Author Topic: Am. Slave vs. Ignore (Read 2596 times)

SomeKittens · « **on:** November 22, 2011, 10:42:12 AM »

If I have the anti ignore LS out (as long as I only have one evil brigade out, negate ignore abilities on opp's OT heroes), and my opponent makes an RA with Miriam (Ignore Gold), can I block out of hand with Am. Slave?

Rationale: If an ability is prevented before it activates, it cannot activate later.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:55:03 AM »

My initial thought is that you could block with TAS, but that if you stayed in battle, that the hero would then start ignoring you and thus you would be losing the battle.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:56:06 AM »

So abilities can reactivate if the negate is removed?

browarod · « **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2011, 11:53:24 AM »

I would rule that since Miriam was prevented when her ability activated that Am Slave (assuming you did not capture to search) would not be ignored by her. The anti-ignore LS doesn't negate itself if you have multiple brigades, it just turns the prevent off from then on, so I believe that Miriam's ability stays prevented.

If you played Meal in Emmaus on her to activate that Covenant that negates Lost Souls, however, I believe then she would then ignore. I could be wrong, though.

STAMP · « **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2011, 12:08:13 PM »

Quote from: REG

Proverbs 22_10 (RA)
Type: Lost Soul • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: While you have only one evil brigade in play, negate all ignore abilities on O.T. good cards. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Proverbs 22:10

with browarod's first sentence

Quote from: browarod on November 22, 2011, 11:53:24 AM

If you played Meal in Emmaus on her to activate that Covenant that negates Lost Souls, however, I believe then she would then ignore. I could be wrong, though.

I'll need to hash this out in my feeble brain before I can agree either way. Right now part of me sides with both outcomes.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2011, 02:00:18 PM »

Other perspective:
RA with TSA, block with Fallen Warrior, play WoS, then Bringing Fear. Is TSA discarded?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2011, 05:41:03 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on November 22, 2011, 02:00:18 PM

Other perspective:
RA with TSA, block with Fallen Warrior, play WoS, then Bringing Fear. Is TSA discarded?

No. A card is CBN or not when it is played, and that doesn't change. Therefore WoS was NOT CBN when it was played, and that wouldn't change due to Bringing Fear.

The situation with Miriam is a bit different, because we're not talking about whether something is CBN or not. We're talking about an ongoing ability (ignore) that is being prevented, and then later is NOT being prevented. This seems more similar to when someone is ignoring and then you add an EE to Golgotha so that they are NOT ignoring. Then they add Dragon Raid to battle and are ignoring again. Then you add another EE to Golgotha and they are NOT ignoring again.

It seems that ignoring is something that can come and go as the game state changes. This is why my gut reaction was to say that Miriam would again be ignoring TAS. However, I can also see the other side, and would welcome further input on this decision.

RedemptionAggie · « **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2011, 05:55:07 PM »

Quote

No. A card is CBN or not when it is played, and that doesn't change. Therefore WoS was NOT CBN when it was played, and that wouldn't change due to Bringing Fear.

Bringing Fear negates TSA - it doesn't even attempt to make WoS CBN.

Quote

We're talking about an ongoing ability (ignore) that is being prevented, and then later is NOT being prevented.

I think that's the difference between the scenarios - WoS is instant, ignore is ongoing. I just don't know whether or not that makes them ruled differently.

STAMP · « **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2011, 06:00:50 PM »

I'm beginning to lean toward Mirian does not regain the ignore ability. Although it is an ongoing ability it never got the chance to activate in the first place. In other words, the preventing of activating in the first place works differently than interrupting and preventing an activation that took place.

So my ruling would be that negating the anti-ignore LS does not allow Miriam's ignore to activate.

browarod · « **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2011, 06:08:50 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 22, 2011, 05:41:03 PM

This seems more similar to when someone is ignoring and then you add an EE to Golgotha so that they are NOT ignoring. Then they add Dragon Raid to battle and are ignoring again. Then you add another EE to Golgotha and they are NOT ignoring again.

I thought that was due to how "cannot be ignored" worked and not "ignore" itself. In this case, I think prevent/negate precedent wins out regardless of whether or not ignore can "turn on and off" because ignore is a special ability like anything else, and no other special ability can reactivate later in a situation like this.

Quote from: STAMP on November 22, 2011, 06:00:50 PM

I'm beginning to lean toward Mirian does not regain the ignore ability. Although it is an ongoing ability it never got the chance to activate in the first place. In other words, the preventing of activating in the first place works differently than interrupting and preventing an activation that took place.

That was my thinking as well.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2011, 06:56:08 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on November 22, 2011, 06:00:50 PM

I'm beginning to lean toward Mirian does not regain the ignore ability. Although it is an ongoing ability it never got the chance to activate in the first place. In other words, the preventing of activating in the first place works differently than interrupting and preventing an activation that took place.

So my ruling would be that negating the anti-ignore LS does not allow Miriam's ignore to activate.

I agree. I think it would be more confusing if instant and ongoing abilities were treated differently in this respect.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2011, 12:10:28 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on November 22, 2011, 06:56:08 PM

I agree. I think it would be more confusing if instant and ongoing abilities were treated differently in this respect.

It could be simpler to just say that any ability that doesn't activate when it's card is first put in play can't activate later in that same phase. That would be a simple rule and would take care of this situation, but I'm not sure if there are other ramifications of this which would be problematic.

That being said, I can still see both sides on this, and if another elder would be willing to back up the "other Prof", then I can get behind that as well.

Gabe · « **Reply #12 on:** November 26, 2011, 10:58:53 AM »

Miriam's ignore ability would work since it's ongoing, even if it was prevented initially.

browarod · « **Reply #13 on:** November 26, 2011, 01:12:09 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on November 26, 2011, 10:58:53 AM

Miriam's ignore ability would work since it's ongoing, even if it was prevented initially.

What causes ongoing abilities to get to re-activate when instant abilities can't?

Gabe · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2011, 01:47:41 PM »

Quote from: browarod on November 26, 2011, 01:12:09 PM

What causes ongoing abilities to get to re-activate when instant abilities can't?

You just gave the reason, they are ongoing.

An instant ability activates once, at the time the character enters battle. If it was prevented, you never go back to that point later and (re)activate it. Ongoing abilities are active the entire battle. If they are prevented and later that prevent stops, then they become active.

browarod · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2011, 01:50:48 PM »

So, really, the answer is "because ongoing and instant abilities activate differently"? That's something I've not heard before (nor apparently the Profs), but okay.

Gabe · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2011, 01:53:41 PM »

Quote from: browarod on November 26, 2011, 01:50:48 PM

So, really, the answer is "because ongoing and instant abilities activate differently"?

No. I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth or baiting me with deceptive questions.

I've given my ruling. I'm done here.

browarod · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2011, 02:00:48 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on November 26, 2011, 01:47:41 PM

An instant ability activates once, at the time the character enters battle.......Ongoing abilities are active the entire battle.

If that's not "because ongoing and instant abilities activate differently" then please explain where my logic is flawed because I'm not seeing it. I get that ongoing abilities are active the entire phase, but they still have to have a first activation don't they? I think that's where I'm getting hung up on your ruling. If you prevent the initial activation of the ability, regardless of what type if ability it is, shouldn't it stay prevented since it never got to activate in the first place? Or does "active entire battle" mean "continuously activates the entire battle"?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2011, 02:33:55 PM »

Are prevented abilities considered activated and simply not effective or are they considered unactivated?

STAMP · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2011, 05:28:45 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on November 26, 2011, 01:47:41 PM

Quote from: browarod on November 26, 2011, 01:12:09 PM
What causes ongoing abilities to get to re-activate when instant abilities can't?

You just gave the reason, they are ongoing.

An instant ability activates once, at the time the character enters battle. If it was prevented, you never go back to that point later and (re)activate it. Ongoing abilities are active the entire battle. If they are prevented and later that prevent stops, then they become active.

What other PTB agree with this?

I certainly don't. I still think a special ability, whether instant or ongoing, has to activate in the first place. Just my humble opinion.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #20 on:** November 27, 2011, 07:53:01 AM »

Quote from: browarod on November 26, 2011, 02:00:48 PM

I get that ongoing abilities are active the entire phase, but they still have to have a first activation don't they? If you prevent the initial activation of the ability, regardless of what type if ability it is, shouldn't it stay prevented since it never got to activate in the first place?

Gabe, I know that you don't want to get into an argument over a ruling, but I would appreciate your answer to this question, to get a fuller picture of how you're thinking about this. I'm glad that you agree with my gut reaction on this, but I just want to be sure that we have it right

Would this ruling also apply to a BTN character (which is also an ongoing ability)? For example if you attack with a Centurion and I block with King of Tyrus, then you would prevent my making the battle BTN. But if I later play a card somehow that negates the Centurion, then would the battle become BTN at that time?

News:

Author Topic: Am. Slave vs. Ignore (Read 2596 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod