Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Kinsman was prevented so their special ability didn't activate to begin with when they entered battle. Negating Ruth doesn't cause Kinsman to activate when already in battle.

Ongoing abilities activate if the ability Preventing them is Negated mid-phase. 

For Selfish Kinsmen, their ongoing ability is essentially "Prevent enhancements". 

So the flaw in your logic is Step 4, as Selfish Kinsmen reactivating only Prevents enhancements, and thus doesn't do anything to enhancements already played - like Achan's Sin.

"If an instant ability is prevented from
activating, it can never activate, even if the prevent is later negated. If an ongoing ability is
prevented, and the prevent is later negated, the ongoing ability activates at that point. If an
ongoing ability is negated and the negation ends before the ongoing ability, the ongoing ability
will reactivate when the next phase begins."

Looks like I was wrong. Sorry for the incorrect answer.. I thought that if any ability was prevented when played initially it couldn't activate until played again (in this case with characters to battle/territory)

So if I play down Priest of Zeus to territory being prevented by Moses, then play Woes on Moses in that order, is PoZ immediately active? Same with Music Leader.. is it no because they technically have triggered instant abilities or something..?

Since Moses has been negated, and his on-going prevent preventing PoZ’s triggered ability from activating has stop functioning then PoZ’s ability reactivates and can be used once the trigger condition is met.

But it didn't activate to begin with because it was prevented? Not trying to be bothersome here but genuinely trying to understand this

But it didn't activate to begin with because it was prevented?

Basically, yes.

In the OP's example, Selfish Kinsmen was prevented when it entered battle, but later activated when Ruth was negated.

In your example, PoZ was prevented when it entered territory.  Like Selfish Kinsmen though, any ongoing abilities of PoZ will activate if Moses gets negated and thus is no longer preventing PoZ.

Another example would be

Fire Foxes
Crown of Thorns
Coliseum

I play fire foxes into battle from hand, crown discards fire foxes, then I play Woes on my own Coliseum in that order.. Souls are protected.. an ability which isn't in play and which was prevented can somehow now activate as ongoing as if it wasn't prevented when played?

I'm assuming opponent used a special ability to draw, search, or exchange.  Here's how I see it:

1. FF entered battle
2. The condition was met for its ongoing ability
3. The ongoing ability is mandatory (and therefore persists even when the card leaves play)
4. The ability Preventing that ongoing ability was negated

I think Fire Foxes' Protect ability would activate at that time.

Maybe I'm beginning to side with Kevin on cascade negate..

Honestly, I think the biggest source of confusion with ongoing abilities is how some of them persist after the card leaves play (because they are mandatory - i.e., they don't say "you may"), and some of them cease after the card leaves play (because they are optional and included "you may" language).

The more I think of this, the more I am believing that if a card leaves play, its ability should cease no matter what.  This would fix 2 problems and create 1 problem:

1. No longer have to worry about "mandatory" vs. "optional" ongoing abilities.  One rule instead of 2 creates consistency and one fewer thing for new Redemption players to learn/veteran Redemption players to remember

2. It creates a logical consistency that if the card isn't in play, it's not working.  I had a conversation with a MtG player recently and he couldn't believe a card could be "active" even after it gets discarded.

3. The "problem" is that veteran players who are used to the current rule would have to "unlearn" it. 

I would fall in this group, and it would be an adjustment at first.  But I think a rule change that benefits newer players and those less familiar or less able to grasp the rules, to the detriment of those who know the rules very well, is a good thing.  Especially if it makes things simpler.  It wouldn't be hard for me to quickly learn that "If it's not in play, it doesn't work".

Or just make it so that cards that leave play can't "reactivate" if the ability that negated theirs is later negated.

It seems more intuitive, if you want to change the rule, to simply have prevented abilities be just that .. Prevented when played or not.

Technically under the current ruling prevented mandatory ongoing abilities aren't actually prevented, they are deferred to phase completion.