Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: lightningninja on September 06, 2011, 03:07:07 PM
-
Ok, there was a thread a couple months ago that I missed in which it was kind of ruled that Asaph, who states that good enhancements involving music cannot be negated by EVIL cards, can have his ability negated by a good card.
It was always my understanding that if a card grants CBN status under ANY circumstance, that ability itself cbn. There was a split decision on this and I bring it up again because there wasn't an elder in that thread anywhere to make an actual ruling. The evidence brought up was the cbp ls, but only Gabe commented, and although he's just about as official as it comes, I'd like another elder to confirm this and explain why.
REG: But Job’s Wife (Wo)s special ability does not negate Thomas (Ap) special ability because it is a “cannot be negated” special ability. If a card states that it cannot be negated, then it cannot be interrupted, prevented, redirected, or negated.
This is the only quote from the REG I could find regarding the matter, and since it doesn't state any exceptions and implies that granting cbn cannot be negated, not by a different alignment or anything, I would rule that Asaph could not be negated even by a good card.
-
I agree with that line of reasoning. I am still scratching my head as to why the thread went the other way.
-
oops! I didn't see this thread before responding in the other thread.
I agree that if Asaph plays Blessings, evil enhancements still cannot negate music enhancements played by Asaph. You cannot negate a CBN-granting ability directly or indirectly.
-
I agree, cannot be negated means cannot be negated, no matter what you can never negate a cannot be negated ability
-
Asaph's ability is not the same as Thomas', therefore Thomas can't rightly be used as precedent for a ruling on Asaph.
Also, The REG quote refers only to general "CBN" status, so I posit that it, by itself, cannot confirm either way the question of Asaph and the CBP lost soul as those abilities are inherently different than the stated example.
-
Asaph's CBN SA only grants CBN status against evil cards. Blessings is a good card, which does not fall under Asaph's CBN. The only reason that CBN granting SAs are themselves considered CBN is to get around the case where someone would circumvent the intent of the granting and negate a CBN enhancement. Is that the case here--I don't see how it could be.
Let's say Asaph is in battle and plays a non-banding enhancement involving music. Then for whatever reason Blessings is played. Does Blessings negate the previous musical enhancement? Of course it does. If it didn't then there is no point in adding "by evil cards" to Asaph's SA. So it is clear that Blessings can negate musical abilities played on Asaph.
So, if musical enhancements played by Asaph are *not* CBN against good cards, then Asaph's CBN granting SA would not be CBN against good cards.
If a card states that it cannot be negated, then it cannot be interrupted, prevented, redirected, or negated.
So are you saying that you believe that in the case I presented above, Blessings would *not* negate a musical ability played by Asaph prior to it in the battle?
-
Yes, Blessings would negate it. But it would NOT negate Asaph's ability, and therefore if your opponent played Bringing Fear, it would NOT negate your musical enhancement, even though blessings DID negate it. In fact, if they played Bringing Fear, that would negate blessings, and then your cbn enhancement would take effect.
This idea that abilities granting cbn with conditions are somehow negatable is new and unfounded. Never has this been a rule, but there HAS been a rule since Warriors and Michael that you CANNOT negate an enhancement on him, or negate his ability in any way.
There is no reason to believe that just because granting cbn has a condition, it can all of a sudden be negated. There is no warrant for this rule change.
-
Michael cannot be negated by anything because he grants cannot be negated by anything status. There's your difference right there.
I agree, cannot be negated means cannot be negated, no matter what you can never negate a cannot be negated ability
You're right, but since Asaph doesn't say that I don't really see how it's at all applicable in this discussion.
-
Asaph (Pi)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: White • Ability: 6 / 6 • Class: None • Special Ability: Good Enhancements involving music cannot be negated by evil cards. • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Musician • Verse: I Chronicles 6:39 • Availability: Priests booster packs (Uncommon)
-
Michael cannot be negated by anything because he grants cannot be negated by anything status. There's your difference right there.
The thing is you're making this up out of thin air. Where, in any kind of RULE, is there a distinction? All the REG says is that abilities granting cbn are CANNOT BE NEGATED. You have come up with an imaginary rule that you can be negated by the same cards that can negate your enhancements. That has never been a rule.
-
And yet I have Gabe's agreement to my side of the argument in the CBP LS thread.
Also, I'm reading the cards for what they actually say, you're trying to treat two different abilities as the same thing. So who's making what up out of thin air?
-
There is a rule blanketing "grant cbn" abilities in general. There is none regarding this exact scenario, so I take the blanket rule.
And Gabe's ruling was never confirmed, and isn't quite the same scenario because there is no rule regarding lost souls.
-
Ok so there are two opposing sides of interpretation, neither of which has any intention of conceding their point. Can we now have a two-Elder confirmed ruling on this matter to put it to rest? Clearly this will be ruled inconsistently according to the host until an official ruling is announced.
-
There is a rule blanketing "grant cbn" abilities in general. There is none regarding this exact scenario, so I take the blanket rule.
And Gabe's ruling was never confirmed, and isn't quite the same scenario because there is no rule regarding lost souls.
So you're bias against Lost Souls then? You're perfectly willing to lump "cannot be negated by an evil card" with "cannot be negated" if it's on a hero, but "cbp by a good card" isn't in that group just because it's on a Lost Soul? What about it being a 'blanket rule'? Either you default to it in both cases or neither, but having different opinions on each just serves to invalidate your specific position as a whole. You really should figure out which you believe before arguing against anything. :P
Can we now have a two-Elder confirmed ruling on this matter to put it to rest?
Due to Gabe's post in the LS thread, I believe we need one of the following:
1. One elder to confirm Gabe's ruling that conditions on the granting of cbn/p/i extend to the granting ability (though 2 confirming elders would be even better). OR
2. Two elders to overrule Gabe and confirm that cbn/p/i granting abilities are always cbn by anything regardless of which they grant and any conditions.
-
Gabe is correct. (I'm older than Gabe so I must be an elder.)
-
Gabe is correct. (I'm older than Gabe so I must be an elder.)
I'm older than Gabe, too. So as an "elder," I disagree. ;)
-
Using the precedent on the Asahel ruling, now that the new REG is out its language replaces any prior rulings. Since the new REG says that any abilities that grant CBN are themselves CBN (and mentions no caveats or exceptions), that is the rule. It will take a new ruling made after the release of the new REG to overturn that. Both sides of the argument are not equally valid in this case.
-
Using the precedent on the Asahel ruling, now that the new REG is out its language replaces any prior rulings. Since the new REG says that any abilities that grant CBN are themselves CBN (and mentions no caveats or exceptions), that is the rule. It will take a new ruling made after the release of the new REG to overturn that. Both sides of the argument are not equally valid in this case.
That would be all well and good if the new REG actually came out and said what you are claiming it does. In the passage quoted, it was providing an explanation for a specific example where the CBN status was granted unconditionally. A case where no one has any dispute about the ruling.
The question before us, however, is a different one--namely whether an SA that grants conditional CBN status itself subject to the condition. I think it is (for the reasons laid out earlier); others disagree. I do not think the person who wrote the particular sentence in the REG was actually thinking about conditional CBN in this case. I grant, however, that I could be wrong.
To be honest I am hard pressed to think of an example where this is going to make any difference. Can someone give me a specific example where they think the pro- and anti- forces would come to a different conclusion. Let's look at the example given above...
Yes, Blessings would negate it. But it would NOT negate Asaph's ability, and therefore if your opponent played Bringing Fear, it would NOT negate your musical enhancement, even though blessings DID negate it. In fact, if they played Bringing Fear, that would negate blessings, and then your cbn enhancement would take effect.
OK so I rescue with Asaph and play Blessings and then (since I still have initiative) play a musical enhancement. (I claim Blessing DOES negate Asaph's SA, but I am not sure that is relevant.) This musical enhancement is negated by Blessings. Now you have initiative and play Bringing Fear, which negates Blessings and so Asaph's SA kicks back in because it was an ongoing SA that has been activated. The musical enhancement would not, however, magically activate at this point. It was negated when it was played and so it stays fizzled. From this point on any additional musical enhancements played by Asaph would not be effected by Bringing Fear.
Are both sides in agreement on this?
-
Cards have CBN or not when they are played. When the music was played, it gained CBN by Evil cards, but was Negated by a good card. When Bringing Fear was played, it Negated the good Negate, and now the music, not having been negated, takes effect.
-
Cards have CBN or not when they are played. When the music was played, it gained CBN by Evil cards, but was Negated by a good card. When Bringing Fear was played, it Negated the good Negate, and now the music, not having been negated, takes effect.
I'm not actually sure on this: I think that if a card is negated before it's played, it can't ever activate, but I could be wrong. I think if I was though, it could lead to some odd targeting issues, since you typically don't declare targets when you play a card that is prevented.
FTR, I believe that CBN/CBI/CBP abilities should be treated more like identifiers, in that they are inherent aspects of certain abilities, and cannot be negated. The same would be said of abilities that grant other cards CBN/CBI/CBP I'm not sure how other Elders feel about this though, so I will see what others may say.
-
Cards have CBN or not when they are played. When the music was played, it gained CBN by Evil cards, but was Negated by a good card. When Bringing Fear was played, it Negated the good Negate, and now the music, not having been negated, takes effect.
Really? That seems passing strange to me. Can you tell me what happens in the following situation...
You make a rescue with some White dude and I block with Black. You have initiative and play Blessings. Initiative passes to me and I play Wrath of Satan. I still have initiative and play Bringing Fear. Are all the heroes in play wiped out?
According to your logic above... When Bringing Fear was played, it Negated the Good Negate, and now Wrath of Satan, not having been negated, takes effect.
-
If you negate something that prevented an ability, the ability won't try and reactivate.
-
Cards have CBN or not when they are played. When the music was played, it gained CBN by Evil cards, but was Negated by a good card. When Bringing Fear was played, it Negated the good Negate, and now the music, not having been negated, takes effect.
Really? That seems passing strange to me. Can you tell me what happens in the following situation...
You make a rescue with some White dude and I block with Black. You have initiative and play Blessings. Initiative passes to me and I play Wrath of Satan. I still have initiative and play Bringing Fear. Are all the heroes in play wiped out?
According to your logic above... When Bringing Fear was played, it Negated the Good Negate, and now Wrath of Satan, not having been negated, takes effect.
That is correct from my understanding.
-
FTR, I believe that CBN/CBI/CBP abilities should be treated more like identifiers, in that they are inherent aspects of certain abilities, and cannot be negated. The same would be said of abilities that grant other cards CBN/CBI/CBP I'm not sure how other Elders feel about this though, so I will see what others may say.
So is this one elder agreeing that even conditional abilities granting cbn are cannot be negated at all?
-
FTR, I believe that CBN/CBI/CBP abilities should be treated more like identifiers, in that they are inherent aspects of certain abilities, and cannot be negated. The same would be said of abilities that grant other cards CBN/CBI/CBP I'm not sure how other Elders feel about this though, so I will see what others may say.
So is this one elder agreeing that even conditional abilities granting cbn are cannot be negated at all?
Yes. I think that's how it should be even if its not how it is.
-
According to your logic above... When Bringing Fear was played, it Negated the Good Negate, and now Wrath of Satan, not having been negated, takes effect.
That is correct from my understanding.
I have never seen it played that way before. We have always played it as SomeKittens said...
If you negate something that prevented an ability, the ability won't try and reactivate.
I will star a separate thread asking for input from the Elders. This is a major shift in game mechanics either for you or for me.
-
So now the waters are further muddied. We have one elder agreeing with one side of the argument, and a post from another elder in a different, but related, thread seeming to make a precedent that supports the other side of the argument. Neither is enough to confirm the ruling either way.
Any other elders care to post and try to clear things up a little? lol
-
*Waits for standard "We're discussing this on the other side, go play with your trucks while the big boys make a decision"* post.
-
*Waits for standard "We're discussing this on the other side, go play with your trucks while the big boys make a decision"* post.
While we wait, I'm going to mull over why my previous post, which is nothing but summarizing the current situation of the discussion, is worthy if a -1. =/
-
So due to a quirk in the rules years ago it was determined that a card that grants CBN to another card is itself CBN in order to avoid the confusion it created in the first place. So the CBN status it receives is sort of a quid pro quo. Yet now some are proposing that the special quid pro quo CBN will retain its powerful awesomeness even though it's only granting a CONDITIONAL CBN?
Gimme a break. I think we have a qui pro quo. ::)
-
Yet now some are proposing that the special quid pro quo CBN will retain its powerful awesomeness even though it's only granting a CONDITIONAL CBN?
This is ultimately where the two sides differ:
View 1. The conditional CBN only means that good and neutral cards can negate music enhancements used by Asaph. Evil cards can never negate them.
View 2. The conditional CBN allows the whole SA to be negated by a good or neutral card, including the CBN-granting ability.
I would argue that the latter undermines the ability of Michael et al. CBN-granting abilities should not be able to be negated. That was the very purpose of Michael. Otherwise, KoT is greater than Michael, which is not how it has ever been (nor should be).
-
View 2 does not change how Michael works, he's still CBN even versus KoT. I don't know where you're getting the idea otherwise.
-
I would argue that the latter undermines the ability of Michael et al. CBN-granting abilities should not be able to be negated. That was the very purpose of Michael. Otherwise, KoT is greater than Michael, which is not how it has ever been (nor should be).
YMT, no one is arguing anything at all that touches Micheal or Thomas or...
That would be all well and good if the new REG actually came out and said what you are claiming it does. In the passage quoted, it was providing an explanation for a specific example where the CBN status was granted unconditionally. A case where no one has any dispute about the ruling.
Asaph's ability is not the same as Thomas', therefore Thomas can't rightly be used as precedent for a ruling on Asaph.
Since it is more than a little tiring to have to explain this over and over, in the future I will just respond to these posts by wondering why the other side keeps claiming that Musical enhancements played by Asaph cannot be negated by any cards evil or good.
-
Since it is more than a little tiring to have to explain this over and over, in the future I will just respond to these posts by wondering why the other side keeps claiming that Musical enhancements played by Asaph cannot be negated by any cards evil or good.
I have never said that, FTR. My only argument is that evil cards cannot negate musical enhancements by Asaph under any circumstance. That is all.
BTW, the two of you are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, and your explanations are just as "tiring." The point of the Michael example is that you are opening up opportunities for people to find an obscure combo that would indirectly negate Michael's ability. I still argue that should not be possible under any circumstance. Asaph's CBN-granting ability is the same as Michael's, it just limits the CBN to evil cards (not the ability to grant CBN status, since that is inherently CBN). From my perspective of the way it works, you are trying to create a loophole in the idea of CBN/CBP/CBI, which should not have any loopholes. There are already counters in place to stop CBN/CBP/CBI, namely Protect and Instead. That is sufficient.
I am not going to respond to any more posts directed at me or what I have said. I already acknowledged that there are two distinct opinions, with neither side budging. Continued debate is pointless.
It is now up to the Elders to make a decision and announce it publicly so we can go back to normalcy.
-
The point of the Michael example is that you are opening up opportunities for people to find an obscure combo that would indirectly negate Michael's ability.
Can you suggest one such obscure combo? Because we've never said that anything can negate Michael, either indirectly or directly, so if you're so vehement that something can under our idea it should be simple enough for you to provide an example.
This question is not meant to be argumentative, I'm just trying to help you understand our position and to have you help me understand yours. I think discussions of any kind benefit when each side knows where the other is coming from.
-
Just to clear up all the confusion of why michael is being brought up, this thread came out of a thread that I started asking why I couldn't negate michael. Then this thread spawned another thread, that spawned another thread. I still don't understand the ruling but I take comfort in the fact that I have generated 3/4 of the discussion on these forums ;D
-
The point of the Michael example is that you are opening up opportunities for people to find an obscure combo that would indirectly negate Michael's ability.
No, we are not doing that. I do not understand what you think you are gaining by knowingly choosing to repeat false statements about what I am claiming.
Just for the record here is precisely what I have said on this topic...
That would be all well and good if the new REG actually came out and said what you are claiming it does. In the passage quoted, it was providing an explanation for a specific example where the CBN status was granted unconditionally. A case where no one has any dispute about the ruling.
-and-
The question before us, however, is a different one--namely whether an SA that grants conditional CBN status itself subject to the condition.
Go ahead, YMT, show me how either of these statements lead you to believe I am looking for some back door attack against Michael or Thomas or any other cards which grants unconditional CBN status. If you cannot do so, then please stop making false claims about what I *am* saying.
-
Let's all stop the sarcasm and wait for an elder, this is not going anywhere.
-
For the record, nothing I've said has been sarcastic. I'm truly interested in the combo YMT thinks we're concocting (as that had never even crossed my mind), and I wish he would extrapolate his point of view further so I can try to understand it.
But, yes, another elder post would be most agreeable and acceptable.
-
For the record, nothing I've said has been sarcastic. I'm truly interested in the combo YMT thinks we're concocting (as that had never even crossed my mind), and I wish he would extrapolate his point of view further so I can try to understand it.
But, yes, another elder post would be most agreeable and acceptable.
I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.
And YMT isn't saying this is possible yet, he's saying that it could lead to things like this happening.
-
For the record, nothing I've said has been sarcastic. I'm truly interested in the combo YMT thinks we're concocting (as that had never even crossed my mind), and I wish he would extrapolate his point of view further so I can try to understand it.
But, yes, another elder post would be most agreeable and acceptable.
Just to clear up all the confusion of why michael is being brought up, this thread came out of a thread that I started asking why I couldn't negate michael. Then this thread spawned another thread, that spawned another thread. I still don't understand the ruling but I take comfort in the fact that I have generated 3/4 of the discussion on these forums ;D
-
Yet now some are proposing that the special quid pro quo CBN will retain its powerful awesomeness even though it's only granting a CONDITIONAL CBN?
This is ultimately where the two sides differ:
View 1. The conditional CBN only means that good and neutral cards can negate music enhancements used by Asaph. Evil cards can never negate them.
View 2. The conditional CBN allows the whole SA to be negated by a good or neutral card, including the CBN-granting ability.
I would argue that the latter undermines the ability of Michael et al. CBN-granting abilities should not be able to be negated. That was the very purpose of Michael. Otherwise, KoT is greater than Michael, which is not how it has ever been (nor should be).
View 3 (Or clarification of View 1): Asaph's SA itself CBN. Blessings would not negate Asaph's SA, only the musical enhancements' SAs as per Asaph's SA. The only way to negate a musical enhancement is with a good or neutral card. Asaph's SA CBN. Period. Thus, all musical enhancement SA's are negated unless blessings is negated.
With my explanation, the "rule" about CBN is not violated. Asaph's SA is not being Negated because it can't be Negated. Blessings is working within Asaph's SA and following the condition that Asaph's SA specifies. If this is not the current ruling, it should be because it does not violate the view of SA's granting CBN status are in and of themselves CBN.
I will clarify if I must.
-
QUID. PRO. QUO.
Does everyone just make up arguments to hear themselves argue? ::)
A card that grants unconditonal CBN to another card should be unconditonally CBN itself.
A card that grants conditonal CBN to another card should be conditonally CBN itself.
It's consistent and logical, and if I had a backdoor into the REG I'd go put it there myself.
:amen:
-
The only problem with that logic is that there is no such thing as conditional CBN. You will see it no where in the REG or mentioned anywhere in past ruling. There is, however, a rule stating that cannot be negated can never be negated, and that cannot be negated abilities themselves cannot be negated. So to me the logical conclusion is that you cannot negate a ability that grants cannot be negated status
-
The only problem with that logic is that there is no such thing as conditional CBN.
Then how exactly do you explain "cannot be negated by an evil card"?
-
it is a cannot be negated ability that has a condition applied to it. it is still a cannot be negated ability. The rules of Redemption draw no distinction between CBN and "conditional" CBN. CBN means CBN, there is no way around it under the rules of Redemption, if it says CBN, it sticks, there is no rule that says otherwise under any circumstance
-
Now you're just getting into semantics. "Cannot be negated ability that has a condition applied to it" is no different than a "conditional cannot be negated ability," it's just said with more words in a more drawn out fashion.
-
A conditional CBN ability is something like Samuel's Edict. That's very different from a CBN ability with limited scope.
-
A conditional CBN ability is something like Samuel's Edict. That's very different from a CBN ability with limited scope.
There's no difference whatsoever. It's semantics, as browarod suggests. That being said, I'm still trying to find the official repository of the "CBN-granting cards are CBN" rule.
-
"Cannot be negated" is the default ability. Anything in addition to that (whether it be "cannot be negated by an evil card" or "cannot be negated if used by an Assyrian") is a condition upon the CBN ability.
-
Yes, but the rules state that a CBN ability cannot be negated under any circumstance. It mentions nothing under any condition where it can be negated, so we must follow the rules, meaning that CBN means CBN
-
Or perhaps since the rule only mentions unconditional CBN that it doesn't apply to conditional ones. It can go both ways, which is why we need another elder to come in with the proper ruling.
-
Under the rules there is no conditional CBN, just CBN, so all CBN abilities fall under the current rule, which is that CBN means CBN
-
And this is exactly why there's no use in discussing anymore, because people just repeat things that have gone back and forth over the last 3 pages.
Let's just wait for an elder.
-
*Waits for standard "We're discussing this on the other side, go play with your trucks while the big boys make a decision"* post.
I've opened this discussion "on the other side". The ruling I gave on previous threads was the answer I received when I asked if the FBTN LS negated the CBP LS. In the resulting discussion I received the ruling that I've passed along. For the record, I lean the same direction as Professoralstad. Both viewpoints are valid, which is why the question keeps coming up in the first place.
When we've reached a conclusion we'll also update the REG to reference conditional CBP/CBN/CBI so it's no longer a "gray area".
Blessings,
Gabe
P.S. - go play with the new tins while the "big boys" figure this one out. :)
-
That being said, I'm still trying to find the official repository of the "CBN-granting cards are CBN" rule.
There is no "official repository."
The REG gives an example where this is strongly implied, and it has been mentioned roughly 3.2 gazillion times on this board because you know as well as everyone else that this is a ruling that has been in place forever.
-
That being said, I'm still trying to find the official repository of the "CBN-granting cards are CBN" rule.
There is no "official repository."
The REG gives an example where this is strongly implied, and it has been mentioned roughly 3.2 gazillion times on this board because you know as well as everyone else that this is a ruling that has been in place forever.
Exactly. Just like a baserunner does NOT cross over the pitcher's mound. And you don't bunt to break up a no-hitter.
-
And you don't bunt to break up a no-hitter.
I would bunt.
-
And you don't bunt to break up a no-hitter.
I would bunt.
Spoken like someone who would use their only reliable block to block a rescue by someone with zero redeemed souls in a multi game, when the next player to the left only needs one more for the win. :rollin:
-
Spoken like someone who would use their only reliable block to block a rescue by someone with zero redeemed souls in a multi game, when the next player to the left only needs one more for the win. :rollin:
Who told?
-
That being said, I'm still trying to find the official repository of the "CBN-granting cards are CBN" rule.
There is no "official repository."
The REG gives an example where this is strongly implied, and it has been mentioned roughly 3.2 gazillion times on this board because you know as well as everyone else that this is a ruling that has been in place forever.
Exactly. Just like a baserunner does NOT cross over the pitcher's mound. And you don't bunt to break up a no-hitter.
No, not like that at all.