Author Topic: CBP (Read 4513 times)

Josh · « **on:** June 02, 2010, 08:28:05 PM »

Hypothetical situation. I RA with a blue hero (SA not important). My opponent blocks with a small orange demon (SA not important) and plays Corrupted. An occupied site is in play. I play Ehud's Dagger. What happens?

Corrupted - "Convert a human Hero to a brown brigade Evil Character. Cannot be prevented by a good card if an occupied Site is in play."

Ehud's Dagger - "Negate the last evil enhancement played in current battle."

For what it's worth, I think that Corrupted still works - Ehud's Dagger interrupts it, and then tries to prevent it, but can't since Corrupted is CBP. Verdict?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #1 on:** June 02, 2010, 09:13:25 PM »

I know that this is a bit tricky, and a lot of people get confused by it, so don't feel badly. But Ehud's Dagger would negate Corrupted in this case. Here's how I think about it:

CBP - nothing that happens before the enhancement is played can stop it from activating.
CBI - nothing that happens after the enhancement is played can stop it from activating.
CBN - nothing that happens before OR after the enhancement is played can stop it from activating.

In this case Ehud's Dagger is played AFTER Corrupted, therefore the CBP nature of corrupted doesn't stop Ehud's Dagger.

Josh · « **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2010, 10:11:14 PM »

You're right, I am confused about it. I think about it in terms of the words "interrupt" and "prevent", not in terms of "before" or "after" the card is played. It seems weird that you can prevent a CBP enhancement... Why does it matter that the prevent card was played after the CBP ability? Because the CBP enhancement was interrupted, technically the negate ability happens "before" the CBP.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #3 on:** June 02, 2010, 10:26:13 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on June 02, 2010, 10:11:14 PM

Why does it matter that the prevent card was played after the CBP ability?

Because in this case you can't think of "negate" as meaning "interrupt and prevent". You just have to think of it as a single ability that "cancels" what happened before. And since this "canceling" comes AFTER the CBP enhancement, it does indeed cancel it.

Gabe · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2010, 12:15:11 AM »

Prof is correct.

STAMP · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2010, 09:26:44 AM »

Walter and I share the same feelings about CBP:

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2010, 11:00:06 AM »

This was on one of the inserts a few sets ago... Angel Wars, maybe? And that is correct - you can negate something afterward that is "cannot be prevented".

stefferweffer · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2010, 12:22:23 PM »

Hypothetical then (which was brought up in another thread) - The lost soul that says "Cannot be prevented". I'm assuming its ability also cannot be prevented? The question was brought up about "I am Salvation". Now obviously if it is active as a Covenant, it stops the lost soul anyway. But what if it is played as an enhancement in battle? Are we saying that it would not negate that lost soul's special ability because it is "Cannot be Prevented"?

Thanks.

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2010, 01:04:40 PM »

Again, "cannot be prevented" CAN be negated.

Korunks · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2010, 01:13:57 PM »

That is really confusing because for so long Negate has been "Interrupt and Prevent", so you can interrupt and prevent a "Cannot be Prevented" card. Perhaps that is why Negate is going to be redefined in the new REG? Can you Negate a "Cannot be Interrupted" card?

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2010, 01:17:29 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on June 03, 2010, 01:13:57 PM

That is really confusing because for so long Negate has been "Interrupt and Prevent", so you can interrupt and prevent a "Cannot be Prevented" card. Perhaps that is why Negate is going to be redefined in the new REG? Can you Negate a "Cannot be Interrupted" card?

It all depends on when the negate card is played. If it is played BEFORE the cannot be prevented card is played, then the CBP card still works. If it is played AFTER the cannot be prevented card is played, it is stopped. A cannot be interrupted card can be stopped by a negate played before it, but not by one played after it.

Kirk

Korunks · « **Reply #11 on:** June 03, 2010, 01:24:18 PM »

Quote

If it is played BEFORE the cannot be prevented card is played, then the CBP card still works. If it is played AFTER the cannot be prevented card is played, it is stopped.

This confuses me still because if you "Interrupt and Prevent" you are (by the definition of Interrupt) inserting the prevent before a "Cannot Be Prevented" card making the Prevent come first, so then the negate should fail because it "Cannot be Prevented".

Relevant Section Quoted:

Quote from: REG

Interrupt is an ability that temporarily undoes a previously completed ability or set of abilities and inserts the special ability on the interrupt card before the previously completed abilities complete. Interrupt is used to stop another card’s special ability until the special ability on the interrupt card is completed (see Interrupt in the glossary of the rulebook [p. 45]). An “interrupt” goes back in time and suspends something that has already happened.

If time travel is occurring(a la the REG) then the Prevent part of Negate is happening before the "Cannot be Prevented", right?

Ken4Christ4ever · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2010, 01:29:58 PM »

From the Angel Wars insert card:

"Cannot be prevented" means that the special ability activates when the card is played, regardless of any negate or prevent ability that is already affecting battle. However, a "cannot be prevented" ability can be interrupted or negated after it is played.

"Cannot be interrupted" is the opposite. These special abilities can be prevented before they are played. But if they are not prevented before they are played, nothing can interrupt or negate them after they are played.

"Cannot be negated" includes both of the above. These abilities cannot be prevented beforehand, and cannot be interrupted or negated after being played.

Korunks · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2010, 01:35:42 PM »

Well then I say "Cannot be Prevented" is Illogical, does not follow the set rules for Interrupt and Prevent, and is Unamerican!!

But seriously that does not jive with the REG definition of Interrupt or Prevent so is this going to be addressed(or at least documented) at some point?

stefferweffer · « **Reply #14 on:** June 03, 2010, 01:38:09 PM »

Quote from: Ken4Christ4ever on June 03, 2010, 01:29:58 PM

From the Angel Wars insert card:

"Cannot be prevented" means that the special ability activates when the card is played, regardless (oh no, there's that word again!) of any negate or prevent ability that is already affecting battle. However, a "cannot be prevented" ability can be interrupted or negated after it is played.

"Cannot be interrupted" is the opposite. These special abilities can be prevented before they are played. But if they are not prevented before they are played, nothing can interrupt or negate them after they are played.

"Cannot be negated" includes both of the above. These abilities cannot be prevented beforehand, and cannot be interrupted or negated after being played.

Then by this definition "I am Salvation" played as an enhancement in battle DOES negate the special ability of the "Cannot be Prevented" lost soul? You see, before this lost soul everything that was "Cannot be prevented" seemed to happen in battle. What if the "Cannot be prevented" is written on a Lost Soul?

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #15 on:** June 03, 2010, 02:39:19 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on June 03, 2010, 01:24:18 PM

If time travel is occurring(a la the REG) then the Prevent part of Negate is happening before the "Cannot be Prevented", right?

The REG quote may make it sound more confusing than it actually is. Although the REG states that the negate ability "inserts" itself before the card it is attempting to negate, it is simplest to think about it in order the cards are physically played on the table. If you take cards on the table and stack them in the order played with the first card being played on the bottom, if a negate card is on the bottom (such as a negate all), then a cannot be prevented card further up in the stack works. If a CBP card is further down in the stack and the negate card is above it in the stack, then the CBP card does not work. Does that make sense?

Kirk

Lamborghini_diablo · « **Reply #16 on:** June 03, 2010, 06:20:49 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on June 03, 2010, 01:35:42 PM

Well then I say "Cannot be Prevented" is Illogical, does not follow the set rules for Interrupt and Prevent, and is Unamerican!!

And children's card games are serious business.... IN AMERICA!

Korunks · « **Reply #17 on:** June 04, 2010, 08:35:35 AM »

Quote

The REG quote may make it sound more confusing than it actually is. Although the REG states that the negate ability "inserts" itself before the card it is attempting to negate, it is simplest to think about it in order the cards are physically played on the table. If you take cards on the table and stack them in the order played with the first card being played on the bottom, if a negate card is on the bottom (such as a negate all), then a cannot be prevented card further up in the stack works. If a CBP card is further down in the stack and the negate card is above it in the stack, then the CBP card does not work. Does that make sense?

Yes it makes sense and I understand it, but that is not what the rulebook says happens. I am just trying to get the recorded rules too match how we play the game. The way it is played disagrees with the REG, and I know it is severely out of date.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 03, 2010, 06:20:49 PM

Quote from: Korunks on June 03, 2010, 01:35:42 PM
Well then I say "Cannot be Prevented" is Illogical, does not follow the set rules for Interrupt and Prevent, and is Unamerican!!

And children's card games are serious business.... IN AMERICA!

lol that's who I was thinking of wen I wrote that.

Josh · « **Reply #18 on:** June 04, 2010, 12:38:58 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on June 03, 2010, 02:39:19 PM

Quote from: Korunks on June 03, 2010, 01:24:18 PM
If time travel is occurring(a la the REG) then the Prevent part of Negate is happening before the "Cannot be Prevented", right?

The REG quote may make it sound more confusing than it actually is. Although the REG states that the negate ability "inserts" itself before the card it is attempting to negate, it is simplest to think about it in order the cards are physically played on the table. If you take cards on the table and stack them in the order played with the first card being played on the bottom, if a negate card is on the bottom (such as a negate all), then a cannot be prevented card further up in the stack works. If a CBP card is further down in the stack and the negate card is above it in the stack, then the CBP card does not work. Does that make sense?

Kirk

I understand what the correct way to play it is, but it still doesn't jive very well in my mind. Knowing what the words "interrupt" and "prevent" mean (and nothing else) would never lead a player to the "correct" way to play CBP enhancements involving the words "can't be stopped after this card is played" and "can't be stopped before this card is played". Playing The Battle is the Lord's before a CBP enhancement does nothing, but playing it after a CBP enhancement negates it - that seems contradictory to me. When you've played one way for as long as you can remember, it can take a little time to adjust

I'll do my best though

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #19 on:** June 04, 2010, 01:41:32 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on June 04, 2010, 12:38:58 PM

Knowing what the words "interrupt" and "prevent" mean (and nothing else) would never lead a player to the "correct" way to play CBP enhancements involving the words "can't be stopped after this card is played" and "can't be stopped before this card is played".

Actually I think that when people think about the word "prevent" they think about stopping something before it happens. When people think about "interrupt" they think about breaking in after something happens. So I think the words are actually pretty intuitive.

I do understand how it is hard to change when you've been playing something one way for a long time though, and I appreciate you willingness to try your best to fix things. That's the right attitude to have.

STAMP · « **Reply #20 on:** June 04, 2010, 04:23:55 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 04, 2010, 01:41:32 PM

Quote from: jmhartz on June 04, 2010, 12:38:58 PM
Knowing what the words "interrupt" and "prevent" mean (and nothing else) would never lead a player to the "correct" way to play CBP enhancements involving the words "can't be stopped after this card is played" and "can't be stopped before this card is played".
Actually I think that when people think about the word "prevent" they think about stopping something before it happens. When people think about "interrupt" they think about breaking in after something happens. So I think the words are actually pretty intuitive.

I do understand how it is hard to change when you've been playing something one way for a long time though, and I appreciate you willingness to try your best to fix things. That's the right attitude to have.

Here's the thing Prof: by using the idiotic interpretation that's currently being used, NOTHING could ever be interrupted and then prevented. Oh, I understand completely what is the intent and why CBP is not really CBP. But what you end up with is the relation of "interrupt" to "cannot be interrupted" does not equate with "prevent" to "cannot be prevented".

But hay, it's neither hear nor their in my opinion.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #21 on:** June 04, 2010, 04:37:09 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on June 04, 2010, 04:23:55 PM

Here's the thing Prof: by using the idiotic interpretation that's currently being used, NOTHING could ever be interrupted and then prevented. Oh, I understand completely what is the intent and why CBP is not really CBP. But what you end up with is the relation of "interrupt" to "cannot be interrupted" does not equate with "prevent" to "cannot be prevented".

I think the whole hang up is on the phrase "interrupt AND prevent". I don't think that we should really use that language anymore. I think it would be more accurate to replace "negate" with the words "prevent AND/OR cancel".

STAMP · « **Reply #22 on:** June 04, 2010, 07:12:50 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on June 04, 2010, 04:37:09 PM

Quote from: STAMP on June 04, 2010, 04:23:55 PM
Here's the thing Prof: by using the idiotic interpretation that's currently being used, NOTHING could ever be interrupted and then prevented. Oh, I understand completely what is the intent and why CBP is not really CBP. But what you end up with is the relation of "interrupt" to "cannot be interrupted" does not equate with "prevent" to "cannot be prevented".
I think the whole hang up is on the phrase "interrupt AND prevent". I don't think that we should really use that language anymore. I think it would be more accurate to replace "negate" with the words "prevent AND/OR cancel".

That would be fine if negate was the only issue, but it's not. We still have several cards that say to "interrupt and prevent", e.g. Warrior's versions of Bow and Arrow, Ehud's Dagger, etc.

EVERYTHING would work just fine and be easy to understand if negate really meant "interrupt and prevent", and cannot be prevented meant cannot be prevented.

Seriously, cannot be prevented would work just like the current ITB/play next cards. If you interrupt a CBP ability you have to do something to nullify the ability before it kicks back in at the end of the interrupt. We all know that after an ITB you have to do something to nullify the SA that's being interrupted: discard, protect, shuffle, etc.

Josh · « **Reply #23 on:** June 04, 2010, 08:22:56 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on June 04, 2010, 07:12:50 PM

That would be fine if negate was the only issue, but it's not. We still have several cards that say to "interrupt and prevent", e.g. Warrior's versions of Bow and Arrow, Ehud's Dagger, etc.

EVERYTHING would work just fine and be easy to understand if negate really meant "interrupt and prevent", and cannot be prevented meant cannot be prevented.

Seriously, cannot be prevented would work just like the current ITB/play next cards. If you interrupt a CBP ability you have to do something to nullify the ability before it kicks back in at the end of the interrupt. We all know that after an ITB you have to do something to nullify the SA that's being interrupted: discard, protect, shuffle, etc.

And that is what my issue has always been. I think the primary thing I can't get my mind around is that CBI and CBP, as they are currently defined, are basically "opposites" of each other - and I think that was the intention. But the abilities "interrupt" and "prevent" are not opposites.

If there was an enhancement that said "Interrupt all special abilities on characters and enhancements", it would basically be a useless card, because it would interrupt, and then do nothing when the abilities were interrupted. But an enhancement that says "Prevent all special abilities on characters and enhancements" actually does something, because it would prevent all future abilities. Prevent can actually stop special abilities; interrupt can only suspend them. They actually aren't very similar at all. The only way an interrupt ability indirectly "prevents" something is with the help of a separate ability (discard last enhancement/a hero/an evil character, set aside some cards, etc.)

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #24 on:** June 04, 2010, 09:39:10 PM »

Actually, because of that fact they are exact opposites.

One stops before, for an unlimited amount of time (or until the card the time period the card says) (Prevent)

One stops AFTER, for a limited amount of time, until the card ability completes. Period. (Interrupt)_

News:

Author Topic: CBP (Read 4513 times)

Lamborghini_diablo