Author Topic: FBTN kicked out still FBTN? (Read 5779 times)

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #25 on:** February 23, 2012, 08:29:35 PM »

Was it indirectly negated? Yes. Therefore, it was negated.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #26 on:** February 23, 2012, 09:43:30 PM »

Can someone explain to me what the Warrior's Spear ruling is?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #27 on:** February 24, 2012, 01:12:50 AM »

If you have Warrior's Spear on Spy and use his withdraw ability upon attacking, WS still activates.

cookie monster · « **Reply #28 on:** February 24, 2012, 09:33:40 AM »

I am somewhat confused about indirect negating, can someone please explain indirect negating to me

Arrthoa · « **Reply #29 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:35:54 AM »

I know this is off topic but why didn't they make Armorbearer Warrior Class?

Red Wing · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:36:52 AM »

Quote from: Arrthoa on February 24, 2012, 10:35:54 AM

I know this is off topic but why didn't they make Armorbearer Warrior Class?

He was printed in Warriors before Warrior Class was invented.

Red Wing · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:51:07 AM »

Quote from: Arrthoa on February 24, 2012, 10:45:50 AM

Yes, I am aware of that but they also reprinted him in Kings the set that introduces warrior class.

Searching "Armorbearer" in the REG only comes up with the Wa version, and I couldn't find him in the Kings expansion. Are you sure he was reprinted in Kings?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:54:53 AM »

I'm about 95% sure that Armorbearer was never reprinted.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2012, 12:03:25 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 24, 2012, 10:54:53 AM

I'm about 95% sure that Armorbearer was never reprinted.

I'm 100% sure. There is no Kings Armorbearer.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #34 on:** February 25, 2012, 10:08:03 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 24, 2012, 12:03:25 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 24, 2012, 10:54:53 AM
I'm about 95% sure that Armorbearer was never reprinted.

I'm 100% sure. There is no Kings Armorbearer.

Well I'M ~~105% sure!~~ bad at math. Beat that Alstad!

browarod · « **Reply #35 on:** February 25, 2012, 10:09:46 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 10:08:03 AM

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 24, 2012, 12:03:25 PM
Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 24, 2012, 10:54:53 AM
I'm about 95% sure that Armorbearer was never reprinted.

I'm 100% sure. There is no Kings Armorbearer.

Well I'M 105% sure! Beat that Alstad!

I'm 9001% sure.

christiangamer25 · « **Reply #36 on:** February 25, 2012, 04:17:25 PM »

i'm 1337 percent sure thread won ty

Professoralstad · « **Reply #37 on:** February 25, 2012, 06:02:41 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 10:08:03 AM

Beat that Alstad!

Done.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #38 on:** February 26, 2012, 10:15:32 AM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on February 25, 2012, 06:02:41 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 10:08:03 AM
Beat that Alstad!

Done.

I support the correction.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #39 on:** February 26, 2012, 10:46:27 AM »

One does not meddle in the affairs of moderators...

SirNobody · « **Reply #40 on:** February 27, 2012, 01:14:12 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: cookie monster on February 24, 2012, 09:33:40 AM

I am somewhat confused about indirect negating, can someone please explain indirect negating to me

If an ability activates as part of another ability and if the other ability is negated the first ability is indirectly negated. Negating the other ability means undoing everything that it did, one of the things it did was activate the first ability, so undoing it means undoing the first ability.

For example, character A has an ability to band and bands to character B. Character A's ability caused Character B to enter battle. Character B entering battle causes character B's ability to take effect. So character A's ability indirectly caused character B's ability to activate. Negating character A's ability undoes everything it caused. It caused character B to enter battle, so character B is moved out of battle. It indirectly caused character B's ability to take effect, so it undoes (i.e. indirectly negates) character B's ability.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

cookie monster · « **Reply #41 on:** February 28, 2012, 05:42:39 AM »

It seems so simple, yet so complicated all at the same time

stefferweffer · « **Reply #42 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:18:19 AM »

Quote from: SirNobody on February 27, 2012, 01:14:12 PM

Hey,

Quote from: cookie monster on February 24, 2012, 09:33:40 AM
I am somewhat confused about indirect negating, can someone please explain indirect negating to me

If an ability activates as part of another ability and if the other ability is negated the first ability is indirectly negated. Negating the other ability means undoing everything that it did, one of the things it did was activate the first ability, so undoing it means undoing the first ability.

For example, character A has an ability to band and bands to character B. Character A's ability caused Character B to enter battle. Character B entering battle causes character B's ability to take effect. So character A's ability indirectly caused character B's ability to activate. Negating character A's ability undoes everything it caused. It caused character B to enter battle, so character B is moved out of battle. It indirectly caused character B's ability to take effect, so it undoes (i.e. indirectly negates) character B's ability.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

This makes sense to me, but it does not explain why if Character A bands to Character B, who happens to be a FBTN character and thus negates the band of Character A, that the remainder of the battle is FBTN. Why didn't negating the band "indirectly" negate the FBTN status of the battle too?

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #43 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:34:36 AM »

Because that would result in a loop...

stefferweffer · « **Reply #44 on:** February 28, 2012, 08:39:34 AM »

Quote from: Ring Wraith on February 28, 2012, 08:34:36 AM

Because that would result in a loop...

Thanks. I forgot about the "unless it will create an endless loop" rule. Is this in the REG?

SirNobody · « **Reply #45 on:** February 28, 2012, 01:23:39 PM »

Hey,

Quote from: stefferweffer on February 28, 2012, 08:18:19 AM

This makes sense to me, but it does not explain why if Character A bands to Character B, who happens to be a FBTN character and thus negates the band of Character A, that the remainder of the battle is FBTN. Why didn't negating the band "indirectly" negate the FBTN status of the battle too?

It's been ruled since 2000 that FBTN cannot indirectly negate itself. The ruling has always been that way to prevent infinite loop problems. It is possible that that rule is currently missing from the REG.

Thinking about it now, there my actually be a more general rule that an ability can never directly or indirectly negate itself. Can anyone think of an instance where a card negates itself?

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

browarod · « **Reply #46 on:** February 28, 2012, 01:28:09 PM »

Sinning Hand would be the first thing I think of, but that one specifically says the opponent can do something to negate it, so idk if that counts.

It would make FBTN wording even more streamlined if there was a game rule that cards can't negate themselves (since then you wouldn't need the "(except this ability)" clarification).

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #47 on:** February 28, 2012, 01:38:20 PM »

If cards couldn't negate themselves, then Sinning Hand and Trembling Demon would be inherently CBN. You'd also have weird situations like someone playing Reach, the opponent drawing a Negate off their Gifts, then being unable to Negate Reach because it would indirectly negate itself.

We've had the "no loops" rule for years, and I don't think it needs to be changed.

cookie monster · « **Reply #48 on:** February 29, 2012, 02:58:48 AM »

So the indirect negating always happens unless the ability that is being indirectly negated cannot be negated, or if the negating creates an endless loop. this makes so much sense now

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #49 on:** February 29, 2012, 07:06:41 PM »

I don't get it.

News:

Author Topic: FBTN kicked out still FBTN? (Read 5779 times)

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

Warrior_Monk

browarod