Author Topic: Negates (Read 2259 times)

Josh · « **on:** March 13, 2013, 12:36:11 PM »

This is a reposting of a question posed by Redoubter in the "Negate" thread of last month, discussing that negates target abilities, not cards. It got lost at the end of the discussion and was not addressed; however, I am really curious about the answer.

His question was simple: Does Daniel negate Gates of Hell? Since Daniel negates fortresses (or rather, the abilities on fortresses), and since it was ruled that a card whose ability is being negated can be out of play (such as Habakkuk negating Uzzah's ability after Uzzah has been discarded), would Daniel negate Gates of Hell, even though it is set-aside?

dermo4christ · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2013, 09:02:52 PM »

It doesn't negate a CBN out of play card, right?

Josh · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2013, 10:01:22 PM »

Quote from: dermo4christ on March 13, 2013, 09:02:52 PM

It doesn't negate a CBN out of play card, right?

Gates of Hell is not CBN.

dermo4christ · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2013, 10:44:15 PM »

No, I know. I'm just asking a general question. I was just wondering if it negates an out of play CBN card. I'm asking because I was unaware that you could negate something that is in your discard pile.

Redoubter · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2013, 07:38:54 PM »

Thanks for posting this, I was going to be bumping the old thread

For reference, this is the thread.

Essentially, if it is being ruled that all abilities are "in-play" and targetable, and that the card on which the ability is located is not being targeted, then what happens with Daniel vs Gates? Or how about Moses vs some Provisions in set-aside? Those cards may be set aside, but the ruling we are being handed says that it does not matter if the card is in play, so what happens?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #5 on:** March 14, 2013, 10:19:54 PM »

Some things I'm pretty sure about:
Moses would NOT negate Provisions in set aside because set aside cards from previous phases are inherently CBN.

Some things I'm pretty unsure about:
I think the idea about negates NOT targeting cards, but abilities is still mainly sticking with the idea that cards naturally target things that are in play. So if a hero is being discarded by Deluge of Rain (discard all cards in battle) then they may play a "negate the last evil enh" card to stop that. In one sense this seems to be negating something in the discard pile (which is out of play) so I can understand the confusion. But another way to think about it is that when a card causes special initiative, it kind of pauses in play before going to it's final destination. This would explain why a negate (which naturally targets in play) could still affect it.

Based on that understanding, I don't think that Daniel would negate Gates. But I'd like to hear the opinions of some other elders and REPs on the matter.

Redoubter · « **Reply #6 on:** March 14, 2013, 11:20:40 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 14, 2013, 10:19:54 PM

Some things I'm pretty sure about:
Moses would NOT negate Provisions in set aside because set aside cards from previous phases are inherently CBN.

Some things I'm pretty unsure about:
I think the idea about negates NOT targeting cards, but abilities is still mainly sticking with the idea that cards naturally target things that are in play. So if a hero is being discarded by Deluge of Rain (discard all cards in battle) then they may play a "negate the last evil enh" card to stop that. In one sense this seems to be negating something in the discard pile (which is out of play) so I can understand the confusion. But another way to think about it is that when a card causes special initiative, it kind of pauses in play before going to it's final destination. This would explain why a negate (which naturally targets in play) could still affect it.

Based on that understanding, I don't think that Daniel would negate Gates. But I'd like to hear the opinions of some other elders and REPs on the matter.

It matches with the ruling that Michael + AS can play an enhancement that would negate Uzzah once he is discarded and out of play. No special initiative, card is out of play, ability resolved, but it was ruled in that thread that it would work because interrupt and negate don't target cards, but abilities, and it is not limited to 'in-play'. All of that was ruled by Gabe. If Uzzah's protection can be negated, because it is not targeting the card and it isn't limited to negating 'in-play' abilities, then why wouldn't Daniel negate Gates?

I still very much disagree with this ruling, for the record, and say it goes against all previous rulings and the way negates and interrupts have always worked.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2013, 12:20:50 AM »

The negate last that can "reach" into a discard pile is completely different than set-aside.

Game rules state that cards cannot target cards in set-aside area unless a card specifies. New game rule states a negate can "reach" into a d/c pile if the negate could target the card if it were still in play. It rewinds to where the card was immediately prior to it being removed from play. Set-aside cards were already in set-aside to begin with so rewinding them leaves the cards in set-aside where they can't be targeted unless a card says otherwise.

Kirk

Redoubter · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2013, 02:19:51 PM »

Quote from: Captain Kirk on March 15, 2013, 12:20:50 AM

The negate last that can "reach" into a discard pile is completely different than set-aside.

Game rules state that cards cannot target cards in set-aside area unless a card specifies. New game rule states a negate can "reach" into a d/c pile if the negate could target the card if it were still in play. It rewinds to where the card was immediately prior to it being removed from play. Set-aside cards were already in set-aside to begin with so rewinding them leaves the cards in set-aside where they can't be targeted unless a card says otherwise.

Kirk

Your first statement isn't necessarily applicable, as we are talking about interrupt and negate in general, not "negate last" in specific.

The second part was true for special initiative, not for normal cases. It had always been ruled that you could not negate cards that were not in play.

Now, the ruling is that Uzzah, when in discard, can have his ability negated because negate doesn't target the card and that negate has no in-play restriction. Seriously, read through Gabe's posts, he said that he was ruling that. If that is the case, there is no reason why other not-in-play locations would not also be negated.

If Gabe's ruling that negate does not target cards and that it has no in-play restriction, then it extends to set-aside, as well as other not-in-play locations.

The Guardian · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2013, 02:50:46 PM »

The way I understand it is that Uzzah's protection ability is on-going even after he is discarded, and that is why an interrupt would work. Uzzah's ability doesn't follow him to the discard pile so in the case of Michael/AS, the interrupt isn't reaching into the discard pile, it's simply interrupting an on-going ability that is affecting the current battle.

It's the same idea as a FBTN character's ability continuing to affect the battle even if it is discarded (without being interrupted).

Korunks · « **Reply #10 on:** March 15, 2013, 02:54:28 PM »

So if there is an ongoing ability effecting battle from set aside can it be negated?

Redoubter · « **Reply #11 on:** March 15, 2013, 03:07:26 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on March 15, 2013, 02:50:46 PM

It's the same idea as a FBTN character's ability continuing to affect the battle even if it is discarded (without being interrupted).

I don't dispute that the FBTN would remain at all, the source was not negated. But to negate the ability, or any ability one a card that had left play, you always had to be able to target the source, either with a "negate last" or during Special Initiative. We are not disputing the nature of ongoing abilities, but negate.

Quote from: The Guardian on March 15, 2013, 02:50:46 PM

The way I understand it is that Uzzah's protection ability is on-going even after he is discarded, and that is why an interrupt would work. Uzzah's ability doesn't follow him to the discard pile so in the case of Michael/AS, the interrupt isn't reaching into the discard pile, it's simply interrupting an on-going ability that is affecting the current battle.

Then why do the cards specifically say to negate an evil card? Or an evil enhancement? Or an evil character? Or an evil fortress? It is because the source does matter, because the card on which the ability is found does factor in to the equation here. Special initiative has always been different because of the nature of special initiative, but otherwise, targeting not-in-play sources has always required it to be explicit on the card to work. I mean, we used to have it ruled that certain negates couldn't target Invoking Terror even in Special Initiative! Clear proof that this is a change in the rules.

Reread the thread I linked to. It is being ruled that there is no restriction on in-play to play a negate. It doesn't even matter if it is affecting the current battle, it's just an ability floating around, permeating everything and able to be negated per that ruling.

If it does not matter if the ability is from a card that is now in discard, it does not matter where the card is the ability is negated. If Uzzah found his way to Set-Aside somehow, it'd still be ruled the same way. And if we are going to have this game-changing ruling regarding negates, it does change everything, including having all negates target everything unless they are specifically limited on the card (i.e. Daniel negates Gates).

Gabe · « **Reply #12 on:** March 15, 2013, 11:31:17 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 15, 2013, 03:07:26 PM

I mean, we used to have it ruled that certain negates couldn't target Invoking Terror even in Special Initiative! Clear proof that this is a change in the rules.

This is clear proof, not that anything has changed with negates, but that some people misunderstood the rules. I recall when Invoking Terror was released and there was a misconception among some in the Redemption community that it couldn't be targeted if it underdecked itself. That was never truly the case though. Even in play testing the elders I tested with knew that it could be negated if played in battle, even on a multi-color magician. The way Invoking Terror was supposed to be played did not change before or after it's release.

Clearly negates cause some of the more complex situations in the game, so it's no surprise that they cause confusion.

Redoubter · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2013, 07:43:30 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on March 15, 2013, 11:31:17 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on March 15, 2013, 03:07:26 PM
I mean, we used to have it ruled that certain negates couldn't target Invoking Terror even in Special Initiative! Clear proof that this is a change in the rules.

This is clear proof, not that anything has changed with negates, but that some people misunderstood the rules. I recall when Invoking Terror was released and there was a misconception among some in the Redemption community that it couldn't be targeted if it underdecked itself. That was never truly the case though. Even in play testing the elders I tested with knew that it could be negated if played in battle, even on a multi-color magician. The way Invoking Terror was supposed to be played did not change before or after it's release.

Clearly negates cause some of the more complex situations in the game, so it's no surprise that they cause confusion.

Gabe, we had months and months of rulings saying the exact opposite. In fact, even after we received the change to the rules for Special Initiative, we still had Elders ruling against the concept you are presenting.

For instance, in this thread, Prof A, Prof U, and Soul Seeker are posting in a thread where Elders are discussing what types of negates can and cannot hit the ability of Invoking Terror, and they show the previous ruling on the subject.

Then, in the same thread where RDT posted that Invoking Terror can be negated during special initiative he also ruled that:

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on June 14, 2012, 06:31:01 PM

Quote from: megamanlan on June 14, 2012, 06:07:04 PM
And this seems to mean that Negate no longer limits to play.
Not quite - In cases of special initiative, Invoking Terror is technically still in play, and can be negated.

If instead of winning the battle with IT, you used it to place someone in territory beneath, then won the battle with another card, if I played Blessings, IT would not be negated.

Clear ruling there that the negate would NOT be able to negate IT outside of Special Initiative and RDT even goes so far as to clearly define that negates are limited to play. It's not a misconception, unless that also spreads to a good chunk of the Elders as well (Byron and Prof A posted in agreement in that thread, and you yourself posted later), even in a thread where we were having an agreed-upon rule announced. You're the only one that I am seeing making this sweeping generalization about negates, and it does not mesh with previous rulings, that is why I disagree like I do.

Here's another post from Byron in that thread that also shows the change that was made and that it is only applying to Special Initiative

Quote from: Bryon on June 17, 2012, 11:09:52 AM

This change is really just addressing the fact that some negates didn't use to be able to target cards that discard themselves to remove your character from battle. Now, as long as your enhancement can target the card type that removed your character, you can play the enhancement (regardless of whether the card with the removing ability is still in play).

Again, the ruling you are suggesting is not clearing up a misconception based on everything I can find on the subject; it would be another change, and a sweeping one that affects more than even the cases I've come up with. I see no other Elders signing on to the idea in any other threads, and no support for this ruling in the actual rules. The rule had always been that cards out of play cannot be negated, then it was changed so they cannot be negated unless they cause Special Initiative, and there is substantial proof for that both of my statements.

Josh · « **Reply #14 on:** March 18, 2013, 12:22:25 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 14, 2013, 10:19:54 PM

I think the idea about negates NOT targeting cards, but abilities is still mainly sticking with the idea that cards naturally target things that are in play. So if a hero is being discarded by Deluge of Rain (discard all cards in battle) then they may play a "negate the last evil enh" card to stop that. In one sense this seems to be negating something in the discard pile (which is out of play) so I can understand the confusion. But another way to think about it is that when a card causes special initiative, it kind of pauses in play before going to it's final destination. This would explain why a negate (which naturally targets in play) could still affect it.

If Deluge of Rain is played, the hero has special initiative and may use any interrupt or negate. Words of Encouragement, Counsel of Abigail, Sam's Edict, Blessings, Holy Ground, you name it. The "negate last" cards like Holy Ground would negate cards like Go Into Captivity (played as an EE that did not cause special initiative). But all of this is not relevant to my question.

If Habakkuk banded into battle by a silver enhancement played off of Angel's Sword can negate Uzzah after Uzzah has discarded himself, can Daniel negate Gates of Hell? Both are out of play, and if negates target abilities and not cards, then it seems that being set-aside should not be a barrier to being negated. Negates are operating more like "instead" abilities.

Redoubter · « **Reply #15 on:** March 18, 2013, 12:37:23 PM »

Quote from: jmhartz on March 18, 2013, 12:22:25 PM

If Habakkuk banded into battle by a silver enhancement played off of Angel's Sword can negate Uzzah after Uzzah has discarded himself, can Daniel negate Gates of Hell? Both are out of play, and if negates target abilities and not cards, then it seems that being set-aside should not be a barrier to being negated. Negates are operating more like "instead" abilities.

I think you hit it on the head there. The ruling we are being told is treating negate like instead, and (as laid out in my last post) there is overwhelming evidence that this would be a change and is not the way this situation had ever been ruled before. I'm wondering if the Elders are discussing this on the other side or not before responding, but this is an important topic to talk about.

Redoubter · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2013, 02:51:09 PM »

Bumping this topic ahead of a tournament this weekend (and as the big tournaments draw nearer).

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Negates (Read 2259 times)

Josh

Negates

dermo4christ

Re: Negates

Josh

Re: Negates

dermo4christ

Re: Negates

Redoubter

Re: Negates

Prof Underwood

Re: Negates

Redoubter

Re: Negates

Captain Kirk

Re: Negates

Redoubter

Re: Negates

The Guardian

Re: Negates

Korunks

Re: Negates

Redoubter

Re: Negates

Gabe

Re: Negates

Redoubter

Re: Negates

Josh

Re: Negates

Redoubter

Re: Negates

Redoubter

Re: Negates