Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: 12tipton3 on April 05, 2010, 08:00:03 PM

i would like this post to end this thread. i am giving the scenario, and having read this thread, the rulebook, (10th anniversary), and the exegetical guide, here is my thoughts. here is how this works. bringing fear can't stop zeal. bringing fear is not cuasing me to loose by removal. ovbp is. i interupt overwhelmed with zeal. (which the whole ability is cbn) you die and unless you do something w/ cm or unkown  nation, i win the lost soul. I AM NOT NEGATING BRINGING FEAR!!!!!!!!!!! I AM INTERUPTING OVERWHELMED. phinehas wins unless overwhelmed somehow becomes cbn.

This is wrong, it is an indirect negate.  For those of you who disagree what is your definition of indirect negate?  You are have to interrupt my prevent to interrupt Overwhelmed by Philistines.  You cannot interrupt my prevent, this makes no logical sense.  And I will continue to argue untill we come to a logical conclusion.  How can something that cannot be interrupted be interrupted?

Wow, so by your logic, Benaniah snatches a spear should stop any CBN enh. Good to know you can negate CBN enhancements as long as your negate is cbn! Wait... that isn't right.

Korunks, I consider you my best friend. I mean no offense by this what so-ever, I do not want anything (especially a thread) to come be tween us.

This is wrong, it is an indirect negate.  For those of you who disagree what is your definition of indirect negate?  You are have to interrupt my prevent to interrupt Overwhelmed by Philistines.  You cannot interrupt my prevent, this makes no logical sense.  And I will continue to argue untill we come to a logical conclusion.  How can something that cannot be interrupted be interrupted?

I do not understand why my response was not a logical conclusion.

If negation worked as you thought it did, the words "cannot be negated" on anything would be practically meaningless.

Just curious, how would you handle a situation where a CBN negate was trying to negate another CBN negate?

CBN means CBN so if you play bringing fear to negate good enhancements. And then they play zeal, zeal would go through because it is cbn and you cannot negate a cbn. Zeal isn't in any way negating bringing fear. It is discarding the character not the enhancement after the interruption.

Quote

which ever came in first, I'm guessing.

That is correct, that is what I feels should happen because to ME it is more logically correct that an uninterruptable prevent should stop all even other CBN. 

If a CBN prevent cannot be interrupted, a CBN battle winner cannot be prevented, right? If Zeal cannot be prevented, what is stopping it from working as normal?

If Zeal was played First I feel that any other CBN Interrupt and discard would also not work.

This is absolutely true. If the battle involved a purple hero (say King David used Unified Kingdom to bring in Phinehas) then Overwhelmed by Philistines would be CBN and Zeal could not interrupt it. But ObP was not CBN/CBI in this case, so that is all that Zeal is interrupting. It's not interrupting Bringing Fear, but Bringing Fear is also not preventing it, so it works.

Quote

CBN means CBN so if you play bringing fear to negate good enhancements. And then they play zeal, zeal would go through because it is cbn and you cannot negate a cbn. Zeal isn't in any way negating bringing fear. It is discarding the character not the enhancement after the interruption.

I know I was wrong, I think it should be otherwise but I know I'm wrong .

So just to better understand your position:

If I block your Michael with Twelve-Fingered Giant, you believe that you should not be able to play The Second Seal to bring in all of your heroes, since that would be effectively negating my negate? If that is what you believe, I guess I don't see how that is more logical than the way it is.

Quote

If I block your Michael with Twelve-Fingered Giant, you believe that you should not be able to play The Second Seal to bring in all of your heroes, since that would be effectively negating my negate? If that is what you believe, I guess I don't see how that is more logical than the way it is.

No Because Michael entered battle first.  You would not be interrupting any form of prevent, you were there first.

But according to your logic, if I go out with Spy, then you block with TFG, then I play Wheel within a Wheel to exchange for Joshua the High Priest, it is a different situation when I play Jehoiada's Strength?

But according to your logic, if I go out with Spy, then you block with TFG, then I play Wheel within a Wheel to exchange for Joshua the High Priest, it is a different situation when I play Jehoiada's Strength?

That is how I would view it.

I see where your confusing is coming from.

Say I RA with a FBTN hero, then you block and play a CBN discard enhancement. You see this as interrupting the prevent?

Thats not how it works. The status of CBN works more like a protect ability. It says "This card is protected from being interrupted, prevented, or negated"

While CBN is not classified as a protect, it works very similarly by protecting the ability from being prevented, interrupted, or negated.

I understand that now, but I still don't like it.   

I do have a question, wouldn't bringing fear negate everything befor zeal was played, thusly negating zeal?

This has been said a hundred times.  Zeal cannot be negated. 

You see, the reason we keep arguing this point is that if you really did understand it, you would probably like it just fine, as all of us do. Smiley

I am not sure about that, I am a weird person.  

That is not official Bryon later stated in that same thread:

I like Schaef's idea that, when "Holds" appears on the identifier line of a fortress, the placement of the card into the fort is an action allowed by the game rule for fortresses, and not a special ability.  But it is still a manually-triggered action, and not an instant ability that is now-or-never at the moment it is played.

emphasis mine, but that was after several long pages of discussion.  We need a clear cut ruling now, not some post from the beginning of a discussion where the decision was changed.

And I remain unconvinced that statement is the be all end all response.  I need a clear concise ruling not a grab from the middle of a discussion.  I will stand by the old rulings until there is a CLEAR answer from the PTB.

it was Bryon. Schaef didn't agree at all.

the rules only change once a year. after nationals.

Except, apparently, in TEAMS, where three changes were recently made--two of which will have a major impact on both deck building and in-game strategy.

Teams is a figment of your imagination.

why is TEAMS completely capitalized? is it like one of those acro things? Totally Extreme Amazing Multiplayer Situation? Tennis Eating A Mutant Samuri? Teenagers Expressing Advantageous Molecular Synonyms? The Equipment Activating Machines for Spam?