Author Topic: special initive when does it end (Read 6081 times)

christiangamer25 · « **on:** March 24, 2011, 01:37:04 AM »

been having a few issues with this recently i was under the knowledge that special initive was only good for negating an opponrets play if it caused you to be losing by removal and if you don't use this negate that initive is then redetermined based on numbers you don't just get to keep this special initive forever. im quite upset and angry right now as several elders know and i want to come to a peaceful resolution without causing a public flare up. but so far no one can cleanly explain whats going on here and im still left in the dark. a little help would be appreciated.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2011, 01:40:11 AM »

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Can you provide an example?

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2011, 01:48:52 AM »

Do you mean initiative when you're being removed from the battle? If so you can only play enhancements that interrupt or negate the card defeating you.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2011, 01:59:42 AM »

RA with Green Prophet
Block with two banded gold ECs, Heroes initiative
Play Two Bears to shuffle one EC into the deck
Opponent completes the shuffle for Two Bears
Battle is checked and found to be in Mutual Destruction
Angel of the Lord is played on the remaining EC
Opponent states that he now has iniative to negate Two Bears with the EC already shuffled into his deck

Does he have the iniative to negate Two Bears with the character already shuffled into his deck? If so, why?

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:05:32 AM »

He can't play a negate in that scenario.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:09:59 AM »

A SA removing a character in battle gives special initiative if it causes the other side to be losing. However, in your specific situation, I understand it that your opponent very clearly chose his EC to be shuffled, and then waited a very long time not playing an interrupt. If I were a judge, I would have ruled in your favor; if you're going to interrupt, interrupt very quickly or be prepared to lose your opportunity to a Dom.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:40:42 AM »

I think you're being a bit generous with 'waited a very long time' Pol, considering that Matt didn't give a length of time between any of the steps.

Regardless - Unless I verbally pass my special initiative via removal I retain the right to play an interrupt, even after AoTL.

We had this discussion circa 2009 when RTSManiac wanted to play Angel on his own EC after Wrath of Satan to make it CBN.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:42:10 AM »

So I'm allowed to play a dominant even when your removal is still pending? Grapes would essentially make it cbn.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2011, 02:44:55 AM »

just to be clear this was not a slapjack the enhancement was played and decisions made b4 i revealed my dom as to what length of time was actually given thats kind of a he said she said but there was no outright slapjack

Korunks · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2011, 08:23:58 AM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on March 24, 2011, 02:40:42 AM

I think you're being a bit generous with 'waited a very long time' Pol, considering that Matt didn't give a length of time between any of the steps.

Regardless - Unless I verbally pass my special initiative via removal I retain the right to play an interrupt, even after AoTL.

We had this discussion circa 2009 when RTSManiac wanted to play Angel on his own EC after Wrath of Satan to make it CBN.

Unless this discussion was recorded somewhere(Which I cannot find) there is no ruling precedent for a judge to follow. I would probably have ruled in Matt's favor if it was an inperson game. If this was played on RTS I am not sure how to rule it. Does RTS perform the shuffle automatically or does it propmt the user? In an in person game I would rule in favor of the player using the Dominant because the person clearly yielded his special initiative by complying with the shuffle. To me this decision hinges on the intention of the defending character. I would like to hear what some of the elders have to say. Regardless of whether I am right, if the result of this discussion is true, then it needs to be recorded.

Josh · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2011, 08:28:56 AM »

In Matt's scenario, why would the defender get special initiative when he has an EC in battle? The EC would get regular initiative, since after Two Bears it was a mutual destruction and a good card was played last. And at that point, the defender should ask for (regular) initiative to play an enhancement, at which point Matt would say "No, I'm playing AotL." IMHO you shouldn't get special inish when you already have regular inish.

Gabe · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2011, 08:34:01 AM »

This topic was also discussed once here.

Korunks · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2011, 08:57:56 AM »

Oh thanks Gabe! I was having trouble finding that thread. I t looks like it was never fully resolved on that thread either so maybe we can nail it down this time. It looks like the issue boils down to this.

RA with Green Prophet
Block with two banded gold ECs, Heroes initiative
Play Two Bears to shuffle one EC into the deck
Opponent completes the shuffle for Two Bears
Battle is checked and found to be in Mutual Destruction
Angel of the Lord is played on the remaining EC
Opponent now has iniative to negate Two Bears but only with the EC targeted by Two Bears

Is this correct? Having specific characters would help.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2011, 09:36:12 AM »

My two cents:
I've never played it this way. AotL (or any other dominant) can't be put on hold. Simply having initiative doesn't guarantee you the right to play an enhancement. However, I expect my players to be courteous, and if your opponent says "wait a second," wait a second.

Master_Chi · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2011, 09:46:49 AM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on March 24, 2011, 09:36:12 AM

My two cents:
I've never played it this way. AotL (or any other dominant) can't be put on hold. Simply having initiative doesn't guarantee you the right to play an enhancement. However, I expect my players to be courteous, and if your opponent says "wait a second," wait a second.

The phrase "Hold on" frequently finds it's way into my battles...

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #15 on:** March 24, 2011, 10:28:50 AM »

Quote from: Korunks on March 24, 2011, 08:57:56 AM

RA with Green Prophet
Block with two banded gold ECs, Heroes initiative
Play Two Bears to shuffle one EC into the deck
Opponent completes the shuffle for Two Bears
Battle is checked and found to be in Mutual Destruction
Angel of the Lord is played on the remaining EC
Opponent now has iniative to negate Two Bears but only with the EC targeted by Two Bears

Is this correct? Having specific characters would help.

This is correct based on the very similar ruling posted previously and found below:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 30, 2008, 04:16:51 PM

It sounds like you are saying that:
if a 8/8 GC makes a RA and is blocked by 2 5/5 ECs banded together, and
if the GC plays a GE that discards 1 of the 2 ECs, then initiative passes to the defender, but
if the attacker plays AotL on the 2nd EC, then there would be noone left in battle to negate the discard, but
the defender can still play the negate on the first EC that was discarded.

Is that right?

Quote from: The Schaef on October 30, 2008, 04:28:21 PM

If the player had an opportunity to interrupt before AotL was played, he still has an opportunity after.
If the player did not have an opportunity before AotL was played, he does not have an opportunity after.
So in this case, the passing of initiative allows you to play a negate on the first EC, whether AotL is played or not.

Korunks · « **Reply #16 on:** March 24, 2011, 11:00:00 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 24, 2011, 10:28:50 AM

Quote from: Korunks on March 24, 2011, 08:57:56 AM
RA with Green Prophet
Block with two banded gold ECs, Heroes initiative
Play Two Bears to shuffle one EC into the deck
Opponent completes the shuffle for Two Bears
Battle is checked and found to be in Mutual Destruction
Angel of the Lord is played on the remaining EC
Opponent now has iniative to negate Two Bears but only with the EC targeted by Two Bears

Is this correct? Having specific characters would help.
This is correct based on the very similar ruling posted previously and found below:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 30, 2008, 04:16:51 PM
It sounds like you are saying that:
if a 8/8 GC makes a RA and is blocked by 2 5/5 ECs banded together, and
if the GC plays a GE that discards 1 of the 2 ECs, then initiative passes to the defender, but
if the attacker plays AotL on the 2nd EC, then there would be noone left in battle to negate the discard, but
the defender can still play the negate on the first EC that was discarded.

Is that right?
Quote from: The Schaef on October 30, 2008, 04:28:21 PM
If the player had an opportunity to interrupt before AotL was played, he still has an opportunity after.
If the player did not have an opportunity before AotL was played, he does not have an opportunity after.
So in this case, the passing of initiative allows you to play a negate on the first EC, whether AotL is played or not.

So this can be considered official?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #17 on:** March 24, 2011, 11:18:31 AM »

I was unaware of that awful ruling. So I can take out one of two characters, ask my opponent if he's going to Negate, he says no, I AotL the other one and then he gets to Negate? The elders really need to re-evaluate whether they want to allow decision-making based off scouting for doms.

Furthermore, what if the card is Grapes? The EC dies and the Hero gets shuffled, but then I want to play Philistine Horse and Chariots and Wrath of Stan while no Hero's around to Negate it. This sounds totally bogus but according to the bad ruling just posted, it works.

Korunks · « **Reply #18 on:** March 24, 2011, 11:31:15 AM »

I would say that if your opponent says he is not going to negate, and then you play AoTL he no longer has the right to ignore. I believe what they are attempting to achieve with this ruling is making sure some one doesn't play an enhancement that removes an EC from battle, then immediatly dropping an AoTL and denying them the ability to negate the enhancement that removed the first character. I do not believe that they are trying to grant a second chance to negate if you decide not to the first time. Perhaps the ruling needs better wording?

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #19 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:39:11 PM »

I agree that's a pretty awful ruling. In a 1 vs 1 battle, I'm not allowed to be targeted by two bears in a 1 vs 1 battle, shuffle my EC, and THEN negate to get a free deck shuffle. The act of completing the ability on the two bears means you willingly pass the special initiative granted to you.

If you use special initiative, you use it BEFORE the ability is carried out.

Korunks · « **Reply #20 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:44:49 PM »

I agree, but we also shouldn't want some one dropping an angel of the lord to try and prevent some one from being able to use their "special" intiative.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #21 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:48:05 PM »

You can't play AotL before then, since special initiative basically happens WHILE your ability is going on.

They can either carry out the ability, or stop it. Nothing can happen before one of those two options.

Korunks · « **Reply #22 on:** March 24, 2011, 01:12:01 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on March 24, 2011, 12:48:05 PM

You can't play AotL before then, since special initiative basically happens WHILE your ability is going on.

They can either carry out the ability, or stop it. Nothing can happen before one of those two options.

Citation please.

Rawrlolsauce! · « **Reply #23 on:** March 24, 2011, 01:24:46 PM »

I agree with Lambo (that you need to wait to play AOTL). Dominants don't interrupt. I can't Christian Martyr ET before he plays an enhancement, I have to wait for his ability to complete. I'd argue the same for Two Bears: either it needs to be shuffled or negated with the special init before I play a dominant.

(It could still be negated later if there was a third ec in the battle, but that'd be with different init).

Korunks · « **Reply #24 on:** March 24, 2011, 01:27:39 PM »

Quote from: Rawrlolsauce! on March 24, 2011, 01:24:46 PM

I agree with Lambo (that you need to wait to play AOTL). Dominants don't interrupt. I can't Christian Martyr ET before he plays an enhancement, I have to wait for his ability to complete. I'd argue the same for Two Bears: either it needs to be shuffled or negated with the special init before I play a dominant.

(It could still be negated later if there was a third ec in the battle, but that'd be with different init).

Currently the bolded part is not a rule of the game. Where is that ruling or rule book entry to back that up?

News:

Author Topic: special initive when does it end (Read 6081 times)

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Rawrlolsauce!

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Rawrlolsauce!