Cactus Game Design Message Boards

At least Tower already have plenty of ways to be discarded already. Might want to try a judge deck again .

Does "negate heroes" mean just abilities?

yes.  They wanted to keep the ability short

"Negate heroes" is defined in the article.

Quote from: Bryon on June 24, 2011, 10:02:04 AM

"Negate heroes" is defined in the article.

I'm aware, but the wording is almost identical to CD, how is this different?

Tower says: "Negate Heroes."

Creeping Deceiver says: "Cannot be negated by a character."

How are those almost identical? If Tower said "negate special abilities used by Heroes" then I could see your point. But it doesn't.

Didn't Flaming Sword always negate the whole enhancement, not just the abilities? Why would it be different?

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on June 24, 2011, 10:34:00 AM

If CD said "Cannot be negated by a hero," it'd still stop enhancements from negating it as well.

I think Smokey does have a good point.

If CD said "Cannot be negated by a Hero", I still don't see how it is similar to "negate Heroes." One of them restricts what a certain card type can do, either by its own special ability, or abilities on enhancements used by that card type. The other just specifies the card type (and based on the definition of negate, really just specifies the SA's of a card type). Enhancments are not heroes, so Tower doesn't negate them. However, enhancements are used by characters, so it would still be the character doing the negating in the case of CD.

If CD cannot be negated by a character, and an enhancement used by a character also cannot negate CD, then if I negate the character should I negate his negate.
How can one be true but the opposite not be true.

If CD cannot be negated by a character, and an enhancement used by a character also cannot negate CD, then if I negate the character should I negate his negate.
How can one be true but the opposite not be true.

"Negate" and "cannot be negated" are inherently different, so they can't be directly compared. Negate is an ability that targets abilities of specific cards (in this case Heroes). It says nothing about abilities used by Heroes, just Heroes. Cannot be negated is an ability (well, more of an identifier of an ability) that targets the ability, specifying what certain cards can do to the ability. Thus it is broader in the sense that it means that characters can't negate CD by their own abilities, and they can't use enhancements to negate CD.

...and it's become another "3 Stooges"-type thread...as if that's a surprise.   

And as always, your input is much appreciated...

I wasn't attempting to argue that Negate and CBN should follow the same rules.
I'm saying that if you can include enhancements for abilities that don't mention enhancements because they are played together, then that should be universal.
The rule shouldn't be "Enhancements are played by characters and are counted as characters abilities, except when they aren't".

The logic behind CD is as follows:

Thaddeus has been ruled that he is protected from EC's, therefore he is protected from their enhancements. The logic there is because enhancements are used by characters, therefore it is the character doing the capture/discard/etc. Raider's Camp, Potiphar's Wife, Fallen Warrior, etc. are all examples of this. When the character captures/defeats the Hero because of enhancements they play, they get the benefit. No one is arguing, or has ever argued, that the enhancement abilities are counted as character abilities, rather, they are abilities used by characters. Hence, CD cannot be negated by characters, which means he cannot be negated by enhancements used by characters.

However, negate heroes =/= negate special abilities used by Heroes. If it did, I could see your argument, and would agree with you, but it doesn't say that. We used "negate Heroes" as shorthand for "negate special abilities on Heroes", in which case it works just like John/The Centurions, which I assume you wouldn't think negate EEs.

I think if a card says its protected from/CBN by characters it should be protected from just characters.  (so Thad wouldn't be protected from Wrath of Satan, but would be protected from King Zimri (assuming X is high enough))

Immune can be different in that the enhancements don't affect it, that doesn't bother me because then immune is a different ability from protect, right now its the same except its only for characters.

Changing it now might be a bit unfair to everyone using disciples at the moment.

Are all future articles just going to be links to the Cactus website...? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the article section?

There was no article section until like a year ago. It's just an archive of old articles.

Quote from: Smokey on June 24, 2011, 10:09:48 AM

Quote from: Bryon on June 24, 2011, 10:02:04 AM

"Negate heroes" is defined in the article.

I'm aware, but the wording is almost identical to CD, how is this different?

Tower says: "Negate Heroes." <- Negates the hero alone, as it literally says.

Creeping Deceiver says: "Cannot be negated by a character." <- Emphasis on "by."  Sounds like: Neither the character nor enhancements used by the character can negate it.  I.E. Cannot be negated.

How are those almost identical? If Tower said "negate special abilities used by Heroes" then I could see your point. But it doesn't.

^^ I agree.  Not similar in the least way. ^^

^ See remarks within quote. ^

The reasoning is logical because the cards have two completely different abilities and the wording specifies the "range" of each ability.

Carry On,

-C_S