Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I guess I'm just confused (no pun intended) on how a special ability that was already played and carried out can be prevented after the fact (like Confusion in this case).

I don't see it that way.  I see it that the "negate all" was already in play BEFORE the Confusion, and therefore it is preventing it BEFORE the fact (despite the pause due to the interrupt of the 2kh).

I see where you guys are coming from on this.  I just see it differently.  I have tried at length to explain how my understanding of it works.  Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from as well despite disagreeing with it.  At this point if you still don't understand my perspective, then I'll have to let others explain it in different ways.  Thanks for the discussion.

I'm bringing this thread back from the dead, based on Gabe's post in another thread today:

Quote from: Legolas on February 08, 2016, 09:07:46 PM

Is negate an ongoing ability?

Yes, the prevent component of it is.

I'll reiterate my stance:

1. "Negate all" abilities have an instant ability ("Negate all abilities in specified location...") and an ongoing ability ("Prevent all abilities that enter the specified location in the future").
2. If a "Negate all" ability (like Benaiah or Blessings) is interrupted by an "Interrupt the Battle" ability, only the ongoing portion of the "Negate all" ability is Interrupted, and therefore only the ongoing portion of the "Negate All" ability reactivates once the Interrupt is completed.  This would be the "Prevent" portion.

I'd have to say that jmhartz is correct.  Doesn't look like I was involved in this conversation 2.5 years ago, but I would rule the same way that he is presenting based on current rules, though it took me a second to think that through.  My case is below.

Abilities that are worded “negate all special abilities” (even if the ability includes an exception or is limited to all special abilities of a certain type, but does not say “currently in battle”) are actually a combination of a prevent and a negate ​ability. They should be played as “negate all [specified set of abilities] in play and prevent all [specified set of abilities] for remainder of battle.”

We have a definition of "negate" as having both a backwards-looking instant component and a forward-looking ongoing component:

A negate ​ability that undoes abilities that have already completes is instantaneous, as an interrupt​.
A negate ​ability that prevents ​uncompleted abilities from activating is ongoing, as a prevent​.

We see from all of this that a "negate all" is instantaneously when undoing existing abilities, but it is separately treated as ongoing when it is preventing:

A prevent​ ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing.

So we see that it is only targeting uncompleted activations.  To further support this concept (emphasis mine):

If an ability is prevented, its activation cannot begin. If an ability is prevented and its activation has already begun but it has not completed activation (i.e. it is a pending ability), the completion of the activation of the pending ability is skipped (i.e., it is no longer a pending ability even though it did not complete its activation). An ability can not be prevented if its activation has already completed.

Lastly, we have already established that the backward-looking interrupting component of Negate is an instant ability.  The definition for Interrupt the Battle states:

The phrase “interrupt the battle” includes interrupting the following:
● all active ongoing abilities
● abilities that are defeating one of the characters you control in battle
● the last card played in current battle if it was played by your opponent

This does not include instant abilities, except on the last card played in battle (if played by an opponent) or one defeating the controller's character in battle.  If we look at the Benaiah blocked by ASA+2KH example, the last card played was ASA, and so the entirety of Benaiah is not interrupted.

Therefore, we come to the following conclusions:
1. Negate has two distinct components, one instant and one ongoing.
2. The ongoing component of Negate is a Prevent.
3. A Prevent cannot undo any effect that has already completed that is not pending (that is, it was not interrupted).
4. The instant component of Negate is an Interrupt.
5. As an instant, the Interrupt component cannot be interrupted by an ItB card just on the basis of being played in battle.

The final result is this: The prevent on Benaiah is interrupted, 2KH resolves, an enhancement is played while the prevent is interrupted, the enhancement is not prevented, Benaiah reactivates, the prevent turns back on but not the interrupt (which was never interrupted), so the enhancement is not undone.

Are you guys saying that you can interrupt fbtn?  Strong angel attacks. Play interrupt  Joseph in prison on small black ec. In the past jip is negated. Now are you saying  that jip works? If so this is a huge change  in the way we play. 

No, JiP is still prevented by TSA or any other FBTN.

Ok thanks. I misunderstood  the other post.

I agree, what is written is a little confusing. I had to read it a couple times to understand it.

FTR, the original ruling in the 2nd post on this thread still holds true, Confusion is negated based on the example given.

ITB will interrupt the last card played by the opponent (in the example given that's Benaiah). It doesn't just interrupt his ongoing (prevent) ability but his entire "negate all" ability. When the interrupt ends, Benaiah's entire ability reactivates, not just the prevent portion.

If Benaiah is holding Eleazar's Sword, that will be the last card played, in which case only Benaiah's prevent ability is negated, allowing Confusion to stick.

Um, no. The last card played would have to be the EC otherwise what would you be playing the ItB card on?

Did you miss the part were it said "last card played by an opponent"? I think the EC played the interrupt in that example. Doesn't that make the qualifying card a Hero?

ItB doesn't interrupt the last card played by the opponent, it interrupts the last card if it was played by the opponent, so no I didn't miss a part that wasn't there.

Ah, you are correct. Subtle but important difference. My mistake. Thanks for setting me on the right path.