Author Topic: In Game: negate draw question? (Read 4674 times)

RTSmaniac · « **on:** August 25, 2012, 09:21:09 PM »

I attack with draw 1 character and draw GOYS. I play GOYS. opponent blocks and plays Cov w/ Death. Does GOYS go back on deck?

Redoubter · « **Reply #1 on:** August 25, 2012, 09:33:17 PM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on August 25, 2012, 09:21:09 PM

I attack with draw 1 character and draw GOYS. I play GOYS. opponent blocks and plays Cov w/ Death. Does GOYS go back on deck?

The dominant stays. However, there was a discussion on this that never got resolved on some of the questions I asked.

Problem came up in this thread, and questions I asked in this thread didn't get answered.

megamanlan · « **Reply #2 on:** August 25, 2012, 09:44:53 PM »

The Dominant stays because it cannot be negated, (my friend claims to be one to blame for that... He had a strategy to play SoG/NJ and shuffle SoG back into Deck to use it again by negating a card that got it for him...) but only if it was played.

adotson85 · « **Reply #3 on:** August 25, 2012, 09:54:21 PM »

Agreed. You can not unplay a card once it has been played. You can negate cards that have been played, but as mega pointed out doms are CBN.

Redoubter · « **Reply #4 on:** August 25, 2012, 09:56:58 PM »

Quote from: adotson85 on August 25, 2012, 09:54:21 PM

Agreed. You can not unplay a card once it has been played.

This has been argued, and I have never gotten an Elder's response. I do know that doms stick, and 'play' is CBI, but playing cards other ways has been argued to be 'unplayable'.

adotson85 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 25, 2012, 10:27:02 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 25, 2012, 09:56:58 PM

Quote from: adotson85 on August 25, 2012, 09:54:21 PM
Agreed. You can not unplay a card once it has been played.

This has been argued, and I have never gotten an Elder's response. I do know that doms stick, and 'play' is CBI, but playing cards other ways has been argued to be 'unplayable'.

Play an enhancement abilities are CBI. I'm assuming that "other ways" is referring to abilites that put cards into play?

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #6 on:** August 25, 2012, 11:11:20 PM »

Play abilities are CBI, but it is possible for cards to be unplayed. If a card without CBI/N status is drawn then played (not via a play ability) and the draw is negated, the card in question is summarily negated and returned to deck.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #7 on:** August 26, 2012, 01:48:01 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on August 25, 2012, 09:56:58 PM

This has been argued, and I have never gotten an Elder's response.

I've just been looking at this, and my current leaning is that any card which is CBI or CBN when it is played can NOT be put back into hand or deck by negating another card which caused it to be played.

That probably needs to be worked out a bit, but at least its a starting place

Redoubter · « **Reply #8 on:** August 26, 2012, 12:23:46 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 26, 2012, 01:48:01 AM

Quote from: Redoubter on August 25, 2012, 09:56:58 PM
This has been argued, and I have never gotten an Elder's response.
I've just been looking at this, and my current leaning is that any card which is CBI or CBN when it is played can NOT be put back into hand or deck by negating another card which caused it to be played.

That probably needs to be worked out a bit, but at least its a starting place

We already had that ruled, but what about the other issues? What happens to a card that is played without a Play SA, but was drawn by an ability. Can it be "unplayed" by negating the draw? And if so, is it negated?

This leads to all kinds of scenarios that are just ugly, convoluted, and inconsistent. If CBI and CBN cards cannot be 'unplayed', then it should apply to all cards. CBI and CBN only refer to the abilities on the card, not the card itself. Therefore, if we're having the CBI and CBN cards stick just because their abilities cannot be negated, then for consistency we need to have all cards stick once played.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #9 on:** August 26, 2012, 01:23:42 PM »

No, we don't. It's been like this for years and there's never been a problem. CBI/N stick because they can't be interrupted or negated even indirectly. Other cards can, and go back if their draw is negated.

Redoubter · « **Reply #10 on:** August 26, 2012, 02:14:40 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 26, 2012, 01:23:42 PM

No, we don't. It's been like this for years and there's never been a problem. CBI/N stick because they can't be interrupted or negated even indirectly. Other cards can, and go back if their draw is negated.

And you don't have a problem with this, seeing as it is inconsistent, causes exceptions, and is needlessly complicated?

Why can't CBI or CBN cards be returned to deck? Only the abilities are CBI or CBN. The fact that this rule is in place results in bottom-up rules, and I'm a little confused as to why you're supporting that.

It is also needlessly complicated. Being able to 'unplay' cards just because the draw was negated is absurd and confusing, especially when you start adding exceptions.

Gabe · « **Reply #11 on:** August 26, 2012, 03:28:35 PM »

Pol is correct. That is the ruling and has been for as long as I've been playing.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #12 on:** August 26, 2012, 04:43:55 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 22, 2012, 11:22:51 PM

I really hate the inertia argument.

megamanlan · « **Reply #13 on:** August 26, 2012, 08:46:39 PM »

That is how I understood it as well.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #14 on:** August 26, 2012, 09:08:36 PM »

This is the ruling, and as much as I like consistent rulings, this one really has no other real alternative.

If a CBI ability would be returned to deck, its ability still wouldn't be negated. This would lead to stupid situations where you can reuse CBI cards by negating the card that drew them.

Also when you think about it, returning a card to deck via negating draws (also searches) effectively negates the card, which you can't do. Now the other side of it is that nothing is stopping the card from returning, only the ability from being negated. How about you see CBI as something of a protection. The CBI ability is psudoprotected from negates and therefore cannot even be effected by a negate or by a negate cascade in the case of returning to deck (since that is part of the negate, and I know this may not be how protect works, but that's why I said psudoprotect, so don't get too caught up on the analogy because it probably has a bunch of holes in it)

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** August 26, 2012, 09:18:01 PM »

Quote from: Gabe on August 26, 2012, 03:28:35 PM

Pol is correct. That is the ruling and has been for as long as I've been playing.

I wanted to get that official, as all of the research I did had no definitive result, as well as state the problems with this type of ruling.

I would again point out the inconsistencies, problems, and confusion this ruling causes, and echo YMT's quote of Pol that some rulings should be revisited. In this case, you are ruling that cards can be unplayed, but only cards without CBI or CBN. Those cards have no such ability. Only the Special Ability is CBI or CBN. Therefore, it makes no sense for the card to be 'cannot be unplayed', only the ability. Either all cards should be 'cannot be unplayed', or none, in order to have consistency in the rules.

Problems caused by this ruling:
- What cards did you draw? This is already problematic enough, and no opponent can know for sure whether someone already had a card except if they saw the hand earlier in the turn.
- Inconsistent ruling that treats cards differently just based on whether their SA is CBI or CBN. That does not protect the card, only the ability, and is an exception that shouldn't be made.
- Confusing rulings are a result, and this is evident by the fact that it was not documented, just 'understood' by a bunch of people. And even threads that discussed this were immersed in confusion.

All cards should be 'cannot be unplayed'. To counter the idea that 'this is the only solution', I ask: What would be the consequences of having any card played be 'cannot be unplayed'? Besides consistency in the rules, ease of dealing with drawn cards, and easier rulings? Because I can see no negatives at all. And it resolves the issues caused by the current ruling.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #16 on:** August 26, 2012, 09:27:45 PM »

Quote

What cards did you draw? This is already problematic enough, and no opponent can know for sure whether someone already had a card except if they saw the hand earlier in the turn.

This has always been and will always be a problem with Redemption. I don't see how it specifically relates to this question, though.

Quote

Inconsistent ruling that treats cards differently just based on whether their SA is CBI or CBN. That does not protect the card, only the ability, and is an exception that shouldn't be made.

There is a game rule interacting with it here. Because of the possibility of loops, there is a separate game rule that demands cards with CBI/N abilities "stick to the table" once completed. This separate rule is what is causing the CBI/N cards to not go back when a draw is negated, not the CBI/N abilities themselves.

Quote

Confusing rulings are a result, and this is evident by the fact that it was not documented, just 'understood' by a bunch of people. And even threads that discussed this were immersed in confusion.

I'm also for a good REG. For example, I don't think the rule I mentioned in the previous point is actually written down anywhere. I have an impeccable legal memory, so I'm able to get these rulings right every time simply because I remember what was handed down sometimes years ago, but I'd love for there to be a short (seriously, the current REG is ridiculously big) repository of all these definitions and interactions so I have something more to argue on than my credibility (which isn't enough for some people).

Redoubter · « **Reply #17 on:** August 26, 2012, 09:34:55 PM »

I love how you are against bottom-up rulings, exceptions to the rules, inertia being the reason to not change something, and yet seem to support this.

As I said: I know the reason why CBI/CBN cards stick. I'm saying it should be extended to all played cards. Why you oppose this is beyond me, and the counter-arguments you just gave don't actually show why the current ruling is better or not an issue.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #18 on:** August 26, 2012, 10:02:57 PM »

I am not in favor of making new rules that don't already exist. What happens now is a result of existing rules interacting. What you are proposing is creating a new rule. I think less rules is better, you think more precision is better, and we just won't agree. I do not factor "hard for people to understand" into my evaluation of rulings, only what is better or worse for the game's mechanics. Making draw abilities closer to CBI is not in the game's best interests from my perspective.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #19 on:** August 26, 2012, 10:06:20 PM »

For me this seems pretty fair. If a card is CBI or CBN, then it's ability is going to happen whether you negate the draw that got it or not and whether it goes back where it came from or not. So since you get the benefit of the card, I think it's fair that it has to stick to the table and remain played even if the draw is negated.

If a card is NOT CBI or CBN, then it's ability is going to be negated when you negate the draw that got it. Since you did NOT get the benefit of the card, I think it's fair for you to get the chance to draw the card again later and try to get the benefit again.

Redoubter · « **Reply #20 on:** August 26, 2012, 11:25:45 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 26, 2012, 10:02:57 PM

I am not in favor of making new rules that don't already exist. What happens now is a result of existing rules interacting. What you are proposing is creating a new rule. I think less rules is better, you think more precision is better, and we just won't agree.

I've seen you propose rule changes before, for one, and this is not a new rule. This would be a top-down ruling to encompass all situations of play, which is more precise without adding anything. Right now we actually have game rule and then an exception for one card class and another exception for an ability type. So I really don't understand why you feel the need to attack the idea.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on August 26, 2012, 10:06:20 PM

For me this seems pretty fair. If a card is CBI or CBN, then it's ability is going to happen whether you negate the draw that got it or not and whether it goes back where it came from or not. So since you get the benefit of the card, I think it's fair that it has to stick to the table and remain played even if the draw is negated.

If a card is NOT CBI or CBN, then it's ability is going to be negated when you negate the draw that got it. Since you did NOT get the benefit of the card, I think it's fair for you to get the chance to draw the card again later and try to get the benefit again.

I completely understand this point (thanks for posting again Prof, by the way

). I also understand that the precedent of negating bands, for instance, does come into play here, however silly I may find it that we are 'unplaying' cards (never should happen, IMO). However, my case is this: If you are going to exclude some cards for being returned just because their effect will still trigger, than you have created a very specialized situation in the rules that is more complex and less sure for rulings. While it may be 'fair' to get a chance to reuse a card, I don't think that is a particularly great reason for placing the card back on deck.

As I said, I understand the current ruling, but I would make the case for all 'play' to be CBI. Once a card hits the table, it sticks. No special exception needed for "play abilities". No special exception needed for CBI or CBN abilities. No confusion about "did you have that card in your hand or did you draw it?" Just a straight top-down rule: Playing a card cannot be interrupted. If we're looking to make the rules clearer and more streamlined, then this proposal makes sense. If we're trying to make the rules make sense, then this makes sense. Otherwise, we can keep the current confusion and keep rolling with the exceptions new players (and experienced who don't know) have to deal with

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #21 on:** August 27, 2012, 12:20:36 AM »

All banding cards are now CBI when banding to cards in hand. FbtNB wins even harder. I rest my case.

Redoubter · « **Reply #22 on:** August 27, 2012, 06:57:14 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 27, 2012, 12:20:36 AM

All banding cards are now CBI when banding to cards in hand. FbtNB wins even harder. I rest my case.

I will disagree with you on this point as well, and still not understanding your hate for this suggestion.

In this case, if the rule were as I proposed, then the playing of the card (it hitting the table and activating) could not be interrupted. However, banding is specific that it brings a character into battle, and negating the band kicks the character out. That is the way banding is, and nothing in this suggestion would change that. The character would stay in play (still played), but would be kicked from battle, since it was not banded in. And per the rules of indirect negation regarding banding, the ability would be negated as well. The character would therefore end up in territory, and out of the battle.

So I disagree with your premise that banding would become broken by this suggestion. And since you rested your case, I guess I won't hear more from you?

Sad.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #23 on:** August 27, 2012, 07:27:19 PM »

If the band was negated, how did the character get in play?

And I'll have you know, I can un-rest my case any time my opponent tries to introduce new evidence :p

Drrek · « **Reply #24 on:** August 27, 2012, 07:44:32 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on August 27, 2012, 07:27:19 PM

If the band was negated, how did the character get in play?

What if the character who was banded in has a CBN ability? I'd assume from the previous logic of this thread, that character would stay in play, how did it get into play?

News:

Author Topic: In Game: negate draw question? (Read 4674 times)