Author Topic: Denied (no longer the shortest SA on a dominant) (Read 4454 times)

Bobbert · « **on:** June 12, 2013, 01:33:33 AM »

Denied
Evil Dominant
Negate a card in play, set aside, or discard pile.

Ever think about how annoying territory class enhancements can be? Ever want to make sure that EC`s ability won't activate? Hate that stupid LS?
Bam.

The idea is that, at the cost of dom slot, you can get around a territory class enhancement. That was the entire original concept. However, the ability to play it at any time (necessary to stop TC) also makes it effective as a one-shot way to turn the tide in a FBTN battle (on either side), shut down a protect fort long enough for some territory destruction, or just use it as a good old-fashioned, in-battle negate.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2013, 01:40:11 AM »

I don't think that would actually negate most TC enhancements, since it only targets cards in play, and most TC enhancements are in the discard pile by the time you can play the dominant. (Similar to why Covenant with Noah won't negate the ones that don't place themselves on other cards)

You would probably have to word it something like:
"Negate a card in play or discard pile" or "Negate the last enhancement or a card in play." Or "Negate the last card played."

Unfortunately none of these would be the shortest dominant ability.

sepjazzwarrior · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2013, 09:23:39 AM »

how about "negate an ability" the TC enhancement isn't in play, but the ability still is so it can be targeted

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2013, 10:24:32 AM »

Love it. Powerful, EXTREMELY versatile, but not overpowered in any sense.

Only change I'd make consider making is: "Negate a card until the end of turn."

Bobbert · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2013, 01:16:37 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 12, 2013, 10:24:32 AM

Only change I'd make consider making is: "Negate a card until the end of turn."

Wouldn't it only last until the end of the phase anyway?

Quote from: sepjazzwarrior on June 12, 2013, 09:23:39 AM

how about "negate an ability" the TC enhancement isn't in play, but the ability still is so it can be targeted

I like that. Changed.

browarod · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2013, 01:27:13 PM »

I wouldn't use this Dominant in its current form, there's little reason to negate a character/enhancement's numbers (if that's even possible, lol).

In the spirit of what is intended by the card (if it said "Negate a special ability." as is the design for the card), I rather like it. I don't know if it would make a slot in most of my decks, but I can think of a couple where it would be useful.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2013, 01:39:47 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 12, 2013, 01:27:13 PM

I wouldn't use this Dominant in its current form, there's little reason to negate a character/enhancement's numbers (if that's even possible, lol).

In the spirit of what is intended by the card (if it said "Negate a special ability." as is the design for the card), I rather like it. I don't know if it would make a slot in most of my decks, but I can think of a couple where it would be useful.

Negating a card means you negate the special ability (see Tower of Thebez, which says "Negate Characters" and it negates special abilities on characters)

browarod · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2013, 01:45:27 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on June 12, 2013, 01:39:47 PM

Negating a card means you negate the special ability (see Tower of Thebez, which says "Negate Characters" and it negates special abilities on characters)

And if it currently said "Negate a card" (which is actually even shorter, come to think of it) then you'd be correct. But negating an ability and negating a card are not the same thing.

peanutbutter(: · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2013, 02:21:16 PM »

Quote from: Thomas Hunter on June 12, 2013, 01:33:33 AM

Denied
Evil Dominant
Spoiler (hover to show)
Negate an ability.

Then since it's a dominant, if it just says "Negate an ability," couldn't people just u it on Guardian or Doubt or any other dominants that play in territory?

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2013, 02:54:16 PM »

Quote from: peanutbutter(: on June 12, 2013, 02:21:16 PM

Then since it's a dominant, if it just says "Negate an ability," couldn't people just u it on Guardian or Doubt or any other dominants that play in territory?

You could, but it wouldn't do anything since Dominants are inherently Cannot be Negated.

Quote from: browarod on June 12, 2013, 01:45:27 PM

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on June 12, 2013, 01:39:47 PM
Negating a card means you negate the special ability (see Tower of Thebez, which says "Negate Characters" and it negates special abilities on characters)
And if it currently said "Negate a card" (which is actually even shorter, come to think of it) then you'd be correct. But negating an ability and negating a card are not the same thing.

I didn't realize that he had changed what it said. Yes, Negating an "Ability" actually doesn't have a game meaning. You can't negate numbers and text is called a "Special Ability" If you want it to negate text you have to use "Card" or "Special Ability"

Bobbert · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2013, 03:06:33 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 12, 2013, 01:45:27 PM

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on June 12, 2013, 01:39:47 PM
Negating a card means you negate the special ability (see Tower of Thebez, which says "Negate Characters" and it negates special abilities on characters)
And if it currently said "Negate a card" (which is actually even shorter, come to think of it) then you'd be correct. But negating an ability and negating a card are not the same thing.

It was originally "negate a card", but CS pointed out that it wouldn't stop Territory Class.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2013, 04:10:38 PM »

Discard a Hero=12 letters.
Negate an ability=15 letters.

False advertising.

and yes, I realize it used to be only 11 letters, but still.

Gabe · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2013, 04:18:28 PM »

Draw 1. Shortest ability evah.

And it doesn't trigger the most broken, OP, I can't believe they printed that, card in the game - Foreign Wives.

browarod · « **Reply #13 on:** June 12, 2013, 04:22:25 PM »

I would disagree with CS. Negate targets the special ability, not the card, which is why negates can reach into discard during battle. I see no reason they couldn't do that outside battle, too (for example, I would think you could use Covenant with Noah to negate a TC enhancement, unless I'm remembering incorrectly and CwN specifies battle).

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #14 on:** June 12, 2013, 04:32:24 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 12, 2013, 04:22:25 PM

I would disagree with CS. Negate targets the special ability, not the card, which is why negates can reach into discard during battle. I see no reason they couldn't do that outside battle, too (for example, I would think you could use Covenant with Noah to negate a TC enhancement, unless I'm remembering incorrectly and CwN specifies battle).

Covenant with Noah doesn't specify in battle. However last I heard CwN couldn't negate most TC enhancements for the reason I said. That could have changed, but I haven't heard of it.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #15 on:** June 12, 2013, 04:55:56 PM »

My understanding is that Cov of Noah is a standard negate and thus targets cards that are in play by default. Therefore it would not negate a card that discarded itself unless that card was giving "special initiative" in which case it would pause before completing, and would be able to be targeted by CoN or another negate.

browarod · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2013, 07:16:05 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 12, 2013, 04:55:56 PM

My understanding is that Cov of Noah is a standard negate and thus targets cards that are in play by default.

So is it only during special initiative that "negate" can target special abilities not in play? I thought negates could always do that. Though, I guess that recent ruling about Daniel versus GoH proves me wrong.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #17 on:** June 13, 2013, 09:37:28 AM »

Hopefully the summary below will answer all these kind of questions.

Quote from: Summary of Negates

"Negate one/an enhancement" cards allow the player to choose any 1 enhancement that is in play and undo it's special ability. Any numbers on that enhancement would stay.

"Negate and discard one/an enhancement" cards allow the player to choose any 1 enhancement that is in play and undo it's special ability. The enhancement is also discarded, so the numbers no longer affect the battle.

"Negate the last enhancement" cards allow the player to choose any 1 enhancement regardless of its location and undo it's special ability. Any numbers on that enhancement would stay.

"Negate and discard the last enhancement" cards allow the player to choose any 1 enhancement regardless of its location and undo it's special ability, and discard it, so that the number no longer affect the battle.

"Negate all enhancement" cards undo all the special abilities of the enhancements that are still in play in the battle, as well as all future enhancement cards that will be played in that battle.

"Interrupt the battle" cards temporarily undo the last enhancement/card regardless of its location and any other ongoing affects. Once the interrupting card (and any others that are played directly as a result of that card) has completed, the original cards will reactivate (assuming that they are still there and there is still a character in battle of matching brigade to re-activate them.

browarod · « **Reply #18 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:09:58 PM »

So I think the wording you would need for this card to be able to do what you want is "Negate and discard the last Enhancement played (this turn)." I'm not sure if the last part is needed.

So it's not the shortest Dominant ability but it's still a nice idea.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #19 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:11:48 PM »

I would honestly prefer the original ability (Negate a Card) over that.

The original can target characters, artifacts, forts, sites, LS etc. THAT is why I would use it.

browarod · « **Reply #20 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:18:08 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 13, 2013, 01:11:48 PM

I would honestly prefer the original ability (Negate a Card) over that.

The original can target characters, artifacts, forts, sites, LS etc. THAT is why I would use it.

Hmm, is there any reason "Negate (and discard) the last card played (this turn)" wouldn't work? Has the "negate last" for TC enhancements but still the utility of negating (and possibly discarding) any card.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #21 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:33:30 PM »

The "last card played" bit is incredibly limiting. Say my opponent has a protection fortress out, but I don't have any reason to negate it the instant it's played. Your version would not let me negate it later on when I DO draw my territory destruction card.

By opening it up to negate any card in play, you can use it much more strategically.

browarod · « **Reply #22 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:45:10 PM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 13, 2013, 01:33:30 PM

By opening it up to negate any card in play, you can use it much more strategically.

True, but it wouldn't work against TC enhancements which was the original point.

I think Thomas will have to decide just what he wants it to do and word it accordingly.

Drrek · « **Reply #23 on:** June 13, 2013, 01:55:15 PM »

There is a very simple solution to this. Make it "Negate a card in play, set aside or discard." It can now target cards like territory class enhancements (since it can target discard) so long as it happened in the same phase as you try to negate it.

Bobbert · « **Reply #24 on:** June 13, 2013, 02:00:14 PM »

Quote from: Drrek on June 13, 2013, 01:55:15 PM

There is a very simple solution to this. Make it "Negate a card in play, set aside or discard." It can now target cards like territory class enhancements (since it can target discard) so long as it happened in the same phase as you try to negate it.

I like that. Much closer to the original intent.

News:

Author Topic: Denied (no longer the shortest SA on a dominant) (Read 4454 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

browarod

browarod

Warrior_Monk

browarod

browarod

browarod

Lamborghini_diablo

browarod

Lamborghini_diablo

browarod