Author Topic: Cannot be Prevented? (Read 4134 times)

BubbleBoy · « **on:** May 03, 2009, 07:28:49 PM »

If I am blocking and I play a battle-winner with the CBP LS in my territory and then my opponent plays a card that negates an enhancement (not negate & discard), does that stop the battle-winner? I would think not, since negate=interrupt+prevent, so the card would interrupt the battle-winner, but it couldn't prevent it so it would just kick back in. Am I wrong?

Bryon · « **Reply #1 on:** May 03, 2009, 07:38:05 PM »

The negate (or interrupt) DOES stop that enhancement.

"Cannot be prevented" only means that it works against prevents/negates played BEFORE the enhancement. Interrupts/negates played AFTER the enhancement can stop the enhancement.

crustpope · « **Reply #2 on:** May 03, 2009, 10:55:34 PM »

I understand where this ruling is coming from, but I still dislike it.

IMO CBP should live up to its name. I do not think that negates played after it should work because they interrupt and then prevent....but the original enhancement cannot be prevented so it should continue on in spite of the negate.

I agree that an interrupt and then a battle winner should undo the CBP card (because it interupts and interts the battle winner before the CBP card) but not a negate by itself because a negate just interupts and then prevents, which IMO would be trumped when the cards kick back in by the CBP card.

I know that by saying CBI means that it stops things from happening afterwards, and CBP stops thing from happening before it, but in the case of CBP I dont think a negate should work (unless of course that negate cannot be negated like the egyptian one because then you have a negate that interrups and prevents in such a way that cannot be prevented)

just my thoughts

Bryon · « **Reply #3 on:** May 04, 2009, 12:02:07 AM »

Don't think of "negate" as "interrupt + prevent." That is outmoded thinking.

Negate is the parent term. Think of negate as stop special abilities (past and future).

One of negate's children is prevent. Prevent stops future special ability(ies) only. Prevent can't touch an ability played before it.

Negate's other child is interrupt. Interrupt stops past special ability(ies) only. Interrupt can't touch an ability played after it.

Since "negate" is the parent term, "cannot be negated" means it can't be stopped by any member of that family.

A parent is not the sum of its two children.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #4 on:** May 04, 2009, 07:02:34 AM »

Well, the rulebook needs an update.

crustpope · « **Reply #5 on:** May 04, 2009, 08:29:12 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on May 04, 2009, 12:02:07 AM

Don't think of "negate" as "interrupt + prevent." That is outmoded thinking.

Negate is the parent term. Think of negate as stop special abilities (past and future).

One of negate's children is prevent. Prevent stops future special ability(ies) only. Prevent can't touch an ability played before it.

Negate's other child is interrupt. Interrupt stops past special ability(ies) only. Interrupt can't touch an ability played after it.

Since "negate" is the parent term, "cannot be negated" means it can't be stopped by any member of that family.

A parent is not the sum of its two children.

True a parent is not the sum of its chilldren, but There is a difference between Cannot be negated and a simple negate. I am saying that a simple negate should n ot be able to override a Cannot be Prevented card simply because it comes after it. maybe I am thinking about this wrongly and maybe my view of negate as "interupt+prevent" is antiquated, but that is the way it has been explained to me. So feel free to "clear me up" on that view.

I see negate (and its children) as the younger brothers family to the bigger brother "cannot be negated" (and his children CBI and CBP) they are related but two separate ideas.

Arch Angel · « **Reply #6 on:** May 04, 2009, 08:57:05 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on May 03, 2009, 10:55:34 PM

I know that by saying CBI means that it stops things from happening afterwards, and CBP stops thing from happening before it, but in the case of CBP I dont think a negate should work (unless of course that negate cannot be negated like the egyptian one because then you have a negate that interrups and prevents in such a way that cannot be prevented)

I'm confused as to why you think a Negate ability's status as CBN/I/P would effect what it can do? the CBN/I/P ability only matter when something tries to target the negate, it's like a form of protect ability if you will.

But yea, all "Cannot be Prevented" means is that it can't be stopped by something that was there before it was played (For example, Captain of the Host).

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #7 on:** May 04, 2009, 08:59:48 AM »

heres my question to you crustpope. You say CBP could still be interrupted, but not prevented?

Wouldn't the interrupt temporarily stop the CBP status?

crustpope · « **Reply #8 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:01:24 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on May 04, 2009, 08:59:48 AM

heres my question to you crustpope. You say CBP could still be interrupted, but not prevented?

Wouldn't the interrupt temporarily stop the CBP status?

Yes it would...but it would not prevent it, which is the whole point of the card as far as I can tell

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #9 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:02:46 AM »

Same could be argued for PotW, that he should be immune to single brigade heroes even if Reach + AoCP is played. Thats the point of his ability right?

crustpope · « **Reply #10 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:04:21 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on May 04, 2009, 09:02:46 AM

Same could be argued for PotW, that he should be immune to single brigade heroes even if Reach + AoCP is played. Thats the point of his ability right?

Yes but his ability can be interrupted and negated or anything else. Not if PotW had a CBN SA then I agree with you. reach and AOCP would do nothing.

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #11 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:05:38 AM »

CBN yes but... what makes the status of CBP uninterruptable?

The Schaef · « **Reply #12 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:38:37 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on May 04, 2009, 08:29:12 AM

I am saying that a simple negate should n ot be able to override a Cannot be Prevented card simply because it comes after it.

That is the whole point of addressing the timing of the cards. Prevent stops before, interrupt stops after, negate stops before and after. That is what it means by "interrupt plus negate". It's not the two separate abilities, it's one ability that does the same function as the other two combined. Negate works against CBP cards when it's played after because it targets them for a "permanent interrupt", and it works against CBI cards when it's played before because it targets them for prevent (already an ongoing ability).

CBP means cannot be "before'd", CBI means cannot be "after'd", and CBN means cannot be "before'd" or "after'd". They are corollary to the negate family of abilities.

crustpope · « **Reply #13 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:59:25 AM »

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on May 04, 2009, 09:05:38 AM

CBN yes but... what makes the status of CBP uninterruptable?

Lambo, you are not understanding me. I believe that Cannot be Prevented cards cannot be prevented, but they an be interrupted. A simple negate does interrupt a cannot be prevented card, but then all it does is stick a prevent there that is subsequently overpowered by the CBP status of the previous card. In my opinion, the only way to combat a CBP card is to interrupt and play a battle winner that removes/captures/converts/withdraws the character that played the card from the battle (or interrupts and plays an ignroe/immune card such as walking on water).

From what I understand, a simple negate only interupts and tries to prevent a card, but since this card cannot be prevented, a simple negate should not work on a CBP card.

Quote from: The Schaef on May 04, 2009, 09:38:37 AM

Negate works against CBP cards when it's played after because it targets them for a "permanent interrupt", and it works against CBI cards when it's played before because it targets them for prevent (already an ongoing ability).

Now that is a unique idea, the permanent interrupt has never been given to me before. I have always seen it as an instant ability that tries to set up a prevent that is then overpowered, but if you are saying that the interrupt is continual and ongoing, then that is a whole different ball of wax.

So do simple negates always work like this, or is this something new?

Gabe · « **Reply #14 on:** May 04, 2009, 10:08:42 AM »

I believe that CBP and CBI were introduced with Angel Wars. The Angel Wars insert explains it rather well.

It's worked the way Bryon and Schaef explained since at least AW. I agree with you that it's rather difficult to wrap your head around at first. I've seen no fewer than three threads on this topic over the years. I don't recall if I started one or not but I had to participate in an earlier before it made sense to me that CBP can be interrupted/negated.

The Schaef · « **Reply #15 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:46:56 AM »

Quote from: crustpope on May 04, 2009, 09:59:25 AM

So do simple negates always work like this, or is this something new?

This is how negates work. Blow up the special ability forever, whether played before or after.

It is my intention that the wording of all three of these abilities be changed so that they all are defined in a similar way, but also so that negate is not interpreted as trying to prevent an ability after it happens.

Bryon · « **Reply #16 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:49:37 AM »

That is my intention as well. See my second post in this thread for how I explain it nowadays.

crustpope · « **Reply #17 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:53:54 AM »

Wow, this actually helps me understand a lot about how these are ruled. I always thought of the interrupt part of a negate as an instant ability that, finishes by replacing a prevent in front of whatever enhancement it was negating. By painting this as a "permanent Interrupt" then that actually makes these rulings make sense.

am I the only one that thought about regular negates in this way? as a simple interupt and prevent?

The Schaef · « **Reply #18 on:** May 04, 2009, 01:32:06 PM »

It's not uncommon, since the 3rd Edition rules stated it in that fashion, and as others have said, this is something we've had to go back and explain numerous times in the last five years or so since the Angel Wars clarification. If there's an argument for 4th Edition rules, it's things like this.

STAMP · « **Reply #19 on:** May 04, 2009, 02:33:59 PM »

Bottom line: it doesn't make sense so just follow the rule.

I've fought this only to find that the new interpretation has cannot-be-negated immunity to my efforts.

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #20 on:** May 04, 2009, 04:10:48 PM »

As the creator of this thread...I have not read a single one of these posts today. :sleepy:

News:

Author Topic: Cannot be Prevented? (Read 4134 times)

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

Lamborghini_diablo

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef