Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: 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.
-
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Can you provide an example?
-
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.
-
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?
-
He can't play a negate in that scenario.
-
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.
-
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.
-
So I'm allowed to play a dominant even when your removal is still pending? Grapes would essentially make it cbn.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
This topic was also discussed once here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=13115.0).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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:
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?
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.
-
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:
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?
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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?
-
Two Bears isn't completed until one or the other happens. I'm pretty sure on one of the white cards it says dominants can't be played while special abilities haven't completed (it might be Priest white cards?), but I'm too lazy to go check.
-
And since when has initiative to negate become part of the special ability of a card?
-
What do you mean by that? Two Bears is still trying to complete its shuffle ability when I have the special initiative. You can't play a dominant until Two Bears is no longer doing that.
Atleast this is my take on it....
-
And I have always heard that an enhancement is completly done before you can negate it. Maybe we need an elder to rule on this. :)
-
Exactly. Special Initiative by nature, happens BEFORE a card finishes its ability.
Otherwise, how can I stop a remove from game card? If I don't interrupt it BEFORE it finishes, my character is no longer a part of the game, and I can't play an interrupt on it.
-
But like I keep saying, that is not listed in the rules. Is it some reasoning we came up with to explain how the game works, or is it the actual letter of the law? Again where is the rule for that statement. other than thats how we have always understood it.
-
I'm thinking about how it would play out in a 1 vs 1 situation. If you use an ability to remove my character from battle in any way, I must stop it BEFORE I leave battle, or else I have no EC's left to play my cards on. I can't have my EC shuffled, and THEN negate it mysteriously from the draw pile, and get a free shuffle as well.
I mean, that makes sense doesn't it?
-
I agree it makes sense, but its not in the REG, rule book or a ruling post. So I guess I just want there to be a ruling that says special intiative is tied to the ability of the cards causing that side to lose the battle. I think that would adequately address the issue.
-
The more I look into it, the more I realize the definition of interrupt needs to be modified.
Interrupt
Interrupt is used to temporarily stop a previously completed card’s special ability until the special ability on the interrupt card is completed.
Under that definition, I would say all battle winning cards cannot be interrupted, because once the ability completes, your character is no longer in battle to play cards on.
So... either "Special Initiative" needs to get a definition, or interrupt needs to be changed to say:
Interrupt is used to temporarily stop the special ability on a card that is currently activating or has previously completed until the special ability on the interrupt card is completed.
-
am I interpreting this right? Guy bands 2 ec into battle opponent plays 2 bears shuffles one EC gives guy a chances to interrupt guy does not opponent plays AotL Guy now whats to interrupt 2 bears? right?
-
That's the situation, yes. It seems to me like opinion is leaning toward still being able to interrupt, which is madness.
-
So this can be considered official?
Since Schaef made the ruling (long before I became an elder) I would like to hear his input on this. But until then, it is the standing ruling.
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.memegenerator.net%2FImageMacro%2F6524489%2FNo-EC-to-play-an-interrupt-PLAY-IT-ANYWAY.jpg%3FimageSize%3DMedium%26amp%3BgeneratorName%3DCourage-Wolf&hash=f42c4178de0c976dfac06125a75bb3e43fe965ce)
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi189.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz18%2FLambo_Diablo_Svtt%2FECGrave.jpg&hash=ec80149bdba2c228f499aa739cb231258632eaae)
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.memegenerator.net%2FImageMacro%2F6526729%2FThey-cant-discard-me-If-I-capture-myself.jpg%3FimageSize%3DMedium%26amp%3BgeneratorName%3DMonsieur-le-Courage-Wolf&hash=f8d41c12acd671b164be35bdce1e8b803559b664)
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages1.memegenerator.net%2FImageMacro%2F6527192%2FBut-U-already-shuffled-Why-U-do-that-now.jpg%3FimageSize%3DMedium%26amp%3BgeneratorName%3DBaby-Courage-Wolf&hash=0d5544ea13bca0e74eada1494e8496dc2164b5a3)
Sorry, I just had to.
I agree that the current ruling is as Schaef said...I don't necessarily agree with the spirit of the ruling, because I am of the opinion that if you want to play an ItB card to stop something like a shuffle from happening, you should do so BEFORE you actually shuffle. I think that nothing should be able to happen between the removal of an EC from battle and the chance to interrupt in case of initiative transferring (including dominants--for example, I don't believe you can play Mayhem after a battle winner to shuffle any interrupts they may have, etc.) and I think that once the act physically happens (a character is actually shuffled into deck, physically placed into a land of bondage after capture, etc.) that it is too late to play an ItB card.
-
All these pictures of dogs are confusing me... Which way is this being ruled?
-
All these pictures of dogs are confusing me... Which way is this being ruled?
Looks like this ruling....
...is for the dogs.
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdaily.likeme.net%2Flm%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F06%2Fyeahhh.jpg&hash=5b20e30e04b7e493aab1be2f82c826c09e447fcc)
-
That's the situation, yes. It seems to me like opinion is leaning toward still being able to interrupt, which is madness.
it is madness then. it should have been done before AotL not after.
-
A simple way to do it is say "Are you going to interrupt that?" And if they say no, then play Angel of the Lord. If they say maybe, rage quit...
-
ok so reverse question and this did happen to me in a game the other night.
I attack with claudia banded to Matthew. Opponent blocks with Herod the Great sending Matthew back to territory then CM my Claudia. I have initiative to interrupt with a purple card?
-
Yes, unless you put your Matthew back into your territory and/or waited before trying to interrupt. Your opponent can't slapjack, but you can't dom scout either.
-
So how is my example different from the below example? If I place Matthew back in territory, then they CM Claudia- it seems compared to what ive seen i can still play an interrupt in purple...
Quote from: Prof Underwood on October 30, 2008, 05:16:51 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, 05:28:21 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.
-
I really think it should come down to "Did you complete the action on the enhancement, or did you choose to interrupt it immediately?"
If you willingly remove one character from battle, then you should NOT be allowed to play any more cards on them. Period. How can I play an enhancement on a character that is no longer in play?
-
It's simple. If you're going to interrupt/negate the removal when you have special initiative, then don't remove your character, instead play your interrupt/negate. Once you've chosen to complete the action by removing your character you've passed the special initiative and has no basis for complaining when a Dominant is played.
-
Finally some elder support for team sanity.
-
It's simple. If you're going to interrupt/negate the removal when you have special initiative, then don't remove your character, instead play your interrupt/negate. Once you've chosen to complete the action by removing your character you've passed the special initiative and has no basis for complaining when a Dominant is played.
That's how I have always played it.
-
bookmarked so no one can rule against me otherwise.
-
It's simple. If you're going to interrupt/negate the removal when you have special initiative, then don't remove your character, instead play your interrupt/negate. Once you've chosen to complete the action by removing your character you've passed the special initiative and has no basis for complaining when a Dominant is played.
But what if the opponent does not give you opportunity to interrupt/negate before they play a dominant to take out the other EC?
-
then you still get to interrupt and try explaining it to your opponent and probably the host as well as everyone else that doesnt agree then forfiet a loss because no one agrees with you. :)
-
It's simple. If you're going to interrupt/negate the removal when you have special initiative, then don't remove your character, instead play your interrupt/negate. Once you've chosen to complete the action by removing your character you've passed the special initiative and has no basis for complaining when a Dominant is played.
But what if the opponent does not give you opportunity to interrupt/negate before they play a dominant to take out the other EC?
Did you willingly remove the first character? No? Then special initiative remains regardless of AotL.
-
It's simple. If you're going to interrupt/negate the removal when you have special initiative, then don't remove your character, instead play your interrupt/negate. Once you've chosen to complete the action by removing your character you've passed the special initiative and has no basis for complaining when a Dominant is played.
But what if the opponent does not give you opportunity to interrupt/negate before they play a dominant to take out the other EC?
Then you tell them to take their card back as they just made an illegal move.
The same thing applies when someone plays an ITB to stop immunity and tries to play AotL then. You cant play dominants until instant abilities finish. In this case, they cant play AotL until you either interrupt two bears or shuffle your EC.
-
The Dom has been played. It stays on the table and waits for all abilities to complete before activating. I don't let people "unplay" cards in a tournament setting like that.
-
Well its still an illegal play...
-
Well its still an illegal play...
How is it illegal? They were just being hasty.
-
You're not allowed to do anything except play interrupts when an instant ability is activating. You have to wait for it to finish before you play anything else.
-
True. Thus, the dom waits to activate.
-
Yeah but it doesn't change the fact that you're not supposed to do anything while another card is activating. That's an undeniable slapjack, and is quite unfair.
-
+1 Lambo
-
Yeah but it doesn't change the fact that you're not supposed to do anything while another card is activating. That's an undeniable slapjack, and is quite unfair.
I, once again, agree. All I'm saying is that instead of returning to hand (which would be a take-back), the dom has been played, but must wait (thus stopping slapjack).
-
I guess that makes sense, just be sure to inform your opponent that was an illegal move and explain what happens.
-
I'd make them pick it up and wait for the ability to complete. After it does, I'd make them play it. If they question my authority to force them to do so, I'd let them know that I am the law.
-
The only problem I have with Lambo's statement is that according to the rules is currently not an illegal move. There is no written rule(that I can find) that support his position. The elders should rule that is how it works because it makes the most sense. I just want this to be solved.
-
Instant Abilities
Instant abilities complete before another ability can be inserted, including dominants. The effect of instant abilities can only be undone if they are interrupted or negated. They must be followed immediately or are forfeited. See also Ongoing Abilities.
I assume "inserting" means "attempting to play."
Also, that quote alone solves this whole debate if I'm not mistaken.
-
I'd make them pick it up and wait for the ability to complete. After it does, I'd make them play it. If they question my authority to force them to do so, I'd let them know that I am the law.
My history playing against Rawrlolsauce!...
Playing cards and I'm on the run.
I fought the law and the law won.
I fought the law and the law won.
I needed Doms 'cause I had none.
I fought the law and the law won.
I fought the law and the law won.
I lost a soul and it feels so bad.
Guess my race is run.
This is the best deck I ever had
I fought the law and the law won
I fought the law and the law won
This is still quite a painful memory so thanks for rubbing my nose in it, 'Sauce.