Author Topic: Deafening Spirit vs. CoD (Read 9786 times)

browarod · « **Reply #50 on:** December 21, 2011, 09:22:53 PM »

Quote from: galadgawyn on December 20, 2011, 02:04:22 PM

That is just wrong. I specifically remember a ruling where a negate last enhancement would work against Deafening Spirit, just like it works against an enhancement in the discard pile. Most negate enhancement cards can't target it because it is now an evil character but negate the last can.

I disagree because negating something in the discard pile is a different scenario. The reason negate last can target discarded enhancements is because it was ruled to target those enhancements even if they leave play. The difference with DS is that it's not leaving play, it's changing its card type. Negate last shouldn't be able to negate DS because of the simple fact that DS is no longer an enhancement. That's how I've had/seen it ruled in the past.

megamanlan · « **Reply #51 on:** December 23, 2011, 07:41:36 PM »

I don't know how Negate Last can Negate DS either.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #52 on:** December 26, 2011, 08:40:56 PM »

Quote

I disagree because negating something in the discard pile is a different scenario. The reason negate last can target discarded enhancements is because it was ruled to target those enhancements even if they leave play. The difference with DS is that it's not leaving play, it's changing its card type. Negate last shouldn't be able to negate DS because of the simple fact that DS is no longer an enhancement. That's how I've had/seen it ruled in the past.

It is not a different scenario, at least according to the logic given in the past. It was basically said that regardless of its current status, the last enhancement played is still the last enhancement played. So the fact that DS is no longer an enhancement doesn't matter.

In other words, when you play "negate the last enhancement" you have to see what card meets that definition. It was said that a discarded enhancement or DS still meets that definition. If DS does not meet that definition, then does it go back to the enhancement played before it? That would be kind of odd. Does no ehancement meet that definition even when other enhancements were played that battle? That seems even weirder to me.

browarod · « **Reply #53 on:** December 26, 2011, 10:42:38 PM »

I've never heard it ruled that negate last can negate DS, so what I said DOES fit with the logic of how I've seen it in the past.

I don't think we're getting anywhere just going back and forth within us. Now, I don't remember all 4 pages of this thread, have any elders posted either way regarding this?

megamanlan · « **Reply #54 on:** December 27, 2011, 12:33:13 AM »

Prof Underwood did, it sounded like he was saying the Negate/Discard can be Negated, because it's treated as the CHaracter effect. But becoming a character is CBI.

Josh · « **Reply #55 on:** December 27, 2011, 12:19:47 PM »

Quote from: browarod on December 21, 2011, 09:22:53 PM

I disagree because negating something in the discard pile is a different scenario. The reason negate last can target discarded enhancements is because it was ruled to target those enhancements even if they leave play. The difference with DS is that it's not leaving play, it's changing its card type. Negate last shouldn't be able to negate DS because of the simple fact that DS is no longer an enhancement. That's how I've had/seen it ruled in the past.

Where does DS say that it is no longer treated like an enhancement when it becomes treated as a character? Is there anything in the REG stating that a card can't have both "Evil Enhancement" and "Evil Character" as identifiers? I think this card has been treated this way for so long that no one even questions why it can't be targeted as an enhancement even after it takes on the "Evil Character" identifier.

Also, the "treat as a character" text from DS' ability sounds an awful lot like something that should be an identifier, not an ability. Saul/Paul has text on Saul's card, but it was ruled to be an identifier, and I don't think the function of DS' characterization ability is any different from Saul's convert ability.

Thoughts?

browarod · « **Reply #56 on:** December 28, 2011, 01:16:06 AM »

Quote from: jmhartz on December 27, 2011, 12:19:47 PM

Where does DS say that it is no longer treated like an enhancement when it becomes treated as a character? Is there anything in the REG stating that a card can't have both "Evil Enhancement" and "Evil Character" as identifiers? I think this card has been treated this way for so long that no one even questions why it can't be targeted as an enhancement even after it takes on the "Evil Character" identifier.

Covenants would be the most obvious precedent. They can't be both an enhancement and an artifact, they become whichever you play them as. I doesn't seem a stretch to assume the same is the case with DS, it can't be both a character and an enhancement so when it becomes a character it loses enhancement status.

Josh · « **Reply #57 on:** December 28, 2011, 07:56:39 AM »

Quote from: browarod on December 28, 2011, 01:16:06 AM

Covenants would be the most obvious precedent. They can't be both an enhancement and an artifact, they become whichever you play them as. I doesn't seem a stretch to assume the same is the case with DS, it can't be both a character and an enhancement so when it becomes a character it loses enhancement status.

Covenants must be one or the other based on game rule, and it is determined by how you use the card. DS can be treated as an evil character because of a special ability, and it is determined by whether or not you choose to treat it as such. I see a big difference between game rules which force your hand into one of two mutually exclusive alternatives and special abilities that are completely optional (and in my view, don't result in mutually exclusive alternatives).

Is not the phrase "You may treat this card as an Evil Character for the remainder of battle" basically just adding "Evil Character" to the list of identifiers for DS? I don't think it can be assumed that the Evil Enhancement identifier goes away, even if that was the intent of the card (see: Split Altar).

Like I said, if someone can show me in the REG where a card cannot have both the Evil Enhancement identifier and the Evil Character identifier at the same time, I'll drop my argument.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #58 on:** December 28, 2011, 01:04:22 PM »

The burden of proof is not on those saying you can't be an Enhancement and a Character. You need to prove that you can be both.

megamanlan · « **Reply #59 on:** December 28, 2011, 01:13:43 PM »

Your Arguement is inherently flawed because it assumes that an EE can also be an EC. It has to be one or the other, this is why Covenants/Curses cannot be negated by a Negate Enhancement card while as an Artifact, or be negated by DoN (or another Negate/Discard Artifact card) while as an Enhancement. As far as I know, if a Card is 'treated as' something (Note: Covenants and Curses are 'Treat as' cards, check the ones from Patriarchs for reference) that means it cannot be what it used to be. That's why Captured Heroes are defined as LS's (with Identifers that note it's really a Captured Hero) not an actual Hero. This is why you can't CM a Captured Hero as well.

Although, it could be that becoming a EC could be an Identifer, so then it is CBN.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #60 on:** December 28, 2011, 05:00:11 PM »

If you want to make a parallel here between DS and Cov/Curses, then:

A Cov/Curse can be treated as an enh -OR- art (and targeted as such) but remains a Cov/Curse.
Similarly, DS can be treated as an EC (and targeted as such) but remains an EE.

However, I'm not sure that this is the best way to look at it, because I'm inclined to think that something can NOT be both an enh and character at the same time.

At the same time, I continue to think that if you played a "negate the last enh" card that it would cancel both the transforming of DS into an EC as well as the negating and discarding of the last GE.

However, I'm not sure that CoD would affect things at all. It would be the SA of DS AS AN ENHANCEMENT that would negate and discard the last GE, and transform it into an EC. After that point, I would think that it would keep the SA of negating and discarding the last GE, but that ability would NOT reactivate. Therefore, DS would not really be performing any ability AS A CHARACTER, and therefore there would be nothing for CoD to negate.

megamanlan · « **Reply #61 on:** December 28, 2011, 07:49:09 PM »

I would see it like a Capture Character. (Since the original cards said Treat as a Lost Soul) so under that it doesn't allow for a card being treated as something else to be treated as it was before.

My main question is the Negate/Discard negated if CoD is up? Because I don't really see how it is treated as CBI. (My thought is more of the becoming a Character should be a Identifier, so that it really just saves time of arguing if it can be negated or not) The main difference I see it as is that it is still in play, so being an EE and turning into an EC but it still can be negated because it still holds it's SA. Just like Covenants/Curses hold their SA no matter how their played (and also how u can negate Inummerable the only other Enhancement that becomes a Character) so that is my thoughts on this.

browarod · « **Reply #62 on:** December 28, 2011, 09:28:53 PM »

Quote from: megamanlan on December 28, 2011, 07:49:09 PM

My main question is the Negate/Discard negated if CoD is up?

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 28, 2011, 05:00:11 PM

However, I'm not sure that CoD would affect things at all. It would be the SA of DS AS AN ENHANCEMENT that would negate and discard the last GE, and transform it into an EC. After that point, I would think that it would keep the SA of negating and discarding the last GE, but that ability would NOT reactivate. Therefore, DS would not really be performing any ability AS A CHARACTER, and therefore there would be nothing for CoD to negate.

By the way, it's Covenant with Death so the abbreviation should be CwD.

SomeKittens · « **Reply #63 on:** December 28, 2011, 09:38:47 PM »

Quote from: browarod on December 28, 2011, 09:28:53 PM

Quote from: megamanlan on December 28, 2011, 07:49:09 PM
My main question is the Negate/Discard negated if CoD is up?
Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 28, 2011, 05:00:11 PM
However, I'm not sure that CoD would affect things at all. It would be the SA of DS AS AN ENHANCEMENT that would negate and discard the last GE, and transform it into an EC. After that point, I would think that it would keep the SA of negating and discarding the last GE, but that ability would NOT reactivate. Therefore, DS would not really be performing any ability AS A CHARACTER, and therefore there would be nothing for CoD to negate.

By the way, it's Covenant with Death so the abbreviation should be CwD.

Otherwise, you just get attacked by fish.

browarod · « **Reply #64 on:** December 28, 2011, 10:14:31 PM »

Quote from: SomeKittens on December 28, 2011, 09:38:47 PM

Otherwise, you just get attacked by fish.

Or answer the Call of Duty.

megamanlan · « **Reply #65 on:** December 29, 2011, 01:53:30 AM »

My response is questioning what he just said, besides he also had a completely different opinion before as well.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #66 on:** December 29, 2011, 01:18:00 PM »

OK, after talking through this thread for a while, I think I've come to a conclusion of just how DS works

- It starts as an EE and is played in battle.
- Assuming that it isn't prevented ahead of time, then it's SA activates.
- The SA of the EE negates and discards the last GE.
- The SA of the EE then transforms the card into an EC.
- At this point the card in battle is an EC (not an EE anymore) with 1/4 numbers.
- The SA of the new EC is to negate and discard the last EC however it would NOT activate again because the card is already in battle and character's SA activate when their cards enter battle.
- Because the EE is no longer in play, a regular negate enh won't work because it can't target.
- However a "negate last" enh WILL work because it doesn't care about being in play.
- Because the EC's SA isn't actually doing anything this battle, negating the EC won't matter.
- Therefore Covenant with Death will NOT stop Deafening Spirit.

Quote from: megamanlan on December 13, 2011, 03:44:49 PM

Deafening Spirit
1/4 Orange Evil Enhancement
Mark 9:25, Generic, Demon
Negate and discard the Last Good Enhancement played this Battle. You may treat this card as an Evil Character until the end of battle.

browarod · « **Reply #67 on:** December 30, 2011, 12:01:11 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 29, 2011, 01:18:00 PM

- However a "negate last" enh WILL work because it doesn't care about being in play.

I agree with everything else you said except I'm still just not sure about the above. Whether or not it's in play doesn't matter because it doesn't change locations, it changes types. I'm not saying I disagree per se, I just don't really understand the reasoning behind it.

megamanlan · « **Reply #68 on:** December 30, 2011, 02:31:45 AM »

Okay, so then if it would per say be an EC for the rest of the game and go back to territory, then next time it hits Battle then it would be Negated because of CwD?

I'm just putting this out there to try to completely understand the ruling.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #69 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:49:53 AM »

Quote from: megamanlan on December 30, 2011, 02:31:45 AM

Okay, so then if it would per say be an EC for the rest of the game and go back to territory, then next time it hits Battle then it would be Negated because of CwD?

Correct. If it survived the battle (which it shouldn't due to it transforming only for 1 battle), then it would have the ability to "negate and discard the last GE". However if CwD was active, then that SA would be negated.

Quote from: browarod on December 30, 2011, 12:01:11 AM

I agree with everything else you said except I'm still just not sure about the ["negate last" part] above. Whether or not it's in play doesn't matter because it doesn't change locations, it changes types.

I understand that we're in some new territory on that part of the ruling, but it just seems to me to be the closest precedent to follow. Even though the card changed types, it still WAS the "last enhancement played". So that's the way I see it. I can understand if you see it differently though.

STAMP · « **Reply #70 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:58:35 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 30, 2011, 10:49:53 AM

Quote from: browarod on December 30, 2011, 12:01:11 AM
I agree with everything else you said except I'm still just not sure about the ["negate last" part] above. Whether or not it's in play doesn't matter because it doesn't change locations, it changes types.
I understand that we're in some new territory on that part of the ruling, but it just seems to me to be the closest precedent to follow. Even though the card changed types, it still WAS the "last enhancement played". So that's the way I see it. I can understand if you see it differently though.

Actually the precedent that may need to be used is the one regarding the scenario when a player attempts to negate Gold Shield. I don't remember the ruling on that on what brigade could be used. I think that example is more analogous to this one.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #71 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:40:13 AM »

Quote from: STAMP on December 30, 2011, 10:58:35 AM

Actually the precedent that may need to be used is the one regarding the scenario when a player attempts to negate Gold Shield. I think that example is more analogous to this one.

I don't think so. The ruling with Gold Shield is that you would have to negate Gold Shield with a negate of the NEW brigade. But that is because the card which is trying to PLAY the negate has changed. This is really just an extension of the rule that you can only play enhancements on characters of the same brigade.

This situation is one where the card that is being TARGETED has changed, which is why I think it is more similar to the "negate last" situation. "Negate last" has already been defined as something which targets based on what something was in the past (ie. in play, is an EE) even if it isn't anymore (ie. in discard pile, is an EC).

STAMP · « **Reply #72 on:** December 30, 2011, 12:32:03 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on December 30, 2011, 11:40:13 AM

Quote from: STAMP on December 30, 2011, 10:58:35 AM
Actually the precedent that may need to be used is the one regarding the scenario when a player attempts to negate Gold Shield. I think that example is more analogous to this one.
I don't think so. The ruling with Gold Shield is that you would have to negate Gold Shield with a negate of the NEW brigade. But that is because the card which is trying to PLAY the negate has changed. This is really just an extension of the rule that you can only play enhancements on characters of the same brigade.

This situation is one where the card that is being TARGETED has changed, which is why I think it is more similar to the "negate last" situation. "Negate last" has already been defined as something which targets based on what something was in the past (ie. in play, is an EE) even if it isn't anymore (ie. in discard pile, is an EC).

I respectfully disagree. It's a combination of both. Yes, the targeting in each is a different type of targeting: one targets a card on which to play a negate (game rule), the other targets a card on which to negate (SA). However, in each the card remains in play. It's just a different card.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #73 on:** December 30, 2011, 02:12:39 PM »

Quote from: STAMP on December 30, 2011, 12:32:03 PM

I respectfully disagree.

I'm not sure that you understood my post. I think the key difference that is whether the card that is playing changes, or whether the card being targeted changes.

With Gold Shield, the card that wants to play has changed (brigades). So now the changed card can't negate Gold Shield in the old brigade because the hero is the wrong brigade.

With DS, the card that you want to target has changed (card types). So you can still play your negate card on your hero because it is still the right brigade. Only the target has changed, and the "negate last" terminology reaches back in time to affect the targeted card in its previous state.

STAMP · « **Reply #74 on:** December 30, 2011, 10:02:36 PM »

I understood your point completely. And while I agree that it provides an analogy and therefore a possible precedent, I respectfully disagree that it is the best analogy and precedent.

You're focusing on a consistency in action: targeting.

I am focusing on a consistency in state of cards in the game: a card's state changes and no action can be made with it's previous state.

News:

Author Topic: Deafening Spirit vs. CoD (Read 9786 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod

browarod