Welcome to the Official Redemption® Message Board!
Quote from: EmJayBee83 on September 07, 2011, 12:11:21 AMAccording 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.
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.
postcount.add(1);
*Waits for standard "We're discussing this on the other side, go play with your trucks while the big boys make a decision"* post.
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?
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).
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.
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.
The question before us, however, is a different one--namely whether an SA that grants conditional CBN status itself subject to the condition.
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
Quote from: STAMP on September 07, 2011, 05:57:27 PMYet 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).
The only problem with that logic is that there is no such thing as conditional CBN.
A conditional CBN ability is something like Samuel's Edict. That's very different from a CBN ability with limited scope.
Author
Topic: Negating CBN (Read 6308 times)
