef to remove it if that indicates how long ago it was. Additionally, I did not earn the label for being sarcastic. I try to be witty, but I do not support negativity as a means to achieve humor.
Of course, I may just be blinding myself. Is that how everyone on these boards sees me? Am I really that sarcastic?
-
Of course, I may just be blinding myself. Is that how everyone on these boards sees me? Am I really that sarcastic?
The only time I ever take you seriously is when you are angry.
-
The definition of sarcasm from Merriam-Webster:
1. a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2. a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
Does this really define who I am on this Message Board?
-
The definition of sarcasm from Merriam-Webster:
1. a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2. a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual
Does this really define who I am on this Message Board?
I wouldn't say it defines who you are.
I would say that traditionally I have viewed you as primarily a board member attempting to post in a light hearted and/or joking manner that is sometimes sarcastic but is not defined by sarcasm. This causes me to not usually take you very seriously. I personally did not think your question was a joke, however, given how I view your posts as a whole, if Gabe has a similar view, I could see why he'd think that. I typically choose to consider almost everything you say as joking, except when you are angry (which is readily apparent: see those old threads about goats/moderators/etc).
-
Oh, good.
And don't get me started about goats.... :maul:
-
Hey,
It can be negated as an Evil Character, or if a card existed that said to negate a capture ability. The Evil Character's ability will not be negated by any card that only negates a Lost Soul.
Cards are negated based on their current card type not based on their card type when they activated. That's why TAS can search for Job's Wife and not negate the search, because Job's Wife negates characters and enhancements and when she activates TAS is no longer a character.
If it were as you say and TAS can be negated as an Evil Character then searching for Job's Wife should negate it.
For those interested in further reading on this topic you can find the discussion about TAS and the FBTN LS here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/tas-and-the-fbtn-ls/msg414740/#msg414740).
That thread is quite inconclusive. The question is posed by an elder, respectable players share opinions on both sides and a conclusion arrises (if it necessarily arrises at all) from a technicality.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
That thread is quite inconclusive. The question is posed by an elder, respectable players share opinions on both sides and a conclusion arrises (if it necessarily arrises at all) from a technicality.
I wouldn't call it inconclusive. The consensus at the end seemed to be that characters that are "treated as LSs" are not quite the same thing as "LSs" and therefore the FBN LS didn't negate characters when they were captured.
If that is the ruling, then it would have the same effect here. The new SoG would also not negate characters like TAS when they are captured.
Although I agree that this could easily be ruled either way, I think that it would make the game needlessly complicated if we ruled it possible to negate any character in the same phase that it gets captured. Imagine if Rehoboam blocks, causes a complicated side battle, then is captured after returning to the regular battle, and then gets rescued by the new SoG. Would you have to undo everything that happened because of the side battle, etc.? This would be a pain to keep track of.
-
Hey,
I wouldn't call it inconclusive. The consensus at the end seemed to be that characters that are "treated as LSs" are not quite the same thing as "LSs" and therefore the FBN LS didn't negate characters when they were captured.
If that is the ruling, then it would have the same effect here. The new SoG would also not negate characters like TAS when they are captured.
A captured human character is treated as a lost soul and can be targeted by any card that targets a lost soul. But they are not "lost soul cards" which for some reason is what the FBTN soul says, that's why the FBTN soul doesn't negate it. That's not relevant to the new Son of God issue becuase it targets a "Lost Soul" not a "Lost Soul card."
Imagine if Rehoboam blocks, causes a complicated side battle, then is captured after returning to the regular battle, and then gets rescued by the new SoG. Would you have to undo everything that happened because of the side battle, etc.? This would be a pain to keep track of.
That's not any different than if after the side battle the attacker plays Might of Faith, Abraham's Servant to Ur or bands to a FBTN character (or the defender could even get to a point where they need to play Midianite Attack). That's not a negating captured characters problem, that's a negating side battles problem, which is a completely different issue.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Well, like I said, I think this has the possibility of going either way. And based on posts (and votes) there are multiple elders on both sides of the issue. Therefore we should probably discuss this and return with a consensus ruling. Other forum members are welcome to continue debating the subject here to give their own input, but let's not have the elders continue disagreeing over this one.
-
Any update on this issue?
-
Bumping this topic. Any update?
-
I still agree with Gabe's original assessment.