Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Lex1122 on June 28, 2018, 12:52:07 PM
-
Jeremy. Takes hero out.
Alex. Takes the harlot out and bands to NEBI. NEBI gets Swift horses. Swift horses draws two and plays unified language and bands to NERGALSHAREZER.
Jeremy’s initiative.
He plays Overcome which he negates the harlot who began the banding chain.
What happens next?
-
Neb goes to territory. Everything else stays in battle
-
+1
-
In a similar question a while ago, (EC A banding to EC B who then CBN bands to EC C) it was ruled cascade doesn't stop at the first CBN and keeps going past it. By that logic the only thing left in this battle would be Harlot and a negated Horses. Why is this situation different?
-
I vaguely recall that discussion, but I'd have to see it again to remember where the difference lies.
-
I vaguely recall that discussion, but I'd have to see it again to remember where the difference lies.
Given the above scenario, why wouldn’t it be as Kevin said anyways? That’s how I thought the cascade would have worked. There’s no other CBIs or CBNs in the other abilities.
-
In a similar question a while ago, (EC A banding to EC B who then CBN bands to EC C) it was ruled cascade doesn't stop at the first CBN and keeps going past it. By that logic the only thing left in this battle would be Harlot and a negated Horses. Why is this situation different?
Well, I agree that you shouldn't be able to Negate past a CBI or CBN ability, but it's probably being ruled otherwise right now. (The fact that an Elder agreed here supports my argument that it is most intuitive ;) )
Regardless, Swift Horses' Play ability is CBI, so Unified Language would stay in battle as well no matter what.
-
In a similar question a while ago, (EC A banding to EC B who then CBN bands to EC C) it was ruled cascade doesn't stop at the first CBN and keeps going past it. By that logic the only thing left in this battle would be Harlot and a negated Horses. Why is this situation different?
Well, I agree that you shouldn't be able to Negate past a CBI or CBN ability, but it's probably being ruled otherwise right now. (The fact that an Elder agreed here supports my argument that it is most intuitive ;) )
Regardless, Swift Horses' Play ability is CBI, so Unified Language would stay in battle as well no matter what.
UL would remain in battle but Nergal wouldn’t as UL’s ability is cascade negated.
-
In a similar question a while ago, (EC A banding to EC B who then CBN bands to EC C) it was ruled cascade doesn't stop at the first CBN and keeps going past it. By that logic the only thing left in this battle would be Harlot and a negated Horses. Why is this situation different?
Well, I agree that you shouldn't be able to Negate past a CBI or CBN ability, but it's probably being ruled otherwise right now. (The fact that an Elder agreed here supports my argument that it is most intuitive ;) )
Regardless, Swift Horses' Play ability is CBI, so Unified Language would stay in battle as well no matter what.
UL would remain in battle but Nergal wouldn’t as UL’s ability is cascade negated.
I agree; I don't like that this is how cascade works but the REG says " all of the negateable effects that can be traced back to the negated ability are cascade negated" and IMO Horses, UL, and Nerg definitely fall under that.
-
I agree; I don't like that this is how cascade works but the REG says " all of the negateable effects that can be traced back to the negated ability are cascade negated" and IMO Horses, UL, and Nerg definitely fall under that.
But UL can't be traced back to The Harlot's ability any more than Swift Horses can. Play abilities are CBI. UL stays in battle.
The rules might say that UL is negated, but they can't possibly say that UL goes back to hand or deck, since it was put in play via a CBI ability.
-
I agree; I don't like that this is how cascade works but the REG says " all of the negateable effects that can be traced back to the negated ability are cascade negated" and IMO Horses, UL, and Nerg definitely fall under that.
But UL can't be traced back to The Harlot's ability any more than Swift Horses can. Play abilities are CBI. UL stays in battle.
The rules might say that UL is negated, but they can't possibly say that UL goes back to hand or deck, since it was put in play via a CBI ability.
That's what I was agreeing with Watchman on. UL and Horses stick but their abilities are negated.
-
Aggie?? ;)
-
Based on the current rules, I don't see how Nerg stays in battle, so I see Harlot, Horses, and UL in battle.
-
Dang. Crazy lol one negate cascades 5 cards. Powerful.
-
I know cascade negates are a hot topic. I see what is being said about negating everything that can be traced back to the ability that was negated. Aside from whether cascade negate should impact ALL cards that have been played since (which is what I think most people have a problem with), I think there is an issue in tracing it all the way back through Neb’s ability which is CBN.
I think in essence you are ultimately negating the effects and it should not work that way.
-
In attempt for clarity, to put it another way, I would argue that UL’s ability is not tied directly to Babylon due to the CBN status of Neb. If Neb was not CBN, the ties would go all the way back to Babylon. (Please note that I am intentionally ignoring the CBI status on play abilities for simplicity sake)
Since Neb is CBN, it doesn’t matter if he leaves battle via negating Babylon, the other items would be directly tied to his ability which is CBN.
-
Cascade negate should not hop any CBN or CBI ability. Those abilities happened and everything after them is a result of them. Therefore no longer tied to the original ability.
By the logic used for it to be able to hop then we should just negate the 1st card in battle every time we are being removed because it will make its way to the removing enhancement and negate 4, 5 ,6 cards along the way by hopping CBN/CBI status and that is not intuitive. Negates should stop at the first CBN/CBI ability they come to because that ability stays and everything after is a result and tied to that ability.
-
Cascade negate should not hop any CBN or CBI ability. Those abilities happened and everything after them is a result of them. Therefore no longer tied to the original ability.
By the logic used for it to be able to hop then we should just negate the 1st card in battle every time we are being removed because it will make its way to the removing enhancement and negate 4, 5 ,6 cards along the way by hopping CBN/CBI status and that is not intuitive. Negates should stop at the first CBN/CBI ability they come to because that ability stays and everything after is a result and tied to that ability.
Negates should actually just stop at the card they target, period. I don't think you'll find convincing people cascade negate is unintuitive, the hard part is convincing people to break the status quo.
-
Negates should actually just stop at the card they target, period. I don't think you'll find convincing people cascade negate is unintuitive, the hard part is convincing people to break the status quo.
I'm going to try and do the appropriate research to see what drastic changes (if any) would result if we changed the definition of Negate to "Undo the ability" with no cascade effects. Not sure where I'll find the time though (3 kids will do that to you).
I'm not sure what your schedule looks like, but I've seen that you are a big proponent of this change in other posts as well. Maybe you'd be able to do some preliminary fieldwork and send your findings my way?
Status quos can be broken with sound, logical reasoning and thorough analysis. One thing's for sure, simply talking about it won't make it happen any faster ;)
-
Status quos can be broken with sound, logical reasoning and thorough analysis. One thing's for sure, simply talking about it won't make it happen any faster ;)
"Destroying the status quo because the status is not 'quo.' The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it."
~Dr. Horrible
-
Negates should actually just stop at the card they target, period. I don't think you'll find convincing people cascade negate is unintuitive, the hard part is convincing people to break the status quo.
I'm going to try and do the appropriate research to see what drastic changes (if any) would result if we changed the definition of Negate to "Undo the ability" with no cascade effects. Not sure where I'll find the time though (3 kids will do that to you).
I'm not sure what your schedule looks like, but I've seen that you are a big proponent of this change in other posts as well. Maybe you'd be able to do some preliminary fieldwork and send your findings my way?
Status quos can be broken with sound, logical reasoning and thorough analysis. One thing's for sure, simply talking about it won't make it happen any faster ;)
I played for 7-8 years before I even learned that cascade existed. Negates only negating what they target was just how I and my group played and it was fine. The main noticeable difference is that mass banding strategies are slightly harder to disrupt since negates don't send them all tumbling down but there are plenty of anti banding cards in the game now and with how popular chump strategies are becoming I don't think making classic banding stronger will do anything but increase defense diversity.
-
I played for 7-8 years before I even learned that cascade existed. Negates only negating what they target was just how I and my group played and it was fine. The main noticeable difference is that mass banding strategies are slightly harder to disrupt since negates don't send them all tumbling down but there are plenty of anti banding cards in the game now and with how popular chump strategies are becoming I don't think making classic banding stronger will do anything but increase defense diversity.
One of the reasons that mono Red is so weak is that almost all of their banding heroes are completely negatable. You block with Abaddon, or you play Plot to Kill/Blasphemies, boom. Whole banding chain exploded (and you lose all other potential benefits as well, such as Ishmaiah's Draw, etc.). Plus, Scattered is still a thing.
This would also weaken "Negate + Remove" abilities, but I'm fine with that - they are already really strong, especially ones like MLaMG, Plot to Kill, Anthropophobia, Blasphemies, etc. that can function as either a Negate or a battlewinner. That flexibility makes them strong enough - no reason to let them cascade things too.
-
I played for 7-8 years before I even learned that cascade existed. Negates only negating what they target was just how I and my group played and it was fine. The main noticeable difference is that mass banding strategies are slightly harder to disrupt since negates don't send them all tumbling down but there are plenty of anti banding cards in the game now and with how popular chump strategies are becoming I don't think making classic banding stronger will do anything but increase defense diversity.
One of the reasons that mono Red is so weak is that almost all of their banding heroes are completely negatable. You block with Abaddon, or you play Plot to Kill/Blasphemies, boom. Whole banding chain exploded (and you lose all other potential benefits as well, such as Ishmaiah's Draw, etc.). Plus, Scattered is still a thing.
This would also weaken "Negate + Remove" abilities, but I'm fine with that - they are already really strong, especially ones like MLaMG, Plot to Kill, Anthropophobia, Blasphemies, etc. that can function as either a Negate or a battlewinner. That flexibility makes them strong enough - no reason to let them cascade things too.
I completely agree. Cascade negate is one of the main reasons a horseman defense didn't work out last year. There are lots of cool strategies on both offense and defense being kept down by how cascade negate nerfs banding.
-
I agree with Kevin but understand it's necessity.
-
It’s the bear necessities.... sorry 😐
-
I agree with Kevin but understand it's necessity.
I've never heard a convincing argument for the necessity of cascade. If I recall correctly, the reasoning last time this was discussed was that more testing was needed to determine the impact of removing cascade negate from the game.
-
I've never heard a convincing argument for the necessity of cascade. If I recall correctly, the reasoning last time this was discussed was that more testing was needed to determine the impact of removing cascade negate from the game.
This.
Is there an ability or strategy that is believed to take over Redemption should cascade negation be removed? I'm not saying there isn't - just that I haven't heard of one, nor can I come up with one off the top of my head.
If cascade negate was removed from the game tomorrow, I'm trying to think how my decks would change... Not sure any big changes would be warranted. Or even any changes at all. It would just be more fun because more of my cards would work, and the purpose of playing Redemption is to use your card abilities ;)
-
I've never heard a convincing argument for the necessity of cascade. If I recall correctly, the reasoning last time this was discussed was that more testing was needed to determine the impact of removing cascade negate from the game.
This.
Is there an ability or strategy that is believed to take over Redemption should cascade negation be removed? I'm not saying there isn't - just that I haven't heard of one, nor can I come up with one off the top of my head.
If cascade negate was removed from the game tomorrow, I'm trying to think how my decks would change... Not sure any big changes would be warranted. Or even any changes at all. It would just be more fun because more of my cards would work, and the purpose of playing Redemption is to use your card abilities ;)
If it were removed tomorrow I'd look into making a horsemen splash defense again and be much more excited about the FoM Canaanite giant banding chains. That's pretty much it. I don't think it would impact offenses too much because the primary threat against banding offenses now is anti banding enhancements rather than cascade.
-
Anyone mind posting the abilities of the initial cards in question so I can try to wrap my head around this?