Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Ok so I take a lone green prophet into battle and activate hidden treasures. I use a banding enhancement and band in Paul who says Negate neutral cards except acts. Protect New T Lost Souls from evil cards. IF BANDED INTO BATTLE DRAW 2. CBN. what would happen? Would his draw two still work and than Casscade what it can and put the banding enhancement back into my hand and take paul out of the battle? Or does all of Paul’s abilities not get to work because his first ability was to negate what brought him into battle in the first place?

Hidden Treasures gets negated, the enhancement sticks in battle because play abilities are CBI but the ability on the enhancement gets cascaded, kicking Paul out of battle. Paul's protection and draw 2 don't get cascaded because he is CBN.

Why would the enhancement ability be negated? what is causing the cascade? the play wasn't negated.

Hidden Treasures gets negated, the enhancement sticks in battle because play abilities are CBI but the ability on the enhancement gets cascaded, kicking Paul out of battle. Paul's protection and draw 2 don't get cascaded because he is CBN.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree on that one.

With the play ability being CBI, I'm not seeing how the enhancement that got played could be cascaded.

To clarify, I'm not saying the banding enhancement becomes CBI, only that I don't think it can be cascaded by something trying to negate Hidden Treasures.

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree on that one.

With the play ability being CBI, I'm not seeing how the enhancement that got played could be cascaded.

To clarify, I'm not saying the banding enhancement becomes CBI, only that I don't think it can be cascaded by something trying to negate Hidden Treasures.

...Isn't this the exact same logic I used when I argued that negating the draw of Reach of Desperation shouldn't cascade-negate the enhancement played by Reach, even if it was drawn by Reach?

Here are some threads for anyone who wishes to investigate past discussions.

I'm pretty sure there has yet to be a definitive ruling on determining whether or not abilities that aren't cbi/cbn go through a play ability while everyone knows a play ability is cbi.

My understanding of the argument is that a play ability doesn't make the played cards abilities cbi so they can still be undone.. I'm still not sure tbh

I agree with this. The act of putting the card on the table is what a play ability does and that cannot be undone. The ability on the played card is fair game for a cascade or any other negate though.

Cascade doesn't hop over something that is CBI or CBN.

I recall it has been ruled that it does, actually. If you had character A (Not CBN) band to character B (CBN), who banded to character C (Not CBN) and character A was negated, character C's ability would get cascaded even though character B is CBN.

I have never heard of it being ruled that way in the 10+ years that I have played. Cascade has always stopped at CBI or CBN

The justification I was told is that character C's ability is still considered to be something that occurred because of character A's (now negated) ability because without character A's ability character B never would have brought character C into battle.

I have never heard of it being ruled that way in the 10+ years that I have played. Cascade has always stopped at CBI or CBN

So far I have played cascade negate like this too , any abilities that are CBI or CBN are not undone. 

Contemplate some situations with dull soul..

Ec and enh are grabbed with dull.. ec blocks, enh is played by play ability.. dull is negated..

The ec is sent back to deck along with the enh played is dc. The play ability is cbi, not the enh, ec, or blocking with the ec.. And you are saying the enh would not be negated even though it goes back along with the ec who played it?

My understanding for play being cbi is to prevent loops, not make the played cards cbi also

So is it discarded? Did it complete? Does a play ability grant cbi by cascade?

Quote from: kariusvega on April 25, 2018, 03:51:34 PM

So is it discarded? Did it complete? Does a play ability grant cbi by cascade?

No, the only thing the play ability does to the card played is force it to stay on the table. The ability on the played card can still be cascaded or directly negated as usual.

That's what I think too. Seems everyone else is saying the play ability grants cbi by cascade

That's what I think too. Seems everyone else is saying the play ability grants cbi by cascade

No no no.  That's not what we are saying.  We are saying that you can't negate an enhancement played by a Play ability by negating something other than the enhancement itself. 

Example:  I play Reach of Desperation on a disciple, I draw My Lord and My God, I play MLaMG, opponent plays an EE that negates Reach.

By current rules, MLaMG stays in battle, yet is negated, even though nothing is trying to negate it.  This is because the rules are interpreted that when you negate Reach's draw, you negate the drawn cards via a cascade-negate.

My argument on why I think this is wrong:

Draw abilities do exactly one thing:  Move cards from deck to hand.  Negating a draw ability should also do exactly one thing:  Put the drawn cards back in deck.

Play abilities, via being CBI, make it impossible to undo the one thing that a negate draw ability can do:  Negate the draw of the played card (put it back in deck).

Yet, for some arbitrary reason, we have to negate that played card, simply because we are trying to negate a draw ability that we can't negate?

Quote from: Kevinthedude on April 25, 2018, 03:23:52 PM

I recall it has been ruled that it does, actually. If you had character A (Not CBN) band to character B (CBN), who banded to character C (Not CBN) and character A was negated, character C's ability would get cascaded even though character B is CBN.

Oh, and this is incorrect.  If B was CBN, B is kicked out (because A isn't CBN), but C stays in battle and is not cascade negated.

That's what I used to think as well but I'm almost certain I've had it ruled otherwise. It would be nice to have a definitive ruling though.