Using the "Dull" example, if I take Uzzah using Dull's SA and you allow me to block with him, then play SoG to negate Dull you will put Uzzah back in my deck but his ability wasn't negated by SoG so you just gave me an extra use when I draw him again later.hmmm... I like this little shenanigan
Gomer (CBN Band to male)->Persian Archers (band) ->King Darius (CBN Band) ->Persian Horseman
Persian Archers gets negated... does no more cascade negate affect this scenario?... if so, what would be the new resolution?
Godspeed,
Mike
so same as before... bad example on my part...
Godspeed,
Mike
The elimination of cascade negate will lead to some weird scenarios, there is no question about that. The premise behind the decision is that those scenarios will be easier to sort out and explain to both experienced and new players.
Let's look at an example that could be seen as more complicated without cascase negate...
I attack with Tribal Elder (band to OT Hero) and band in Abigail (draw ability). I draw from Abigail's ability and then you block. During the course of battle, you play Three Woes to negate Tribal Elder. Abigail would be sent back to territory but the draw would stick (under the previous rule her draw would be cascade negated).
Now because the band was negated, Abigail is actually able to be banded back into that same battle via a new banding ability. However, because her ability was activated and not negated, I would not get to draw again with her. It's similar (though not exactly the same) to how the situation works if her draw had been CBN or CBI. The difference is that her ability could still be targeted by a negate later in that same battle phase so even though it "stuck" when the band was negated, it is not CBI--you would just need to play an additional negate.
The bottom line is that there are some scenarios which are easier to understand with cascade negate and others that are difficult, but ultimately we decided that in general the complexity will be lessened if cascade negate was removed from the rules.
I would defer to Marcus on the full explanation, but I believe it's the same principle as when a Hero from the main battle is pulled into a side battle.
I would defer to Marcus on the full explanation, but I believe it's the same principle as when a Hero from the main battle is pulled into a side battle.
That's going from battle to battle though. Moving from a non-battle location to battle should always activate the ability of the character. If it currently doesn't that should change along with cascade being removed because it's going to come up a lot more and is not remotely intuitive.
Moving from a non-battle location to battle should always activate the ability of the character.
I agree with KtD and Ruth.
I agree with KtD and Ruth.
;D ;D ;D Is this a Freudian slip? And I totally agree: Reactivating the SA when a character enters battle again is quite intuitive.
Reactivating is definitely abusable, though. How easy is it for me to band to someone powerful, woes my own banding card, and band again to get a powerful ability twice?
Perhaps, but I for one am more than happy to trade my Woes and Not Alone to turn a d7 into a d14 off Hannah.
So is cascade negate basically still happening if a “negate characters and enhancements” or fbtn card is played after the non cbi cbn abilities activated?
So is cascade negate basically still happening if a “negate characters and enhancements” or fbtn card is played after the non cbi cbn abilities activated?
There doesn't have to be any cascade involved there. "Negate characters" targets all characters in play with a negate, no cascade necessary. Cascade negate refers to cards being negated without being directly targeted.
If you negate a negate that was negatings a negate thats negating a kill card, would the kill card reactivate?
I thought that the logic behind cascade negate regarding banding abilities was as follows.
You negate the band which means you undo the effects of the band and negate all abilities that activated as a result of the band.
If, without cascade negate, the banded character's ability activated, then it entered battle, even if the band was negated.
So, all negating the band should do, by my understanding, is remove the banded character from battle, but still register that character as having "entered battle" during the phase by game rule.
Otherwise, if the banded character never entered battle then its ability never activated, which I thought was the logic for cascade negate.
Where is the line drawn? Does negating a band mean that the banded character was in battle, but now it's not, or does it mean that the character never entered battle in the first place?
It is simple and codified that a unique character can't enter battle more than once per turn and generic and unique characters are designed with that limitation in mind.
So why does negating a band ability erase the fact that the character ever entered battle in the first place?
With the coming removal of cascade negate, is negating a band ability different than withdrawing a character? Why?
I think it's easier and slightly more intuitive to say that unique characters can't enter battle more than once in the same phase (including if they are banded and then the band is negated) than to say that they can be banded in more than once but their abilities don't activate subsequent times.
I really enjoy thinking through logical interactions like this and I haven't had the chance to think about this stuff in awhile. Thanks.
So, all negating the band should do, by my understanding, is remove the banded character from battle, but still register that character as having "entered battle" during the phase by game rule.
I think it's easier and slightly more intuitive to say that unique characters can't enter battle more than once in the same phase (including if they are banded and then the band is negated) than to say that they can be banded in more than once but their abilities don't activate subsequent times.
A negated band should still consider the character having entered battle that turn.
So by the concept of negate as undoing an ability instead of it never having happened, if a band of a unique character is negated, that negate is essentially CBI since a unique character cannot re-enter battle?I think it has been put forward the character (generic or unique) can't re-enter battle more by game rule than CBI.
If you negate a negate, whatever that negate was negating would reactivate, so the unique character would come back into battleI see this as falling back under cascade negate, what we are currently trying to untangle.
Well game rule allows for generic characters to enter battle more than once,My question here would be... I have 1 Persian Horsemen in play in battle and a negate kicks him out, then I play, say Lurking... I can band Persian Horsemen back into battle?
making it like the character never left battle in the first placeThat seems to be the crux of the argument. Are we viewing negate as making something as if it never happened?
If you negate a negate and the card it was negating originally doesnt reactivate,
I think it's easier and slightly more intuitive to say that unique characters can't enter battle more than once in the same phase (including if they are banded and then the band is negated) than to say that they can be banded in more than once but their abilities don't activate subsequent times.
so if i band someone into battle with a GE would the first dude i banded in get kicked out and the rest stay?
other question if i banded someone in and it got kicked out would i keep the cards i got with that hero?
So if I band to draw a lost soul do all the extra stuff then the band is negated the ls goes back but the ls ability doesn’t get negated..?
If only the band is negated does the draw ability even get negated?
So if I band to draw a lost soul do all the extra stuff then the band is negated the ls goes back but the ls ability doesn’t get negated..?
If only the band is negated does the draw ability even get negated?