Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Bobbert on July 15, 2011, 08:43:55 AM
-
If I am in battle and I play the enhancement The Meal in Emmaus, then use it to activate Burial Shroud, what happens? Do I...
1. Finish the battle, then I can't be attacked next turn
2. Automatically withdraw
3. Immediately end battle
I would think it's number two, but I don't want to play it illegally if I'm wrong.
The Meal in Emmaus (Ap)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Green • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle. Holder may activate a new Artifact. Artifact takes immediate effect. Previous Artifact's effect is negated. • Play As: Interrupt the battle. Holder may activate a new Artifact. Negate previous Artifact. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Luke 24:30-31 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Rare)
Burial Shroud (Ap)
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Holder may not make a rescue attempt or be attacked. May be used twice. • Play As: Restrict holder from making a rescue attempt. Restrict opponent from attacking holder. May be used twice. • Identifiers: None • Verse: John 20:4-5 • Availability: Apostles booster packs (Ultra Rare)
-
4. The battle continues on as a battle challenge.
As the owner of Burial Shroud you are allowed to participate in Battle Challenges, so that is what you do.
-
4. The battle continues on as a battle challenge.
As the owner of Burial Shroud you are allowed to participate in Battle Challenges, so that is what you do.
Disagree. It has been ruled in the past that BShroud only restricts you from beginning a rescue attempt, not from finishing one that you have begun. So the current ra completes and your opponent can't attack you next turn. So the correct answer is 1, unless a change was made that I am not aware of.
-
Burial Shroud (Ap)
Special Ability: Play As: Restrict holder from making a rescue attempt.
This completely depends on the definition of "making", which unfortunately is NOT defined for Redemption. If the word means "begin", then the "other Prof" would be correct. If the word means "participate in", then MJB would be correct. I don't remember a ruling on this, but I would assume that the "other Prof" is correct, and that Burial Shroud has been ruled that "making" means "begin".
Question:
If Burial Shroud is active, and you go in for a battle challenge (no LSs are out), and then play Harvest Time, do you get to continue that as a rescue attempt. Or are you restricted from playing Harvest Time because you can't "begin" a battle challenge. In other words, does the "begin" only apply to when you enter battle, or does it apply to your actions during battle?
-
I would vote for consistency. HT does not make it an RA, and Meal/Shroud ends the RA and makes it a BC.
-
I would vote for consistency. HT does not make it an RA, and Meal/Shroud ends the RA and makes it a BC.
HT does not make it an RA because you can't make the battle an RA. Shroud says nothing about ending a current rescue attempt, it just says that you can't make rescue attempts. "Making a rescue attempt" probably should be defined, but it seems most logical that it would mean to begin a rescue attempt, or turn an existing battle challenge into a rescue attempt. I know for a fact that was how it was ruled a long time ago, as that was one of The Guardian's strategies in T2. I see no evidence that it has changed.
-
Can someone start / sticky a thread of undefined terms? There seem to be slot popping up lately and it would be a nice reminder to both define them and so people know they have no definition.
-
Shroud says nothing about ending a current rescue attempt, it just says that you can't make rescue attempts. "Making a rescue attempt" probably should be defined, but it seems most logical ...
"Logical" is subjective. I find it more logical that Burial Shroud would turn potential RAs into BCs no matter when they are initiated.
-
Oh, wow! I started another long argument that will not end in a definite conclusion! We needed another one!
Sorry, I can be kinda cynical at times. On a more related note, given the two options that are getting the most discussion, I would think it should stay an RA (that might be a little biased, since I actually use these two cards in my deck) unless another artifact was allowing me to make a rescue attempt (ex. Covenant with Levi, giving site access, which I also use in my deck). I would say it stays becomes a battle challenge then, but if I am still otherwise eligible for a rescue attempt, it should stay.
-
"Logical" is subjective.
Yes, you have every right to not view the official definition as logical. However, assuming that Prof A is correct that this has been ruled this way in the past, then it is unlikely to change at this point until after Nats. And considering that I don't remember any rulings on this, and considering that no other elders have posted on this thread. I would recommend ruling it the way that Prof A suggests at your tournament this weekend :)
-
"Logical" is subjective.
Yes, you have every right to not view the official definition as logical.
What "official definition?"
-
What "official definition?"
In the absence of a definition in the rulebook or REG, it is the definition in whatever the current ruling is. In this case, Prof A said it is:
to begin a rescue attempt, or turn an existing battle challenge into a rescue attempt
-
In the absence of a definition in the rulebook or REG, it is the definition in whatever the current ruling is. In this case, Prof A said it is:
That would not be "official" until two Elders have agreed, which before your last post was not true. Your other post was indecisive and even ended with a question.
-
That would not be "official" until two Elders have agreed, which before your last post was not true. Your other post was indecisive and even ended with a question.
Actually, I'm not 2nding Prof A's definition yet because I don't remember any ruling on this before. However, he said that Guardian's deck relied on this definition, and since Guardian is an elder, that would make 2 people. Normally, I'd rather have the other elder post in the same thread, however in this case, they are brothers. So I'll assume that Prof A can speak for Guardian in this, and that his brother will just beat him up later if he spoke out of turn :)
-
That would not be "official" until two Elders have agreed, which before your last post was not true. Your other post was indecisive and even ended with a question.
Actually, I'm not 2nding Prof A's definition yet because I don't remember any ruling on this before. However, he said that Guardian's deck relied on this definition, and since Guardian is an elder, that would make 2 people. Normally, I'd rather have the other elder post in the same thread, however in this case, they are brothers. So I'll assume that Prof A can speak for Guardian in this, and that his brother will just beat him up later if he spoke out of turn :)
Elders or not, I find it unethical for brothers to make official rulings together that directly affect one of their decks.
-
That would not be "official" until two Elders have agreed, which before your last post was not true. Your other post was indecisive and even ended with a question.
Actually, I'm not 2nding Prof A's definition yet because I don't remember any ruling on this before. However, he said that Guardian's deck relied on this definition, and since Guardian is an elder, that would make 2 people. Normally, I'd rather have the other elder post in the same thread, however in this case, they are brothers. So I'll assume that Prof A can speak for Guardian in this, and that his brother will just beat him up later if he spoke out of turn :)
Elders or not, I find it unethical for brothers to make official rulings together that directly affect one of their decks.
FWIW, the ruling was made before either of us were Elders or even playtesters. Also, he hasn't used that combo in years. So hopefully you don't take it as me trying to get this ruling made for him. All I'm saying is that's how it was ruled, and hopefully someone else who was familiar with the ruling can give input.
-
He stated that one of Justin's Old decks used this strategy and that was how it was ruled then, not that Justin is currently playing a deck like that.
Regardless I'll support his position as the second Elder if it makes you feel better.
Boom, instaposted.
-
Whoa! RDT sighting! Hey, John! :)
Professoralstad is correct.
Burial Shroud (yeah, don't tempt me) does not interrupt. The RA is already in progress.
-
I was actually just refuting Prof Underwood's claim that the definition was official by giving counterexamples, which were slightly exaggerated. ;)
-
After a brief search (insert TSA joke here... :o) of the boards, I have determined that this question seems to pop up every year around the same time (2nd-3rd week in July).
First, in 2009 (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/meal-in-emmausburial-shroud/msg259306/#msg259306), then again in 2010. (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/meal-in-emmaus-question/msg348045/#msg348045)
In both threads I made the same ruling I did here. Of course, the only other current Elder to agree with me (in the 09 thread) was Justin, so you might still be convinced we have some sort of plot to familial dominance, and also interesting was the fact that you had the same reservations in 09 that you do now.
I do agree that it should be clarified what "making a rescue attempt" means, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I would rule, and would advise others to rule, that Shroud will not end a current RA.
Edit: Uh oh. I agree with STAMP. The world as I know it has ceased to make any sense.
-
Ah yes, I see now.
That would not be "official" until two Elders have agreed, which before your last post was not true. Your other post was indecisive and even ended with a question.
Actually, I'm not 2nding Prof A's definition yet because I don't remember any ruling on this before. However, he said that Guardian's deck relied on this definition, and since Guardian is an elder, that would make 2 people. Normally, I'd rather have the other elder post in the same thread, however in this case, they are brothers. So I'll assume that Prof A can speak for Guardian in this, and that his brother will just beat him up later if he spoke out of turn :)
Elders or not, I find it unethical for brothers to make official rulings together that directly affect one of their decks.
Similar to Camp David, I hear the Elders meet at Fortress Alstad for "getaways". ;)
Edit: Uh oh. I agree with STAMP. The world as I know it has ceased to make any sense.
A vortex just appeared over Crater Lake out here. ;)
-
Similar to Camp David, I hear the Elders meet at Fortress Alstad for "getaways". ;)
We also go golfing a lot during national and international crises.
Edit: Uh oh. I agree with STAMP. The world as I know it has ceased to make any sense.
A vortex just appeared over Crater Lake out here. ;)
Good thing you sold your boat in time.
-
Edit: Uh oh. I agree with STAMP. The world as I know it has ceased to make any sense.
A vortex just appeared over Crater Lake out here. ;)
Good thing you sold your boat in time.
Oh man, I got a good laugh out of that one. :rollin:
-
Edit: Uh oh. I agree with STAMP. The world as I know it has ceased to make any sense.
A vortex just appeared over Crater Lake out here. ;)
Good thing you sold your boat in time.
Your doctor called. Said you need to cut salt out of your diet. You keep rubbing it in wounds.