Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: theselfevident on April 07, 2012, 12:50:39 AM
-
I have Isaiah in my territory, I play siegeworks on Samuel, opponent uses Deafening Spirit, I play Samuel's Edict... Does Siegeworks finish its ability?
-
Why wouldn't it?
-
I have a guy saying that Deafening Spirit is CBN because it changed from being an evil enhancement to an evil character and the ability as an EE can't be targeted
-
I'm not saying it is CBN. I'm saying that Sam's Edict doesn't negate what Deafening Spirit did as an evil enhancement. It doesn't target that.
A negate last enhancement would work but Edict is not that.
The answer from Prof U (which the other Prof agrees with) on the last big thread about this:
OK, after talking through this thread for a while, I think I've come to a conclusion of just how DS works
- It starts as an EE and is played in battle.
- Assuming that it isn't prevented ahead of time, then it's SA activates.
- The SA of the EE negates and discards the last GE.
- The SA of the EE then transforms the card into an EC.
- At this point the card in battle is an EC (not an EE anymore) with 1/4 numbers.
- The SA of the new EC is to negate and discard the last EC however it would NOT activate again because the card is already in battle and character's SA activate when their cards enter battle.
- Because the EE is no longer in play, a regular negate enh won't work because it can't target.
- However a "negate last" enh WILL work because it doesn't care about being in play.
- Because the EC's SA isn't actually doing anything this battle, negating the EC won't matter.
- Therefore Covenant with Death will NOT stop Deafening Spirit.
Quote from: megamanlan on December 13, 2011, 08:44:49 PM
Deafening Spirit
1/4 Orange Evil Enhancement
Mark 9:25, Generic, Demon
Negate and discard the Last Good Enhancement played this Battle. You may treat this card as an Evil Character until the end of battle.
-
But Sam's Edict negates an evil card, the whole card, not the EC or the EE, the card itself.
-
Yeah, you're trying to shoehorn a different issue in here. If it were trying to Negate an Enhancement it wouldn't work, but it just negates the whole card so it doesn't matter that it's in a different state now.
-
It completely depends on whether or not the first part of the ability can be interrupted or if it becomes CBI after it activates. I'm inclined to assume that Edict can indeed negate it, since it says evil card.
-
My gut reaction if I had to make a ruling right now would be that Sam's Edict would not negate Deafening Spirit. This is because by the time Sam's Edict is played, Deafening Spirit is simply an EC that is not doing anything. Therefore negating it doesn't matter.
However, I'm not totally convinced of this, and will follow people's thoughts in this thread and reserve the right to make up my mind differently later :)
-
The reason that I say it is able to Negate it, even though CwD can't, is because one's a prevent and one's an interrupt. While CwD can't stop it because by the time it's an EC, it's trying to prevent a SA that has already happened, Edict is not. Just as you can negate the ghost of a SA by using a "negate last," I believe you should be able to negate the ghost of an SA on a card that changed forms if you're negating the entire card.
-
The reason that I say it is able to Negate it, even though CwD can't, is because one's a prevent and one's an interrupt. While CwD can't stop it because by the time it's an EC, it's trying to prevent a SA that has already happened, Edict is not. Just as you can negate the ghost of a SA by using a "negate last," I believe you should be able to negate the ghost of an SA on a card that changed forms if you're negating the entire card.
+1 even if this was against my favor I would agree
-
So what if you used a "negate evil character" card? When that targets Women as Snares, does that not negate the "whole" card? Does it just negate part of it?
Would that "negate evil character card" negate Deafening Spirit? What about a "negate all charactes"?
It seems that a card is either negated or its not. I don't see any precedent to say that in one instance I negated the character but not the whole card and in another I did negate the whole card.
Yes Sam's Edict can negate an evil card (which means any kind of evil card) and so it can target Deafening Spirit as an evil character. It negates it as an evil character. There should be no difference between that and any other card that could negate the evil character.
-
So what if you used a "negate evil character" card? When that targets Women as Snares, does that not negate the "whole" card? Does it just negate part of it?
Would that "negate evil character card" negate Deafening Spirit? What about a "negate all charactes"?
It seems that a card is either negated or its not. I don't see any precedent to say that in one instance I negated the character but not the whole card and in another I did negate the whole card.
Yes Sam's Edict can negate an evil card (which means any kind of evil card) and so it can target Deafening Spirit as an evil character. It negates it as an evil character. There should be no difference between that and any other card that could negate the evil character.
The question is the meaning of card, is it targeting the state of the card or the entire special ability of the card. It makes more sense that it is negating the evil card as a whole, as it is not targeting a character or enhancement.
-
So what if you used a "negate evil character" card? When that targets Women as Snares, does that not negate the "whole" card? Does it just negate part of it?
Would that "negate evil character card" negate Deafening Spirit? What about a "negate all charactes"?
It seems that a card is either negated or its not. I don't see any precedent to say that in one instance I negated the character but not the whole card and in another I did negate the whole card.
Yes Sam's Edict can negate an evil card (which means any kind of evil card) and so it can target Deafening Spirit as an evil character. It negates it as an evil character. There should be no difference between that and any other card that could negate the evil character.
There's actually a huge difference between this scenario and something like Women as Snares. WaS doesn't change card type via its special ability, it remains what it was when it was put down - an evil character. Deafening Spirit however, does change card types, and one of the questions being asked is after Deafening Spirit turns into an evil character, is that transformation CBI? To put it another way, does Deafening Spirit turn into an evil character with no special ability, effectively making him CBI?
-
So what if you used a "negate evil character" card? When that targets Women as Snares, does that not negate the "whole" card? Does it just negate part of it?
Would that "negate evil character card" negate Deafening Spirit? What about a "negate all charactes"?
It seems that a card is either negated or its not. I don't see any precedent to say that in one instance I negated the character but not the whole card and in another I did negate the whole card.
Yes Sam's Edict can negate an evil card (which means any kind of evil card) and so it can target Deafening Spirit as an evil character. It negates it as an evil character. There should be no difference between that and any other card that could negate the evil character.
There's actually a huge difference between this scenario and something like Women as Snares. WaS doesn't change card type via its special ability, it remains what it was when it was put down - an evil character. Deafening Spirit however, does change card types, and one of the questions being asked is after Deafening Spirit turns into an evil character, is that transformation CBI? To put it another way, does Deafening Spirit turn into an evil character with no special ability, effectively making him CBI?
he has an ongoing ability that is active til the end of the battle.
-
There was already a 4 page thread about this: http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/ruling-questions/deafening-spirit-vs-cod/50/
In that Prof U said:
Deafening Spirit
1/4 Orange Evil Enhancement
Mark 9:25, Generic, Demon
Negate and discard the Last Good Enhancement played this Battle. You may treat this card as an Evil Character until the end of battle.
I want you to imagine a similar card...
Non-existent Spirit
1/4 Orange Evil Enhancement
Hezekiah 11:27, Generic, Demon
Negate and discard the Last Good Enhancement played this Battle. This card becomes an Evil Character.
I think we would all agree that if this card survived it's first battle that it would return to territory as an EC with the SA to "negate and discard the last GE played in battle" (which would be nice against Ethiopian Treasurer or a hero with a WC-GE). This indicates to me that when a "card" becomes an EC, then the SA remains on the card (except perhaps the transforming part which would become redundant).
At the same time, I continue to think that if you played a "negate the last enh" card that it would cancel both the transforming of DS into an EC as well as the negating and discarding of the last GE.
However, I'm not sure that CoD would affect things at all. It would be the SA of DS AS AN ENHANCEMENT that would negate and discard the last GE, and transform it into an EC. After that point, I would think that it would keep the SA of negating and discarding the last GE, but that ability would NOT reactivate. Therefore, DS would not really be performing any ability AS A CHARACTER, and therefore there would be nothing for CoD to negate.
To put it another way, does Deafening Spirit turn into an evil character with no special ability, effectively making him CBI?
His logic seems to say that it turns into an evil character with a special ability that doesn't do anything this battle and doesn't matter if it is negated. You have to negate it as an enhancement because thats the ability that did something.
If that logic is correct then Sam's Edict shouldn't work. Edict can't target DS as an enhancement; it has to target it in its current state as a character.
-
but the question is does negate an evil card include all states of the card or just target its current state.... if that is the case why can you negate completed instant abilities? This ability is clearly an on going active ability as it has not completed until the end of the battle...
-
I disagree with that statement. DS has an instant ability with a sunset. The question is not whether the ability is ongoing, but whether targeting the card itself can target what it did as an Enhancement. I believe that it does using the same mechanics that allow "negate last" to work on cards that are no longer eligible for negation under normal circumstances.
-
I disagree with that statement. DS has an instant ability with a sunset. The question is not whether the ability is ongoing, but whether targeting the card itself can target what it did as an Enhancement. I believe that it does using the same mechanics that allow "negate last" to work on cards that are no longer eligible for negation under normal circumstances.
Side question, if an instant ability has a residual effect, it is still considered "complete" even if the ability isn't technically complete do to the definition of an "instant ability"? in this instance the residual effect being that the card is converted back to an enhancement after the battle.
-
I'm not sure how to answer that. I know how "negate last" behaves, but I don't know the mechanics behind it. It's not a big enough problem that I've put much thought into it because so much bigger problems still exist, such as "add to battle" sometimes being banding, sometimes being playing, and sometimes neither.
-
Just as you can negate the ghost of a SA by using a "negate last," I believe you should be able to negate the ghost of an SA on a card that changed forms if you're negating the entire card.
Pol is correct that this really is the crux of the issue. Do we allow a card to target what a card "used to be"? You are correct that we do that with targeting cards that "used to be" in play with a "negate last". So there is some precedent that would lean towards ruling this that way.
However, it would make the game simpler if that was NOT the rule, and that "negate last" simply negated the last enh that was played which is still in play (thus making it the same as regular "negates"). Similarly I think that adding a 2nd "ghost rule" like this would also make the game more complicated. I think I'd rather do away with the 1st "ghost rule" than add a 2nd one.
-
I'm fine with either way this is ruled.
I just don't agree with the talk about negating the "whole" or "entire" card as some sort of distinction from other negates.
Besides, that language isn't used; Sam's Edict just says to negate an evil card.
In other words, is there any difference between:
"Negate an evil card" and
"Negate an evil enhancement or negate an evil character or negate an evil fortress or negate an evil Dominant or negate a curse"
Aside from potential new types of evil cards, I would say those are the exact same except the first is a lot shorter. The first is just a broader category to choose from and is a lot simpler way of saying it instead of listing out all the choices. If you choose to negate an evil character then it should work just like any other negate evil character card.
If this is not the case then I would like to see what precedent there is for that or where that rule is.
I think a relevant example:
You rescue with a band including Gabriel. I block and capture him. You then play a card that negates lost souls or negates neutral cards. Would either of those negate Gabriel's ability?
-
Sorry for being a little "thick"-headed here, can I get a synopsis of where we think the ruling is heading or probably will be. My understanding sometimes gets confused when there is a lot of additional examples being thrown in. Thanks guys. :D
-
It looks to me like it would indeed negate it by way of ghost negation, but that at least one elder is rethinking whether allowing "negate last" to break defaulting rules in the first place is a good idea.
-
maybe I'm missing something, but DS states "you may treat this card as an evil character until end of battle". To me, this does not indicate that it must become an EC, nor that it stops being an EE. You may treat it as one (or not), and if you do, it actually is considered to be both. Am I wrong about this?
-
Yes, you are wrong.
-
He may be wrong as per the status quo, but it's entirely logical to think that way. DS doesn't say "you may treat this card as an evil character instead" so I'm actually of the opinion that it should be both because there's nothing in the special ability that says it loses EE status. Covenants/Curses have set a precedent for cards being multiple card types simultaneously (they are always a Cov/Curse as well as either an artifact or enhancement depending on how they are played).
-
I didn't say he was illogical, just wrong.
-
He may be wrong as per the status quo, but it's entirely logical to think that way. DS doesn't say "you may treat this card as an evil character instead" so I'm actually of the opinion that it should be both because there's nothing in the special ability that says it loses EE status.
If a card is being treated as a character, then it is not being treated as an enhancement, because they both have different rules. There is no card (or precedent for a card) that is both a character and an enhancement.
I didn't say he was illogical, just wrong.
This quote pretty much sums up every disagreement about rulings. Both sides' ideas make sense, but only one can be the official ruling.
-
He may be wrong as per the status quo, but it's entirely logical to think that way. DS doesn't say "you may treat this card as an evil character instead" so I'm actually of the opinion that it should be both because there's nothing in the special ability that says it loses EE status.
If a card is being treated as a character, then it is not being treated as an enhancement, because they both have different rules. There is no card (or precedent for a card) that is both a character and an enhancement.
There's nothing in the rules that says a card can't be both, though, and nothing in DS's special ability says it loses enhancement status. That's all I'm trying to point out.
-
There's nothing in the rules that says a card can't be both, though, and nothing in DS's special ability says it loses enhancement status. That's all I'm trying to point out.
That's not the way that games with rules work. If there is no rule, that doesn't mean you can just do it. The rules tell you what you can and cannot do. In the absence of a "can," it is assumed you "cannot."
-
Please don't patronize me, I know how rules work. All I'm saying is there is already precedence with Covenants/Curses that cards can be multiple types, so since DS doesn't specify that it loses enhancement status, and there isn't a game rule specifically prohibiting cards from being both characters and enhancements (I say this not because of a "if the rules don't say it, I can do it" mentality but of a "there are other things you think you could do but can't because a game rule prohibits it"), it seems like it should continue to be both. I realize that's not the case because of a ruling, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.
-
Please don't patronize me, I know how rules work.
I wasn't trying to patronize you. I was trying to give clear definitions to support my point.
All I'm saying is there is already precedence with Covenants/Curses that cards can be multiple types, ...
Covenants and curses are already defined as having multiple possibilities. However, once a covenant is treated as an artifact, it is no longer treated as an enhancement.
... it seems like it should continue to be both. I realize that's not the case because of a ruling, I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.
The most relevant precedent (to me) would be captured characters. They are treated as Lost Souls, which means they are no longer treated as characters. They can no longer be targetted as a hero or EC.
-
Covenants and curses are already defined as having multiple possibilities. However, once a covenant is treated as an artifact, it is no longer treated as an enhancement.
No, but it's still treated as a Covenant, that's what I was trying to point out.
The most relevant precedent (to me) would be captured characters. They are treated as Lost Souls, which means they are no longer treated as characters. They can no longer be targetted as a hero or EC.
Capture is a defined special ability, though, that says characters lose "character" type and gain "captured character" type. Other than this ruling, I know of no definition for "you may treat this as something else" abilities, which is why I was going based off precedence.
-
No, but it's still treated as a Covenant, that's what I was trying to point out.
Again, that is how Covenants are defined, as having two active identifiers once they are treated as something. Enhancements and characters are not defined that way.
Capture is a defined special ability, though, that says characters lose "character" type and gain "captured character" type. Other than this ruling, I know of no definition for "you may treat this as something else" abilities, which is why I was going based off precedence.
You are talking about the "cleaned up" definition. Capture cards used to have the "treated as" wording. The fact remains that the card was no longer treated as what it was before.