Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Or answer the Call of Duty.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.