Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yes, negate always trumps protection because it only targets the special ability, not the card itself.

The protection isn't negated, only the SA of Nazareth is negated. You cannot protect from negation.

Another way to say the same thing is - protection protects cards, not special abilities. Negate targets the special ability.

But the ref def of target says

Targets
In Redemption®, the target(s) of a special ability are the card(s), special abilities, or player(s) that the special ability performs the action to.

So if it's protected from the target card for target card cannot target it's ability

A negate only targets the ability on a card.

How I have understood Protect vs Negate is Protect can only protect the card from being altered or moved from its place. Its effects can be prevented, interrupted, negated or redirected.

In short, you can NEVER protect from a negate, you can only restrict from it.

According to the rag the rule for protect is this :

A card that is immune or protected cannot be targeted by an ability that is on a card to which it is immune or protected, nor on an enhancement played on that card (if a character).

 Now negate says this:

Negate abilities target the abilities that they negate.

Target says this:

In Redemption®, the target(s) of a special ability are the card(s), special abilities, or player(s) that the special ability performs the action to.

By that definition in the gate that is targeting my card that's protected would not work. Because targeting also includes special abilities and the gate does target special abilities

It also says this:

Immune and protect abilities keep the target from being affected by the strength on cards to which it is immune or protected, keep the target from being able to be targeted by cards to which it is immune or protected, and also allow it to be unaffected by game rules which would normally affect it.

 This does not make Nazareth invincible. It just means you have to negate and discard cesarea phillipi before you can target Nazareth. That doesn't make it over powered but it does mean the gate is doing two jobs and that's not right

You aren't targeting Nazareth, you are targeting its ability. Protect does not target abilities, only cards. Protection by itself is completely irrelevant to negate.

According to the rag the rule for protect is this :

A card that is immune or protected cannot be targeted by an ability that is on a card to which it is immune or protected, nor on an enhancement played on that card (if a character).

 Now negate says this:

Negate abilities target the abilities that they negate.

Target says this:

In Redemption®, the target(s) of a special ability are the card(s), special abilities, or player(s) that the special ability performs the action to.

By that definition in the gate that is targeting my card that's protected would not work. Because targeting also includes special abilities and the gate does target special abilities

It also says this:

Immune and protect abilities keep the target from being affected by the strength on cards to which it is immune or protected, keep the target from being able to be targeted by cards to which it is immune or protected, and also allow it to be unaffected by game rules which would normally affect it.

 This does not make Nazareth invincible. It just means you have to negate and discard cesarea phillipi before you can target Nazareth. That doesn't make it over powered but it does mean the gate is doing two jobs and that's not right

Protect cannot stop Negates or else anything with a Protect ability would become extremely OP. It would mean that Red Dragon would be inherently CBI then as well as anything that Protects itself.

And you can call me 423-903-1127

 But the REG says it does protect the abilities. To negate you have to target the card to target the ability you guys are trying to make a mess two different things and they are not two different things. If you make them as two different things you're twisting the whole game to be useless

But the REG says it does protect the abilities. To negate you have to target the card to target the ability you guys are trying to make a mess two different things and they are not two different things. If you make them as two different things you're twisting the whole game to be useless

This is where the disconnect is. They are two different things and have been for quite a long time. We aren't twisting the game, just more specifically defining the interactions between cards (Which is an absolutely necessary and ongoing process for every card game). Aggie's post above this one is absolutely spot on. There are more things that can be targeted besides just a card itself and you need to accept that in order to understand how this game is played.

Also to clarify something else, when I card says "negate a site" or "negate Peter" or any other negate/interrupt/prevent, there is an implied "negate the ability of ____" so "negate a site" really says "negate the special ability of a site". The text is left out because the only legal target of a negate/interrupt/prevent is an ability so it isn't needed to be printed on every single negate card.

Phrases that are constructed as “Negate a/an/all [card type/card name](s)” are equivalent to “Negate all special
abilities on a/an/all [card type/card name](s)”.

So what you're saying, the card and the ability are two different things. So when protect says that it protects this card from the ability on another card, And the gate does not have to target the card to target the ability. Even though protect protect the card from the ability on a card that it is protected from.  So in essence in the anatomy of a card there should be a special line under cardability saying that the ability does not exist it is just there as a reference to what the car you can do. Because you have to target the card to target and ability the only way you could not target the card to target the ability is if  The ability wasn't really there. That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard I have an analytical mind and I don't know where you guys are coming up with the hiney. Except somebody wanted a way to get around protect the cards. I never said the protect could not be negated.  It could be. But when you target a card that is protected by a Nother Colvard you should have to negate the ability first I am still looking for the  exact ruling for how the card and the  ability or not the same thing when the anatomy of a card puts the card and the ability as the same thing.

This is very difficult to read. Points off for not proofreading before posting.

Multiple people have given you the reason and the REG citation as to why it works. Just accept it and move on.

Being protected does not protect a card from being negated. It is as simple as that.

In order for something to not be negated it needs to be "cannot be negated" (or "cannot be interrupted/prevented" depending on the scenario).

For those who have been around long enough, this was debated for 12 pages or so with the Cherubim/Ethiopean Treasurer/Protection of Angels vs 12 Finger Giant example. There is no need to go another 12 pages. 

So what you're saying, the card and the ability are two different things. So when protect says that it protects this card from the ability on another card, And the card does not have to target the card to target the ability.

I'll make this point:  I can understand why it might be difficult to separate the ability from the card - since negates still need to "target the card", so to speak.

For example, if Uzzah is banded into battle and discards himself, and the battle continues, and the rescuing player plays a "Negate evil characters" enhancement, the conversation could go like this:

"Is Uzzah negated?"
"No." 
"Well, why not?"
"Because Uzzah is in discard, which is out of play, and that "Negate evil characters" enhancement only negates evil characters in play." 
"Wait, I thought negates targeted abilities, not cards."
"They do.  That enhancement actually means "Negate all special abilities on evil characters in play"."
"But Uzzah used his ability when he was in play.  If abilities and cards are separate, why does it matter where Uzzah the card is?  I'm trying to negate his ability, not the card.  Isn't his ability "in play"?  It activated in play."
"Well, the ability technically follows the card, so Uzzah can only be negated by something that targets him in discard."
"...So what you are saying is that a card can only be negated if the negate can target the card."
"...Yes."

And at that point, you can see where someone might come to the same conclusion as spacy.