Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Josh on June 24, 2016, 11:59:30 PM
-
The answer to this post might shed some light into the "Moses vs. Strife" thread that has stalled for now. Anyways...
I attack with Asahel, opponent blocks with King Manasseh. Manny bands to KoT, KoT gets kicked. My initiative, I play Counsel of Abigail and target Manny. Manny plays Wickedness of the Tenants and targets Asahel.
At this point, can I play Foreign Sword to negate Wickedness of the Tenants?
Relevant abilities:
KoT - "Negate all special abilities on Characters and Enhancements (except this special ability)."
Counsel of Abigail - "Interrupt the battle. If used by an O.T. Hero, return an evil card to the bottom of owner’s deck. Cannot be prevented by an evil card."
Wickedness of the Tenants - "If used by an O.T. human, interrupt the battle and discard a human Hero. Cannot be prevented."
Foreign Sword - "Negate an opponent's evil or neutral card. If used by a Canaanite or Philistine, you may topdeck it."
-
I would think not because Foreign Sword would be being prevented by KoT's lingering effect. Unless I'm missing something?
-
I would think not because Foreign Sword would be being prevented by KoT's lingering effect. Unless I'm missing something?
That would be my understanding, unless counsel of abigail was something like Samuel's Edict and it negated Manny? Then would KoT be cascade negated? That could be totally wrong....
-
I would think not because Foreign Sword would be being prevented by KoT's lingering effect. Unless I'm missing something?
+1
FS is prevented.
-
The only thing is, the last card played (which gave me SI) was Wickedness of the Tenants, which interrupts the battle. As a refresher, here is what ItB interrupts:
The phrase “interrupt the battle” includes interrupting the following:
● all active ongoing abilities
● abilities that are defeating one of the characters you control in battle
● the last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent.
Interrupt the battle only includes such abilities if they were activated on cards in the current battle
I know that KoT is no longer in battle, but his ability activated in battle. Wouldn't ItB interrupt his ongoing ability? See Dayne's post from the Moses vs. Strife thread:
"If Abigail is active in battle, that is where her ability is active. Withdraw doesn't make her CBI, anything negating that protect or interrupting ongoing still affects it."
-
i see what you mean but counsel and wickedness both resolve cbp where fs does not
-
So does CBP ITB interrupt KoT since he's no longer in battle? Does KoT reactivate after the ITB if he's no longer in battle?
Does SI granted after an ITB card happen while the interrupt is still active?
It's been established before that only the prevent on KoT is ongoing. If Foreign Sword happens under the ITB umbrella, it shouldn't be negated if KoT reactivates.
-
So does CBP ITB interrupt KoT since he's no longer in battle?
CBP ItB always works, because it's CBP. The question is, since KoT isn't in battle anymore, can his ongoing Prevent be Interrupted by an ItB ability.
Does KoT reactivate after the ITB if he's no longer in battle?
If KoT's ongoing Prevent is able to be Interrupted by an ItB ability, then it would reactivate once the ItB wears off. This is the nature of ongoing abilities with no set duration - they go until end of phase.
Does SI granted after an ITB card happen while the interrupt is still active?
Yes. For example, if I attack with Benaiah (Wa) and my opponent plays Wickedness of the Tenants to discard him, since WotT Interrupts the battle, I could play Live Coal on Benaiah in SI to negate WotT.
It's been established before that only the prevent on KoT is ongoing. If Foreign Sword happens under the ITB umbrella, it shouldn't be negated if KoT reactivates.
Correct. It took me a while to get the PTB on my side about this ;) But yes, the last time a Ruling thread came up about this, this is what was ruled.
-
It's all a matter of whether the sentence "if they were activated on cards in the current battle" is read "if they were activated, [on cards], in the current battle" or read "if they were activated on [cards in the current battle]" which makes way more sense to me (and note, everyone including Gabe immediately reacted as if the latter were true). Plus, the B in ITB stands for Battle and shouldn't have such an expansive definition (especially when it's the less intuitive one) that it starts being ITB(and some other implied things).