Cactus Game Design Message Boards

because no one (that I know of) has ever ruled that Daniel can negate Gates.

Right, so basically the ruling is Daniel does not negate Gates of Hell. That is the only other outcome. Also enough elders have agreed that Daniel does not negate Gates of Hell. This is an established ruling. Since Daniel cannot negate Gates because his ability defaults to play it follows that Striking Herod cannot negate Uzzah because that ability defaults to play. My point is we all ready have a a ruling based on some precedent that is not clearly outlined in the rules. Since we already have a ruling there is logic behind that ruling and that logic must be applied to all situations. If someone does not understand that these situations are the same then they have more problems than we can really address in a rulings thread. If (and most likely this is the case) they don't agree with the logic of negates defaulting to play then an explanation is more tricky. However, that is why I was attempting to explain how targeting works in the context of the default conditions for play. The only real issue is that Striking Herod interrupts the last card in battle. Since Uzzah is the last card played in battle it can, in theory, interrupt Uzzah. My contention is that interrupt can only target abilities that are in play and that when applying interrupt the battle rules you have to be able to target the card in order for an ability to interrupt anything. Even if ITB only interrupts ongoing abilities the Striking Herod still needs a target to carry out those abilities.

So yes the idea is open to debate but the ruling of this thread is very much final given the precedence of the Daniel vs Gates ruling. Striking Herod does not negate Uzzah.

If one argues in reverse and says Striking Herod negates Uzzah therefore Daniel negates Gates that's fine and dandy. However. that way of thinking is bad for the game because you are taking a situation that rarely ever happens and generalizing the results to a situation happens a lot.  That is not bad logic but is bad for the game.  Let's not even bring up all the inconsistencies that arise by saying that negate does not default to play. It is just more simple to include all abilities in the default conditions.

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

The rule on default targets is "Abilities that don’t specify where their targets must be located by default can only target cards in play."  The problem with this is that negates target abilities, not cards.  So are we going to say that, unless a negate says otherwise (like ASA), negates can only target abilities that have been activated in play?  So therefore Daniel can't negate Gates of Hell, because the ability is activating "out of play"?   

If this is the ruling, that's fine, but the point Redoubter and I have been trying to make is that there is no current ruling on what negates can target, because it hasn't been defined.  And when an elder like Gabe says that Striking Herod can interrupt Uzzah's protection, even though he is "out of play", then we would just like the rules to be clarified and "set in stone" so that we know how they operate going forward.  Because, based on Gabe's reasoning, I would rule that negates are not limited to "in play" or "out of play", and therefore Daniel can negate Gates of Hell.  Or is it because Uzzah activated "in play", therefore his ability is "in play"? 

The ultimate question is:  "Where is the target for a negate ability?"

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. 

Like I said, if your description of the targets of a negate are accurate, that is fine; but I think that, until it is confirmed by Elders and put in the REG, there will always be a lack of clarity that is needed.

I'm not going to say that Withdraw and Discard are the same basic principle for what they affect

I'm not saying that Negate and Instead are the same basic principle for what they affect.  I'm saying those two abilities are the only abilities that target abilities, not cards.

they have different ways of dealing with default targeting

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.

Instead targets an ability, and it doesn't matter where the card is that activated the ability.  Job in set-aside is saved by Dust and Ashes, and RBD can stop the draw from Fishing Boat. 

Negates also target abilties.  Why would the abilities that Negate targets be any different than Instead? 

*****

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.

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.

Actually, that is not truly correct.  I specifically chose those two abilities because Withdraw does have a different default targeting condition than discard:

Default Conditions
 Withdrawn characters return to their owner's territory.
 Targets must be in the field of battle.

That is why my point still stands.  They have different default targeting, because they are two different abilities, just like negate and instead cannot be compared directly to say that they affect literally the same things.  They don't, unless they are defined as doing so.

Negates also target abilties.  Why would the abilities that Negate targets be any different than Instead?

Withdraw and Discard both target characters.  Why would they target differently?  Because they are defined differently.  Same concept.

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.

Not just that, the concept being put forward that negate is not limited to play by default in general leads to that question.

Bumping this thread again.  I haven't been around the boards nearly as much recently, so I apologize if the Elders came to a conclusion on this. 

As a quick summary to this thread, Gabe has stated: 

"Unlike some other special ability types I don't see anything under negate that specifies the default condition "Targets must be in play.” That lines up with the way I've always understood negate to work - you can negate a special ability that is no longer in play.

One of the first practical examples I encountered when I started playing is this - rescuer plays Great Faith and exchanges the searched for enhancement to hand. Initiative passes and the defender plays a EE that says "negate the special ability of the last good enhancement". Great Faith is in the deck, but it still gets negated.

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.

Interrupt/negate abilities do not target cards, they target special abilities and are not bound by the same restriction as abilities that target cards. "Negate last" abilities have already been given as an example of this. It's also the reason that a negate can target a protected card. If negate targeted the card instead of the special ability, the card would not be a legal target due to it's protection."

*****

My reason for bringing this back to light:  Does King's Pomp negate Fishing Boat and Missionary Ship?

King's Pomp:  Discard opponents' good placed Enhancements. Place on your evil King: Negate ignore and site access abilities. Protect your hand from opponents' cards.