Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheKarazyvicePresidentRR on December 24, 2009, 09:12:06 PM
-
What is the ruling with weapons on withdrawing characters?
-
To my understanding they stay. Though "technically" it might be different.
-
To my understanding they stay. Though "technically" it might be different.
I mean do they activate if I do say Spy- Warriors spear. Sorry for the lack of clarity.
-
This is the REG definition of Special Abilities. Unless an official ruling on these boards says otherwise, then the weapon would not activate.
First, complete all special abilities in the order written on the card except those that add a character to the battle (banding abilities). Note that some special abilities can happen together even though they may be separated by a period (e.g., Authority of Christ promo). Second, if the card is a character with either a gained ability or a weapon-class enhancement, then activate the gained abilities in the order gained. Finally, activate the special abilities on the carried weapon-class enhancement.
-
it has been ruled differently, just recently actually by bryon. for instance, spy + warriors spear would still work.
http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18860.0 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=18860.0)
as you can see, it works.
i also cant see where anyone can justify anywhere in that REG quote that the weapon would not activate.
-
YMT is that official enough for ya?
-
YMT is that official enough for ya?
Yes.
i also cant see where anyone can justify anywhere in that REG quote that the weapon would not activate.
Simple. Spy's ability completes, which takes him and his spear out of battle. The spear would not activate since Spy is no longer in battle for it to activate on.
Even though that is not how it works, it is fairly simple to see where someone could justify it by the REG.
-
*nod* Okay sweet! *runs off to be evil*
-
did weapon enter battle? yes.
was weapon interrupted or prevented? no.
weapon still resolves.
-
Lol RR its funny you asked this question because you responded in the old thread MKChief posted lol
-
did weapon enter battle? yes.
was weapon interrupted or prevented? no.
weapon still resolves.
No need to be a "yes man" (as you like to say). I can read Bryon's ruling, and I already acknowledged its validity. However, I was responding to your claim that you "cant see where anyone can justify anywhere in that REG quote that the weapon would not activate." I gave you a way that it could be justified. There are precedents for SAs that enter battle, are not interrupted or prevented, and yet do not resolve.
For example, if I block with Babel to bring in a ton of ECs, but on one of them use an ability that lets me play an enhancement and I choose an enhancement that says "battle immediately ends," do all the other SAs still resolve? Specifically, do the weapons on the remaining characters still activate?
-
Lol RR its funny you asked this question because you responded in the old thread MKChief posted lol
I didn't know if it was official
-
did weapon enter battle? yes.
was weapon interrupted or prevented? no.
weapon still resolves.
No need to be a "yes man" (as you like to say). I can read Bryon's ruling, and I already acknowledged its validity. However, I was responding to your claim that you "cant see where anyone can justify anywhere in that REG quote that the weapon would not activate." I gave you a way that it could be justified. There are precedents for SAs that enter battle, are not interrupted or prevented, and yet do not resolve.
For example, if I block with Babel to bring in a ton of ECs, but on one of them use an ability that lets me play an enhancement and I choose an enhancement that says "battle immediately ends," do all the other SAs still resolve? Specifically, do the weapons on the remaining characters still activate?
not being a yes-man, as i clearly justified my stance with logic. also, there is no precedent to what you claim. in your scenario, as long as no interrupt or negate card is played, there is no reason each special ability would not activate.
-
In the babel situation, there is a reason they wouldn't activate. It's the same reason you can't interrupt an end the battle card. The battle ends, and nothing else activates.
-
not being a yes-man, as i clearly justified my stance with logic.
Bryon's logic:
Did the spear enter battle? yes
Was it negated (directly or indirectly)? no
Then it works.
did weapon enter battle? yes.
was weapon interrupted or prevented? no.
weapon still resolves.
In the Babel case, you are mistaken, unless Bryon has ruled otherwise for "end the battle" cards.
-
In the babel situation, there is a reason they wouldn't activate. It's the same reason you can't interrupt an end the battle card. The battle ends, and nothing else activates.
so you're suggesting each special ability on each evil character resolves one at a time, rather than simultaneously? i seem to recall hearing the exact opposite of what you claim from maly.
In the Babel case, you are mistaken, unless Bryon has ruled otherwise for "end the battle" cards.
please explain to me how i can be mistaken, if the exact same logic can be applied here:
did evil characters enter battle? yes.
were any evil characters interrupted or prevented? no.
evil characters special abilities resolve.
how is this so different from the spy/spear ruling?
-
i seem to recall hearing the exact opposite of what you claim from maly.
I believe rather that Maly presented the situation as:
1. Select all ECs who will enter battle all at once (one-time targetting)
2. Activate characters in any order holder chooses
Basically, the question is whether an "end the battle" card does in fact end the battle.
please explain to me how i can be mistaken, if the exact same logic can be applied here:
I can't, which is why I question the ruling made by Bryon (more specifically, the logic) quoted above. One or the other would have to be untrue.
-
you are correct, that is the way maly presented it. however, i dont see how an 'end the battle' card is any bit different than the spy's inherent ability from withdrawing. in the babel case, you've ended the battle, yes, but there are still abilities on the 'stack' (per se) waiting to be resolved. were any interrupted or prevented? if not, resolve them. both situations which you've described are practically the same.
-
Hey,
so you're suggesting each special ability on each evil character resolves one at a time, rather than simultaneously? i seem to recall hearing the exact opposite of what you claim from maly.
Nothing in Redemption happens Simultaneously.
The difference between spy/warrior's spear and babel/end the battle, is that the rules specify that:
"If there are pending abilities when a battle immediately ends ability occurs, the pending abilities never complete their activation and never take effect."
There is no similar rule for withdraw abilities. Which is why a weapon doesn't activate in the babel scenario but does in the spy/warrior's spear scenario.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
why do pending abilities never activate if they were never interrupted or prevented? how is a withdraw ability not a 'battle immediately ends ability' if used offensively? how are the two situations any different if they're almost exactly similiar in mechanic?
-
Nothing in Redemption happens Simultaneously.
New Jerusalem?
-
why do pending abilities never activate if they were never interrupted or prevented? how is a withdraw ability not a 'battle immediately ends ability' if used offensively? how are the two situations any different if they're almost exactly similiar in mechanic?
This is my basic problem with the ruling for Warrior's Spear. If the only hero in battle withdraws, then the battle is over. I think the rules for "battle immediately ends" should apply.
-
Completely agree. If the battle ends abilities are stopped. Whether with end the battle or withdraw...this makes logical sense...
-
Hey,
why do pending abilities never activate if they were never interrupted or prevented?
Because that's what the "battle immediately ends" (or "end the battle") keyword does, by definition.
If I have multiple heroes in battle and withdraw one of them is the battle immediately over? Of course not, the remaining character continues to fight. If I have one hero in battle against an evil character and withdraw it is the battle immediately over? No, I can still play a card such as Grapes of Wrath on the Evil Character in battle.
Under normal rules the battle ends when both players agree to play no more cards in battle. An end the battle ability creates an alternative to that rule, a withdraw ability does not.
Saying that Withdraw and Battle Immediately Ends abilities both end the battle is like saying that immune and ignore abilities both win the battle. It's just not the case.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
it would help if there were an 'end the battle' keyword in the REG. of course, there isnt.
i still dont see how its logical to say that an ability can activate outside of battle in spys case, whereas it cannot in babels/mass banding case.
-
Under normal rules the battle ends when both players agree to play no more cards in battle. An end the battle ability creates an alternative to that rule, a withdraw ability does not.
Saying that Withdraw and Battle Immediately Ends abilities both end the battle is like saying that immune and ignore abilities both win the battle. It's just not the case.
Just to be clear, does this officially overturn the various Withdraw Hero + Chariots of Fire/I Am Patience vs DoN rulings that have been made in the past?
It has been ruled (forever, as far as I know) that if I have Chariots/IaP/any other "after rescue" card and I make a rescue with a withdraw character and immediately pull the character out of battle that my opponent has no chance to play DoN to take out Chariot/IaP/whatever because you cannot play dominants during battle resolution and the rescue attempt ended once the hero withdrew.
Second, do placed enhancements follow the same rule as Warrior's Spear? Could I, for example, place Obedience of Noah on Ahimaaz, have him enter battle, immediately withdraw, and then choose the blocker (i.e., put an EC into battle) for my opponent?
-
Just to be clear, does this officially overturn the various Withdraw Hero + Chariots of Fire/I Am Patience vs DoN rulings that have been made in the past?
It has been ruled (forever, as far as I know) that if I have Chariots/IaP/any other "after rescue" card and I make a rescue with a withdraw character and immediately pull the character out of battle that my opponent has no chance to play DoN to take out Chariot/IaP/whatever because you cannot play dominants during battle resolution and the rescue attempt ended once the hero withdrew.
I'm no official, but my gut is telling me that yes, this does change the rule. Both players have not signaled that the battle is over, but the ONLY thing the blocking player can do at this point is play a dominant, so it is usually assumed at this point that the battle is finished. However, I feel that it would only make sense to allow someone to DoN the CoF/IaP before it activates.
-
Since the REG already "clarifies" that there is no distinction between "discarded" and "immediately discarded," I think a similar clarification that there is no distinction between "battle ends" and "battle immediately ends" would be consistent.
-
Just to be clear, does this officially overturn the various Withdraw Hero + Chariots of Fire/I Am Patience vs DoN rulings that have been made in the past?
It has been ruled (forever, as far as I know) that if I have Chariots/IaP/any other "after rescue" card and I make a rescue with a withdraw character and immediately pull the character out of battle that my opponent has no chance to play DoN to take out Chariot/IaP/whatever because you cannot play dominants during battle resolution and the rescue attempt ended once the hero withdrew.
I'm no official, but my gut is telling me that yes, this does change the rule. Both players have not signaled that the battle is over, but the ONLY thing the blocking player can do at this point is play a dominant, so it is usually assumed at this point that the battle is finished. However, I feel that it would only make sense to allow someone to DoN the CoF/IaP before it activates.
why would the blocking player be able to play a dominant in this situation?
-
why would the blocking player be able to play a dominant in this situation?
In the past it was consistently ruled that they could not. These rulings were predicated, however, on the lone hero withdrawing from battle terminating the rescue attempt. Tim has just stated that there is a distinction between having all characters exit battle and actually ending battle. If the battle does not ended until "both players agree to play no more cards in battle", I can see no reason why the "blocker" would be unable to play a dominant before agreeing the battle has concluded.
As this new ruling overturns existing precedents, I am seeking confirmation that this is what was intended.
-
ah. so wouldnt unholy writ also work in this situation as well?
-
ah. so wouldnt unholy writ also work in this situation as well?
Similarly, if Lampstand of the Sanctuary is active, could you use CM against the hero? For both cases, I'm not sure. Since both require heroes in battle, I suppose the argument would be that the battle still is ongoing but there is no hero in battle.
Another thing I would like to have explained is what happens if you play a battle winner, I play an ITB and then remove your character from the battle. Your battle winner already activated so I'm not sure--given the Warrior's Spear ruling--why merely removing the character it was played on from the battle would prevent it from taking effect.
-
Hey,
Just to be clear, does this officially overturn the various Withdraw Hero + Chariots of Fire/I Am Patience vs DoN rulings that have been made in the past?
It has been ruled (forever, as far as I know) that if I have Chariots/IaP/any other "after rescue" card and I make a rescue with a withdraw character and immediately pull the character out of battle that my opponent has no chance to play DoN to take out Chariot/IaP/whatever because you cannot play dominants during battle resolution and the rescue attempt ended once the hero withdrew.
I was not aware of such a ruling regarding the use of Destruction. You are correct that I am disagreeing with that ruling. Destruction could be played on an "after battle" artifact in response to a hero like Spy attacking and withdrawing.
And actually, after reading the rulebook, it seems to me that the blocking player could even present a blocker after a withdraw hero makes a rescue attempt.
The Rulebook says:
4. Battle Phase - Follow these steps in order:
a) You may begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by
placing a Hero into the Field of Battle. If you make a rescue
attempt or battle challenge, go to step b. Otherwise,
skip to the Discard Phase.
b) Your opponent may block your Hero by placing an Evil
Character into the Field of Battle.
Step b is contingent on placing a hero into the Field of Battle, it doesn't say anything about the hero having to still be in battle at the end of step a. Bryon, can you give your opinion on this?
Second, do placed enhancements follow the same rule as Warrior's Spear? Could I, for example, place Obedience of Noah on Ahimaaz, have him enter battle, immediately withdraw, and then choose the blocker (i.e., put an EC into battle) for my opponent?
Yes, placed enhancements, in this case, work the same way as weapons.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
And actually, after reading the rulebook, it seems to me that the blocking player could even present a blocker after a withdraw hero makes a rescue attempt.
The Rulebook says:
4. Battle Phase - Follow these steps in order:
a) You may begin a rescue attempt or battle challenge by
placing a Hero into the Field of Battle. If you make a rescue
attempt or battle challenge, go to step b. Otherwise,
skip to the Discard Phase.
b) Your opponent may block your Hero by placing an Evil
Character into the Field of Battle.
Step b is contingent on placing a hero into the Field of Battle, it doesn't say anything about the hero having to still be in battle at the end of step a.
Step b. says that your opponent "may block your hero." If there is no hero in battle, then who is the EC "blocking?"
The rest is a matter of interpretation (which is why we're supposed to have and use a REG). Once the hero is withdrawn, there is no longer a RA or BC. The battle has effectively "ended," which should (logically) have the same result as a SA that says "end the battle" since "end the battle" is not a defined SA in the REG, but rather a game rule understanding.
-
The REG actually does have this to say:
Instant Abilities > Withdraw from Battle > How to Use
Withdraw cards can be used to immediately terminate a battle or rescue attempt. Only cards targeted to withdraw must leave the Field of Battle. If the withdraw card specifies that only a character withdraws from battle, the enhancements are discarded unless there is another character remaining or immediately replaced in the Field of Battle that can use them. Cards returned to your hand return to face value and cards returned to your territory retain their abilities. Other characters in battle not targeted remain in battle. If a withdrawing character was the only one in battle, the battle ends. If other characters remain in battle, the battle continues and initiative rules apply. Withdraw cards can be interrupted if you gain initiative after the withdraw card is played.
-
Hey,
Since the REG already "clarifies" that there is no distinction between "discarded" and "immediately discarded," I think a similar clarification that there is no distinction between "battle ends" and "battle immediately ends" would be consistent.
Where have we used the phrase "battle ends?" I can't think of any cards where that phrase shows up.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
ah. so wouldnt unholy writ also work in this situation as well?
You can't use Writ on ET until after he has a chance to use his play an enhancement ability. Similarly you can't use Writ on Spy until after he has a chance to use his withdraw ability. And if Spy does withdraw, he's not in battle and thus he's not a valid target for Writ.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Another thing I would like to have explained is what happens if you play a battle winner, I play an ITB and then remove your character from the battle. Your battle winner already activated so I'm not sure--given the Warrior's Spear ruling--why merely removing the character it was played on from the battle would prevent it from taking effect.
The key is the interrupt. If you interrupt an ability, when the interrupt ends, you check to make sure the interrupted abilities still can activate, and if they can't then they don't. That's part of the "definition" of an interrupt. In the Warrior's Spear situation, there's no interrupt, so the interrupt check doesn't happen.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
The REG actually does have this to say:
Instant Abilities > Withdraw from Battle > How to Use
Withdraw cards can be used to immediately terminate a battle or rescue attempt. Only cards targeted to withdraw must leave the Field of Battle. If the withdraw card specifies that only a character withdraws from battle, the enhancements are discarded unless there is another character remaining or immediately replaced in the Field of Battle that can use them. Cards returned to your hand return to face value and cards returned to your territory retain their abilities. Other characters in battle not targeted remain in battle. If a withdrawing character was the only one in battle, the battle ends. If other characters remain in battle, the battle continues and initiative rules apply. Withdraw cards can be interrupted if you gain initiative after the withdraw card is played.
That is very interesting... so killing a hero in battle doesnt end the battle instantly, but withdrawing does?
-
Especially interesting considering return to hand abilities are now considered withdraw abilities.
-
Just to be clear, does this officially overturn the various Withdraw Hero + Chariots of Fire/I Am Patience vs DoN rulings that have been made in the past?
I was not aware of such a ruling regarding the use of Destruction. You are correct that I am disagreeing with that ruling.
I distinctly remember you personally explaining this to me when I was grumbling about the ruling after I got burned by it in a game. (You weren't my opponent in the game, you were merely the person I was pointed to ask an explanation of the ruling afterwords.)
Destruction could be played on an "after battle" artifact in response to a hero like Spy attacking and withdrawing.
Excellent.
And actually, after reading the rulebook, it seems to me that the blocking player could even present a blocker after a withdraw hero makes a rescue attempt.
I was originally going to ask about this, but I figured everyone would think I was crazy. The ability to play an EC with impunity after the hero has withdrawn would be a good counterbalance to the new use of Warrior's Spear. It would also open some creative ambiguity into the decision on whether or not to bring a hero into battle simply to withdraw,
Second, do placed enhancements follow the same rule as Warrior's Spear?
Yes, placed enhancements, in this case, work the same way as weapons.
Excellent.
[Difference between withdraw and ITB question deleted.]
The key is the interrupt. If you interrupt an ability, when the interrupt ends, you check to make sure the interrupted abilities still can activate, and if they can't then they don't. That's part of the "definition" of an interrupt.
At some point on a visit to the TC I need you to explain the whole concept of "interrupt" to me. I always thought--per the REG definition--that interrupt interrupted the special ability of the card and not the activation of the special ability, I don't get from the formal definition of either interrupt or interrupt the battle where there is an activation recheck.
Especially interesting considering return to hand abilities are now considered withdraw abilities.
Not so interesting since the return to hand SA was probably played by another character in battle, so the "battle ends" condition would not be triggered.
-
Not now that you can place cards...
-
Where have we used the phrase "battle ends?"
The phrase shows up in the REG quote I listed above. My query is why Warrior's Spear works on a withdrawn character when the "battle ends," but it doesn't work in a banding chain when a "battle immediately ends" card is played.
That is contradictory.