Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
I totally agree. But am confused at what your main point is really getting at. Are you saying that one cannot generalize the logic behind the Daniel vs Gates ruling to Uzzah vs Angels Sword+Striking Herod situation?
because no one (that I know of) has ever ruled that Daniel can negate Gates.
Browarod, I agree that ITB is different, the negate issue is a separate issue that came up in this thread as a result of furthering the discussion. There are two questions at play here: Did ITB change, and can negates negate out of play?
Daniel cannot negate Gates because his ability defaults to play
Negate is a special ability like any other, it just targets the special ability of a card rather than the card itself. There isn't any reason to assume it behaves differently by default than any other special ability in the game insomuch as the card still has to be in play for the negate to be able to target the special ability on it (unless it specifies otherwise).
Negates are not like other abilities. They are like Instead abilities, which target abilities, not cards. Dust and Ashes has been ruled to save Job from harm by an opponent, no matter where Job is, including out of play (such as when Job is set-aside, sitting in D&A).If abilities are "in play" or "out of play" based on the location of the card whose ability is activating, then RBD can't Instead the draw on Fishing Boat, since Fishing Boat is out of play, and therefore the draw ability is also out of play.
I'm not going to say that Withdraw and Discard are the same basic principle for what they affect
they have different ways of dealing with default targeting
The issue here is not that Gates and Uzzah are both out of play, it's that negate and interrupt the battle are different abilities.
Quote from: browarod on February 03, 2014, 12:34:50 PMThe issue here is not that Gates and Uzzah are both out of play, it's that negate and interrupt the battle are different abilities. I needed to readdress this, because I just realized that this is not an accurate restatement of the issue. The issue is regarding Gabe's example of Habakkuk."Using the Uzzah example that's been discussed above, after Uzzah has activated and has discarded himself, if you found a way to band Habakkuk into the battle, he would negate Uzzah's protection."This is where Redoubter and I got the idea that Daniel could negate Gates of Hell. It has nothing to do with Striking Herod or the definition of Interrupt The Battle.
Actually, Withdraw and Discard (and every other ability other than Instead and Negate) have exactly the same method of default targeting: the target card(s) must be in play, unless otherwise specified.
Default Conditions Withdrawn characters return to their owner's territory. Targets must be in the field of battle.
Negates also target abilties. Why would the abilities that Negate targets be any different than Instead?
This is where Redoubter and I got the idea that Daniel could negate Gates of Hell. It has nothing to do with Striking Herod or the definition of Interrupt The Battle.