Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Red Warrior on April 10, 2012, 02:39:05 PM
-
I attack with... Asher... yeah, that'll work :)
My opponent blocks with Omri, searches and plays Samaria
Gates of Jerusalem triggers, decreasing Asher below */0
I now have special initiative to negate the ability that is removing me from battle...
Which abilities may I negate under special initiative with Joseph before Pharaoh?
King Omri (Ki)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Brown • Ability: 6 / 7 • Class: None • Special Ability: Search your draw pile for one Samaria Site and put in play. Land Purchase cannot be negated. • Play As: Search your deck for one Samaria Site and place in play. Land Purchase cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, King (Israel), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: I Kings 16:23 • Availability: Kings booster packs (Uncommon)
Gates of Samaria (RA2)
Type: Fortress • Brigade: Multicolor • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect evil Kings of Israel in your territory from opponents. When you play a Samaria Site, increase your evil King of Israel 6/6 to decrease a character 6/6. • Identifiers: None • Verse: II Kings 7:1 • Availability: Rock of Ages Extended booster packs (None)
Joseph Before Pharaoh (FF2)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Blue • Ability: 1 / 1 • Class: None • Special Ability: If used by a son of Jacob, negate opponent’s evil or neutral card. If it’s a human, capture it to opponent’s Land of Bondage, otherwise put it beneath deck. • Play As: If used by a son of Jacob, negate opponent’s evil or neutral card. If it’s a human, capture it to opponent’s Land of Bondage, otherwise place it beneath deck. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Genesis 41:14 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers Extended booster packs (None)
-
Smart move? Deck Gates unless you need to create a LS, Omri's useless without it. But you can negate either Gates to stop to stop the discard, or Omri to negate the search which resulted in the discard.
-
Smart move? Deck Gates unless you need to create a LS, Omri's useless without it. But you can negate either Gates to stop to stop the discard, or Omri to negate the search which resulted in the discard.
+1.
-
Praceps is actually incorrect. You have to negate Gates, since it's the one doing the removing.
-
That's exactly what I had thought, though I would be glad to be wrong. It seems that you would have to negate THE card causing the removal. Similar to how you would have to negate the removing EE instead of the horses that played it.
Another core question is whether special initiative extends to cards outside of battle (which I presume to be the cause in view of your response. Example: An opponent's Crown of Thorns is up, I block with King Zedekiah (1/1). May I play Crucify Him under special initiate? What if it were my crowns?
(Lazy enough to make an example where two cards were next to each other in the REG? Yes ;) )
Crown of Thorns (Wa)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: All Evil Characters in play decrease 0/3 while this card is in play. • Identifiers: None • Verse: John 19:2-3 • Availability: Warriors booster packs (Uncommon)
Crucify Him (Ap)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Brown • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard all activated Artifacts in play. The effects of all Artifacts this turn are negated. • Play As: Negate and discard all activated Artifacts in play. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Matthew 27:31 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Ultra Rare)
-
Interesting question, I would have to rule it as a tentative yes.
-
Interesting question, I would have to rule it as a tentative yes.
That sounds good to me too.
-
As long as you're pulling Zed from hand, otherwise he died in territory.
-
It's true that u'd have to hit Gates. I asked this at a tournament here before and that was the answer I got.
-
Interesting question, I would have to rule it as a tentative yes.
That sounds good to me too.
:o
Wait a second, that card says "Discard all activated Artifacts in play. The effects of all Artifacts this turn are negated." Isn't this essentially the same thing as DoN ("Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated."), and therefore could not be played against the discarding effect of the artifact to undo the effect? If DoN can't negate an artifact to stop it from happening, neither should this card, right?
-
Check the Play As.
-
Check the Play As.
Ok, but is that an errata? Prof, you know I'm not a "ignore play-as disguised as errata" guy, that bothers me too. But that does change the meaning of the card. And if "updating the language" on 'discard then negate' results in 'negate and discard', then DoN works differently.
If the wording is the same, the effects cannot be different, unless there is an errata, correct?
EDIT: Just checked, no errata I can find, so my question is unchanged currently.
-
I actually had a similar question to Redoubter. The card's special ability says that it discards the card, then negates all artifacts for the rest of the turn. Wouldn't the artifact be out of play by the time the negate kicks in, or is "negate all artifacts" including artifacts out of play? I don't think we use the play-as, because it's not an errata, and while it serves as a guideline, I was under the impression it shouldn't be used for official rulings.
-
I was just ruling based on the Play As being accurate. If it is not accurate, then I agree that it would be weird to rule Crucify Him differently than Destruction of Nehustan. Again, I'm a bit swamped currently getting some other rulings through the other side, so I'll let someone else run with this one :)
-
Until given Errata, Crucify Him Discards all Artifacts, then Negates any that are still in play for one reason or another. You can't just pretend cards have Errata.
-
Why don't the negate and discard happen at the same time? They are both in the same special ability. DoN is worded to negate the artifact that is discarded, but Crucify Him simply says "Discard all artifacts. Negate all artifacts." The negate does not target the discarded artifacts like DoN (which, if it did, it would negate them just like DoN does). But they are in the same ability, it's not like the discard completes before Crucify Him completes.
Example to support my view:
If I block with Goliath and my opponent presents Jair as his new hero, does he get to draw 2 CBI? Or is it prevented since Goliath negates draw abilities? The "negate draw ability" comes later in Goliath's ability than the "opponent may present a new hero" part, but isn't Goliath negating draw abilities the whole time?
-
But they are in the same ability, it's not like the discard completes before Crucify Him completes.
Actually, it does by the way the card is worded. If a card said for example, "Discard an enhancement. Negate its special ability", then you could not use that card in special initiative to stop the ability of the card. That's just the way Redemption abilities work, and have worked (see the DoN ruling).
If I block with Goliath and my opponent presents Jair as his new hero, does he get to draw 2 CBI? Or is it prevented since Goliath negates draw abilities? The "negate draw ability" comes later in Goliath's ability than the "opponent may present a new hero" part, but isn't Goliath negating draw abilities the whole time?
Goliath is already out, and therefore he would prevent Jair's ability. Jair can't be stopped by any card played after him (that's the definition of CBI), but Goliath is already out and would prevent him.
In addition, the definitions for special abilities on characters specify that abilities that add characters to battle or result in different rescuers/blockers activate last no matter what, so that example is not the same situation.
-
But they are in the same ability, it's not like the discard completes before Crucify Him completes.
Actually, it does by the way the card is worded. If a card said for example, "Discard an enhancement. Negate its special ability", then you could not use that card in special initiative to stop the ability of the card. That's just the way Redemption abilities work, and have worked (see the DoN ruling).
The way DoN is worded, it's basically "Discard an artifact TO negate that artifact's ability". If you can't discard, then you can't negate. Hence, the Lampstand ruling.
But that's not how Crucify Him is worded. It says, in layman's terms, "Discard all artifacts. Negate all artifacts." Or, in other words, "Negate and discard all active artifacts." You've already admitted that the order of abilities doesn't matter (except in the case of CTB and banding, which isn't an issue here). So my question is, if a card says "Discard all artifacts. Negate all artifacts.", why doesn't it negate and discard? It's old wording for sure (Apostles), but that shouldn't matter.
-
1. First, complete all printed special abilities in the order written on the card EXCEPT those that add a character to the battle.
2. Then complete all gained abilities (gained in set-aside or on previous turn, etc.), EXCEPT those that add a character to the battle.
3. Then, complete all weapon abilities.
4. Then, complete banding abilities.
5. Last, complete choose blocker abilities.
Source. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/official-errata/rule-clarifications-additions-and-edits/)
The order on the card does matter. In this case, the discard on Crucify Him happens, taking an artifact out of play, at which point, the negate kicks in. Because all abilities default to "in play," and the artifact that was discarded is out of play when the negate kicks in, the artifact that was just discarded is not negated by Crucify Him.
-
You've already admitted that the order of abilities doesn't matter (except in the case of CTB and banding, which isn't an issue here).
Actually, I didn't at all. What I was saying in response to your example of Goliath is from the definition on how characters activate in battle. It has nothing to do with Crucify Him, or anything besides a character in battle.
And Chronic explained once again why this does not work.
-
O yay, look what happens when I randomly post "Crucify Him" for convenience... if I'd used Lying unto God we wouldn't be having this lovely conversation :)
Back to my original question for just a minute... would the Crown of Thorns being MINE affect my ability to play Lying unto God on my from-hand-EC under special initiate? (Example, player B cannot play "Escape" to retreat his EC after playing "Deceit of Sapphira" since Player B caused the removal...) Does this precedent carry over to cards outside of battle?
-
1. First, complete all printed special abilities in the order written on the card EXCEPT those that add a character to the battle.
2. Then complete all gained abilities (gained in set-aside or on previous turn, etc.), EXCEPT those that add a character to the battle.
3. Then, complete all weapon abilities.
4. Then, complete banding abilities.
5. Last, complete choose blocker abilities.
Source. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/official-errata/rule-clarifications-additions-and-edits/)
The order on the card does matter. In this case, the discard on Crucify Him happens, taking an artifact out of play, at which point, the negate kicks in. Because all abilities default to "in play," and the artifact that was discarded is out of play when the negate kicks in, the artifact that was just discarded is not negated by Crucify Him.
Actually, I didn't at all. What I was saying in response to your example of Goliath is from the definition on how characters activate in battle. It has nothing to do with Crucify Him, or anything besides a character in battle.
And Chronic explained once again why this does not work.
Wow. I was way off on this one. My apologies for arguing about what I did not know. A simple REG check would have set me straight from the start.
-
Don't sweat it. I've been much more wrong about rulings before, and I do understand the logic you used - it just happens to be incorrect.
-
Wow. I was way off on this one. My apologies for arguing about what I did not know. A simple REG check would have set me straight from the start.
Yeah, as Chronic said, there's nothing wrong about being wrong...except for the being wrong part. I have NO idea what that feels like of course ::)
And to be honest, it's not something you'll find easily in the REG. It is one of those hidden things you have to know exists.
-
Ahem ;)
...Back to my original question for just a minute... would the Crown of Thorns being MINE affect my ability to play Lying unto God on my from-hand-EC under special initiate? (Example, player B cannot play "Escape" to retreat his EC after playing "Deceit of Sapphira" since Player B caused the removal...) Does this precedent carry over to cards outside of battle?
-
Ahem ;)
...Back to my original question for just a minute... would the Crown of Thorns being MINE affect my ability to play Lying unto God on my from-hand-EC under special initiate? (Example, player B cannot play "Escape" to retreat his EC after playing "Deceit of Sapphira" since Player B caused the removal...) Does this precedent carry over to cards outside of battle?
I would think that you could play lying unto God to negate it, because it is interrupt the battle that has the stipulation that it only interrupts opponent's abilities that are removing you from battle. I don't believe regular negates/interrupts have that rule (at least not what I can tell from the REG), so I would think that Lying unto God as a regular negate would work.
-
Ahem ;)
...Back to my original question for just a minute... would the Crown of Thorns being MINE affect my ability to play Lying unto God on my from-hand-EC under special initiate? (Example, player B cannot play "Escape" to retreat his EC after playing "Deceit of Sapphira" since Player B caused the removal...) Does this precedent carry over to cards outside of battle?
You can discard your own CoT.
-
I have always thought it was that you do not achieve special initiative when being removed by your own card.
-
I know you can't negate killing yourself when it is your on character or enhancement doing the killing (king zimri and samsons sacrifice for example) but Idk about an artifact that is killing yourself, I assume if would follow the same rules and you can't negate it
oh and hi Joey!
-
I have always thought it was that you do not achieve special initiative when being removed by your own card.
I was under the impression that that only counted when you were being removed by your own card of your own alignment, or otherwise if it was your own card that was in battle. Simply saying "your own card" would be easier however, and at any rate, I may be wrong, that's just what I thought.
-
I'd love the loophole of being able to negate your own artifact, but it would probably be easiest to clarify in the new rule book that special initiative can only be gained when an opponent's card is removing your from battle. Does this affect any other plays (outside of Crown of Thorns) you all can think of?
oh and hi Joey!
Greetings Zac! Cannot be be redirected. ;)