Cactus Game Design Message Boards

In the rare case where the REG is wrong and the rulebook is right(I have never seen it happen) That is what the REG corrections thread is for, which is considered part of the REG.

Agreed on all counts except no examples. Examples have caused nothing but misery.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on June 21, 2012, 02:45:34 PM

Play abilities are CBI.

This is correct, and something that wouldn't be directly apparent to new players.  Basically, if a card lets you play cards (like Arrogance or 2k Horses), the playing of the card cannot be stopped after it happens.  The ability is always susceptible, unless of course the card is CBI or CBN.

Bear in mind though that "negate all" abilities like Mask of Fear cannot target cards that have left play, as they default to play.  So, for example, playing Invoking Terror (which can put itself on the bottom of deck) and following it up later in the turn with Mask of Fear would not stop Invoking Terror.  The card is out of play, so you cannot target it without special initiative.

I was under the impression that a negate all would negate Invoking Terror?

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/rule-changeclarification-negates/

Quote from: Redoubter on June 21, 2012, 03:54:50 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on June 21, 2012, 02:45:34 PM

Play abilities are CBI.

This is correct, and something that wouldn't be directly apparent to new players.  Basically, if a card lets you play cards (like Arrogance or 2k Horses), the playing of the card cannot be stopped after it happens.  The ability is always susceptible, unless of course the card is CBI or CBN.

Bear in mind though that "negate all" abilities like Mask of Fear cannot target cards that have left play, as they default to play.  So, for example, playing Invoking Terror (which can put itself on the bottom of deck) and following it up later in the turn with Mask of Fear would not stop Invoking Terror.  The card is out of play, so you cannot target it without special initiative.

I was under the impression that a negate all would negate Invoking Terror?

http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/rule-changeclarification-negates/

It would not unless it was during Special Initiative.  Reread the ruling, it says nothing about them being able to target cards that have left play already that did not cause Special Initiative.

Example:

You have 10 heroes in battle against my little Egyptian Magicians.  I play Invoking Terror, but you're still way bigger than I am in the battle, so there is no Special Initiative.  IT places itself on the bottom of the deck, and it is now out of play.  I use Mask of Fear and negate everything, but it cannot target IT.  That's already out of play, and it was not being targeted by Special Initiative.  Therefore, its effect stays and Mask of Fear is now negating everything still in the battle.

Can you explain why mask of fear negates two thousand horses but not mask of worldliness (in the example I gave)?

Quote from: burlow on June 21, 2012, 12:23:43 PM

I defend with crimson, play mask of arrogance (play as many enhancements as desired, initiative passes when I'm done playing enhancements) play mask of worldliness (play any color enhancement), play Net (black, capture hero), then play two thousand horses (pale green, interrupt battle, draw 2, play next enhancement). I draw mask of fear (gold, negate all special abilities) and play it.

What would be the outcome here? I would think that everything gets negated, which undoes mask of arrogance, which means mask of fear can't be in battle, but if it's already played, can it be "unplayed"?

One thing to keep in mind is that if Mask of Fear was not drawn by Two Thousand Horses, it remains in battle, but if it is drawn by Two Thousand Horses, it goes back to the top of your deck, along with the other card you drew.

That's incorrect.  Cards that are played are not returned in this case, as the playing of any card cannot be interrupted.  Once the card hits the table, it would not be returned to the deck, even if it were drawn off of an ability that is later negated.

In this case, the draw is negated, but any cards already played cannot be picked-up, and therefore they do not go back to the deck.  They stay in play, and no 'replacement' card would go on deck either, just the rest of the cards drawn by the negated ability.

The playing of any card cannot be interrupted once the card hits the table.  It stays played, and cannot be 'unplayed'.  It may be negated, or returned to hand/deck, or discarded, but once it hits the table it is not 'picked up' if, say, the card that allowed it to be drawn is negated.  That has been the precedent and the rule as far as I can remember and jives with all of the current rules and rulings (see Play, CBI/CBN cards being unable to be indirectly targeted, and no rule for either negate or draw that allow for what you are describing).

You are incorrect unless you have a newer ruling you can cite that I'm unaware of?

If I understand your question correctly, I believe that is the case.  The old explanation was always, "you can unDO an ability but you can't unPLAY a card".

To be honest though, I cannot submit this (or any other Elder post) as proof, and neither can you because my research shows that well into 2011 the Elders disagreed, said they were debating it on the other side...and then there is nothing.  I can't find the ruling that came out of it.

I can find plenty of threads where different interpretations were given, and Shaef's post above is the most recent thing I can find that could apply to this situation (and not simply a "Play" special ability), but it is by no means definitive.

Really, we need the Elders on this to tell us what the final ruling was, as I can't find any evidence one was released to us.  Cease fire and join forces to get one?

It was Gabe who confirmed the ruling.  The question involved Baptism of Jesus being played after the opponent played 2kh, drew two, and then played Sin in the Camp (which was drawn).  Baptism of Jesus negates weapons, and Gabe ruled that Sin in the Camp went back to the top of the deck.

Right, and then there was a statement by RDT (of course now I can't pull up the thread when I search...) saying that he disagreed and that it would be discussed on the other side.  It has also been ruled in other threads (you'll find them if you look) by Prof, Schaef, and others that the enhancement does not return to deck.  You can see Schaef's post above as one example.

In fact, I'm almost certain that you'll find rulings are only truly ambiguous on situations where there is no "play" SA, and it has been ruled by Elders that the card sticks as far as I've seen in situations where they hit table as a result of "play".

We actually need an Elder to post here and tell us what actually happened in that discussion.