Author Topic: Philistine Priests vs. LotS (Read 4817 times)

STAMP · « **Reply #25 on:** April 01, 2010, 05:21:33 PM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 01, 2010, 03:13:04 PM

FWIW, Korunks, here is how I would rule these in a tournament...

DoN cannot negate LotS, GotL protected or not. This is the only one I am sure I am correct about.

Philly Priests would be able to deactivate a GotL protected artifact. The key here is that Philly Priests state that "you may negate and deactivate one O.T. Artifact in play." The key here is may meaning the negate is optional. I don't think being unable to target for an optional ability would cause the deactivation to fail. (I missed the "you may" in my initial read.) Although our reasons are different, I am in agreement with Gabe on the final result, so I think you can you feel pretty solid about this one.

Useless Fire would not be able to deactivate a GotL protected artifact. In this case the negate and deactivate are non-optionally linked. If you can't target for the negate then the deactivation should also fail to occur, for the same reason DoN can't negate LotS. I think this is correct, but I think this is shaky for the time being.

1. Yes.

2. Yes. May do A and B = may do A and/or may do B.

3. Yes. This provides consistency with LotS/DoN ruling.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2010, 06:27:38 PM »

1. yes

2. yes

3. I think Useless Fire can deactivate. You do as much as you can. It targets the artifact for negation but can't do that. It also targets the artifact for deactivation which there is no protection for. The key is in targeting. I don't think the targeting of the deactivation is dependent on the targeting of the negation. It is not worded the same as DoN. If it was then it would say "Negate an O.T. Artifact. Artifact is deactivated." Which artifact? It can only refer to the one that was negated. If there is none that is negated then it can't refer to any artifact.

Why does the negation and deactivation of Useless Fire have to be the same artifact? In English, Negate and deactivate an O.T. Artifact can mean (Negate and deactivate) an O.T. Artifact or it could mean (Negate an O.T. Artifact) and (deactivate an O.T. Artifact). Is there any rule on how this is consistently interpreted?

Is there any difference in meaning between "negate and discard an artifact" and "discard and negate an artifact"? I would think no.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2010, 06:56:36 PM »

Quote from: galadgawyn on April 03, 2010, 06:27:38 PM

Is there any difference in meaning between "negate and discard an artifact" and "discard and negate an artifact"?

I would think yes. An artifact could be negated, and then discarded (because it would still be in play and able to be targeted for discard).

But if an artifact was discarded first, then it couldn't be negated (because it would be out of play and not allowed to be targeted).

Right?

BubbleBoy · « **Reply #28 on:** April 03, 2010, 10:25:38 PM »

I'm very confused, because people seem to be agreeing unconditionally to things that seem obviously false to me, which leads me to believe I must be reading something(s) wrong. I would love to get a PTB's perspective on this to clear up this confusion if possible. However, a particularly troublesome premise that seems impossible to misunderstand I feel needs addressing before we can continue...

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 01, 2010, 02:04:24 PM

... I would like to point out that DoN is not now, nor has it ever been ruled a cost/benefit ability, as you stated two posts back.

Destruction of Nehushtan

Type: Grim Reaper • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated. • Play As: Discard one active Artifact in play. Negate the discarded artifact's ability. • Identifiers: False Religious Practice • Verse: II Kings 18:4 • Availability: Patriarchs booster packs (Ultra Rare)

You must complete the first ability (cost) before you can carry out the second (benefit). Are there any other conditions that cause something to be considered a cost-benefit?

Cactus Game Design Message Boards

News:

Author Topic: Philistine Priests vs. LotS (Read 4817 times)

STAMP

Re: Philistine Priests vs. LotS

galadgawyn

Re: Philistine Priests vs. LotS

Prof Underwood

Re: Philistine Priests vs. LotS

BubbleBoy

Re: Philistine Priests vs. LotS