Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Lamborghini_diablo on September 06, 2012, 10:25:44 PM
-
If I play Bravery of David, could I negate an evil character that is sitting in territory to prevent it from activating when it is banded into battle?
This isn't for any combos, nor is a game depending on it, it's just something I thought about recently. Can you negate a card that hasn't activated yet?
Bravery of David (RA2)
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: Red • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate an evil card. If the only Hero in battle is warrior class, you may discard an Evil Character. Cannot be negated if David is in play. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon, Connected with David • Verse: I Samuel 17:45 • Availability: Rock of Ages Extended booster packs (None)
-
General Description
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability.
How to Play
If an ability is negated the effects of the ability are completely undone. This is accomplished by doing the exact opposite of what the ability did in the first place.
Special Conditions
Abilities that have not completed activation are not valid targets for a negate ability.
Clarifications
Abilities that are worded “negate all special abilities” are actually a combination of a negate and a prevent ability, even if the ability includes an exception or is limited to all special abilities of a certain type. However, this is not true if “currently in battle” is in the ability. Play this as “negate all [specified set of abilities] in play and prevent all [specified set of abilities] for remainder of battle.”
- per REG, if outdated then I apologize as I have nothing else to rely on. :sad face:
-
That has to be outdated, otherwise, negate wouldn't work as a prevent (i.e. negate all abilities on Moses).
-
That has to be outdated, otherwise, negate wouldn't work as a prevent (i.e. negate all abilities on Moses).
Isn't that address in the last section called "Clarifications"?
-
That has to be outdated, otherwise, negate wouldn't work as a prevent (i.e. negate all abilities on Moses).
Isn't that address in the last section called "Clarifications"?
Covenant with Death would work instead of Moses then.
-
That has to be outdated, otherwise, negate wouldn't work as a prevent (i.e. negate all abilities on Moses).
Isn't that address in the last section called "Clarifications"?
Covenant with Death would work instead of Moses then.
Yeah, if that REG statement still holds, then Covenant with Death is a lot less useful.
Covenant with Death (FF2)
Type: Curse • Brigade: Pale Green/Brown • Ability: 2 / 4 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate characters. Restrict players from playing Enhancements unless a character is opposed in battle. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Isaiah 28:15 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers Extended booster packs (None)
-
The REG is clearly wrong there. It looks like someone wrote that with the express intent of making it difficult to understand.
-
The only thing that wasn't updated is that the new version of "negate all special abilities on [card type(s)]" is now simply "negate [card type(s)]". However, they are identical, and the clarification applies to both cases equally. Since the new terminology was created following the last REG update, it's just a case of needing to be updated.
FWIW, the ruling is that Bravery of David can negate an EC in a territory. This is also often done with Foreign Sword on a non-Canaanite/Philistine (to stop an EC from blocking and activating its ability).
-
I can see "Negate Characters" as meaning "Negate All Characters" by default. However, I don't see the connection between "Negate All" and "Negate An." I would think the former meets the Clarification guideline, rather than the latter.
-
If negate was always defined as "interrupt targeted ability(ies), then prevent targeted ability(ies)", this discussion wouldn't be happening. CwD would be an ongoing prevent, just like Moses in battle. I'm with Pol on this one - that definition is needlessly complicated.
-
Is this ruling final, then? Are we ruling "Negate An" like "Negate All?"
-
Yes. That was the intent of the playtesters when we shortened the ability of "Negate special abilities on X" to "Negate all/an X".
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2