Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yeah, why?

Forgive me if I answer your question with a question, but why not?

I'm not sure I understand how this situation is unintended or complicated. In your opinion, what would be a less complicated way of resolving these situations?

everything that happened to TiC before is effectively CBI, because the Play ability is CBI.

This is the part I don't quite get. How does the CBI of the play ability apply retroactively to everything that card did in the past? Based on my understanding of Play abilities, the one and only thing CBI about it is the placing of the card on the table. We agree it doesn't extend forward and make the card played CBI, why do you say it extends backward?

That's not how it works. It doesn't automatically make other abilities CBI. It makes it stay on the table, but the draw ability is still negated, but the card is unable to be returned to deck. There is the principle in Redemption. If you can't do everything that the ability says, do as much as you can.

This is the part I don't quite get. How does the CBI of the play ability apply retroactively to everything that card did in the past? Based on my understanding of Play abilities, the one and only thing CBI about it is the placing of the card on the table. We agree it doesn't extend forward and make the card played CBI, why do you say it extends backward?

Because going backwards involves backing the truck going back through a brick wall a CBI Play ability.

Yes exactly, which is why the card remains on the table instead of being moved back to the deck. That still doesn't explain why it isn't negated though.

It isn't negated because nothing is negating it.

The two schools of thought here seem to be this:

1) When a card drawn by a draw ability is played by a play ability, it cannot be cascade negated. When the draw is negated, since the card can't be returned to deck because it's play is CBI. It can't be returned to deck, so the draw can't be undone, so it's not negated.

2) When a card drawn by a draw ability is played by a play ability, it can be cascade negated. Since when the draw ability is negated, you first attempt to negate any drawn cards that have been played then attempt to return them to the top of deck. You try to do as much as you can, so you negate the card, but it remains in play.

Correct?

I would tend toward option 2.

It is being cascade negated by the negation of the ability that drew it.

Ok, I've found the problem.  We are quoting the Draw entry in the REG but ignoring the Play entry. 

The Draw entry (relevant portion):
Special Conditions
● If a draw ability is negated:
○ Return the drawn cards in their previous order to the deck (if this cannot be done, shuffle the
drawn cards together and return them to the previous location)
○ If a drawn card was already played, it is cascade-negated prior to being returned to deck
○ If any effect on a drawn card that was already played cannot be cascade-negated (due to being
cannot be interrupted or cannot be negated in whole or in part), the card is not returned to deck
and it remains played

The Play entry (relevant portion):
Special Conditions
● All play an enhancement abilities cannot be interrupted.

*****

Looking at the two entries above, I can see some ambiguity, which kram has correctly identified in his post, because the Draw entry makes no mention of cards played by Play abilities.  Ambiguity is bad, because it leads to disagreements like this thread. 

However, ambiguity is also an opportunity to continue the Elders' push to streamline and simplify the rules.  The entry for Draw needs to address cards drawn by a Draw ability and then played by a Play ability. 

The two schools of thought here seem to be this:

1) When a card drawn by a draw ability is played by a play ability, it cannot be cascade negated. When the draw is negated, since the card can't be returned to deck because it's play is CBI. It can't be returned to deck, so the draw can't be undone, so it's not negated.

2) When a card drawn by a draw ability is played by a play ability, it can be cascade negated. Since when the draw ability is negated, you first attempt to negate any drawn cards that have been played then attempt to return them to the top of deck. You try to do as much as you can, so you negate the card, but it remains in play.

Let's be honest:  option 1 is so much simpler.  "Cascade-negate" is a complex term that should be avoided at all costs.  And let's be even more honest:  almost all situations where cards are drawn via a Draw ability, and then later enter play, and later still the Draw ability is negated, arise from the Draw X/Play Next abilities.  So all that crazy verbiage about "cascade negation" will almost never apply.

And that's not even addressing the potential issue with the REG wording where the cards to be returned to deck are cascade-negated BEFORE they are returned to deck.  Why aren't they cascade-negated WHEN or AFTER they are returned to deck?  Shouldn't the principle be the same as Devourer, etc.?  Cards can't be indirectly negated until they are removed from play.  If GEs are somehow protected from discard, Devourer can't indirectly negate them.  Same principle should apply here.  Rules get more consistent and simpler at the same time.   Win win.

Yes