Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Redoubter on February 22, 2012, 09:43:17 PM
-
I understand that there are many threads on interruption, and I do understand how it works. However, I'm trying to piece together precisely what happens when interrupt is chained, and what will end up resolving. For instance, from a playgroup game today:
1. I play Hunger (instant, not ongoing ability) to decrease all his heroes in play 6/6, which will kill all heroes in his territory. It DOES give special initiative to the hero in battle as it will discard him too.
2. He plays a negate and discard an enhancement card to negate and discard Hunger.
3. I respond (with initiative) with Joseph in Prison to ITB (including his negate, as it is the last enhancement he played). All cards in battle are removed from the game, and he is unable to interrupt it.
The way I read the rules, my ITB undoes the negate and discard, and Hunger is back, everything is removed, Hunger (not being negated) resolves and all the heroes explode.
There was some discussion, however, that my interrupt interrupted the state left by the negate card, and as all cards are removed from the game before another ability resolves, Hunger does not decrease all heroes. Once again, interrupt and negation discussions hurt my head.
I did a search and was unsuccessful in finding a ruling to help me (it was a lot of threads and most of it just ended up with the definition of ITB), so if I could get some help making sure I understand the order of effect here, it would be appreciated :)
-
The way it was ruled (that your enhancement did not refire) is correct as I understand it. I'm not 100% sure of which of the following reasons is the correct one, if either, but i think it's one of them.
A) You did not negate his negation of your card. Therefore when the cards "refire" his negation of your card also refires.
'either that or
B) Your card removed all cards from the game before any of the other cards have the ability to kick back in. Card can't activate if it's not in the game.
-
The way it was ruled (that your enhancement did not refire) is correct as I understand it. I'm not 100% sure of which of the following reasons is the correct one, if either, but i think it's one of them.
A) You did not negate his negation of your card. Therefore when the cards "refire" his negation of your card also refires.
'either that or
B) Your card removed all cards from the game before any of the other cards have the ability to kick back in. Card can't activate if it's not in the game.
It never really got 'ruled', just discussed as it was just a friendly game. But, here is why I think that Hunger would reactivate (and hopefully more people explain the other side so that this gets hashed out :))
(A) can't be right, as once the interrupt resolves, nothing is left for the negate to be PLAYED on (let alone that it is now removed from the game). If I were to interrupt the battle and discard his only hero and he couldn't stop it, no negate would happen in that case either.
In case (B), that could be the case for ongoing abilities (help on that?), but this is an IMMEDIATE decrease, meaning that when it is no longer negated, the effect is there like nothing bad ever happened to it. But this is what the voices against the hunger-splosion pointed to.
That's how I'm reading the ITB and negation rules, but if someone can refute that, I'd be grateful just to have a solid answer for future reference.
-
Abilities can't insert themselves in between completion of other played abilities. When you play JiP, the state of the battle is Hunger negated. You interrupt the battle, suspending your opponent's Negate and any ongoing abilities, then remove all cards in battle from the game. Now, the state of the battle is that no cards are in battle, and when Wrath checks for activation, neither it nor a character to be played on is in the game.
-
Someone is probably going to correct me on this but this is how i always thought of it.
Flow of Battle Step one:
Hero ability
EC ability
Hunger
Flow of Battle Step Two:
Hero Ability
EC Ability
ITB Negate
Hunger
Flow of Battle step three:
Hero Ability
EC ability
Joseph In Prison
ITB Negate
Hunger
So now the abilities activate in that order. So by the time it gets back to Hunger, no only is it no longer in play to activate but there is also no hero to play it on.
-
In a simple case like this, putting it in terms of a stack works. Just be aware that that's not an actual Redemption concept and sometimes it doesn't work.
-
While I certainly understand the reasoning given, the statement that Hunger 'plays' after JiP does not seem accurate.
Hunger already triggered and resolved as an immediate ability.
It was negated.
The negation was interrupted, therefore in that state the ABILITY was not negated.
Even if the card is no longer in play or discarded, the ABILITY was not negated and, as an immediate ability, resolves.
The question of Hunger having nothing to activate on or not being around at the end of the battle is moot, as the ability was never actually negated.
-
The negate was negated, yes, but the very same mechanism that negated the GE also removed Hunger from the game, giving it no time to activate. If all the cards in battle hadn't been removed from the game, the negated wouldn't have been stopped and Hunger would still have been negated.
-
The negate was negated, yes, but the very same mechanism that negated the GE also removed Hunger from the game, giving it no time to activate.
Bold is not correct, as ITB only interrupts ongoing and last enhancement by an opponent, in this case the negation. What I am saying is that it DID activate (which it did, just granting special initiative), and was never negated, and JiP would NOT interrupt it.
If all the cards in battle hadn't been removed from the game, the negated wouldn't have been stopped and Hunger would still have been negated.
The fact is that Hunger DID activate, and the negation DID NOT. That is what I'm trying to say. It does not matter what would have happened if all cards had not been removed, only what DID happen.
-
You are incorrect. Interrupting a card does not negate it. Interrupting it and removing it from the game does. If you remove whatever it was the negate was negating at the same time, it does not get to benefit from the indirect negation of the negate.
The easiest way to look at it is in states. First, the Hero is in the state of being Discarded by a game rule precipitated by Hunger. Then, a negate is played and Hunger is in the state of being negated. Then, a card is played that suspends the state of negation and also removes both the negate and Hunger from the game. Then the state is no cards in battle. At no point after the initial playing of Hunger is it in a state that would allow its SA to work.
-
Essentially ITB ability interrupts the negate which would allow hunger to activate if only the negate was being removed, but because hunger is being removed at the same time as the negate hunger does not have the chance to activate.
-
You are incorrect. Interrupting a card does not negate it. Interrupting it and removing it from the game does. If you remove whatever it was the negate was negating at the same time, it does not get to benefit from the indirect negation of the negate.
The easiest way to look at it is in states. First, the Hero is in the state of being Discarded by a game rule precipitated by Hunger. Then, a negate is played and Hunger is in the state of being negated. Then, a card is played that suspends the state of negation and also removes both the negate and Hunger from the game. Then the state is no cards in battle. At no point after the initial playing of Hunger is it in a state that would allow its SA to work.
If the negate is interrupted, the card it was negating is no longer negated. Since Hunger is an instant ability not ongoing it is not interrupted by the interrupt stopping the negate, which makes me point to the Spy/Warriors spear ruling. Did Hunger enter the battle, yes. Was it negated, no(thanks to the interrupt). Therefore it happens. Hunger already activated, it does not need to reactivate since it is not negated.
-
I agree with Pol. Hunger does not have initiative to re-fire its ability between when JiP interrupts the negate and when JiP removes everything in battle from the game (because cards have to complete). By the time JiP finishes resolving, Hunger is no longer in play and cannot complete its ability at that time.
-
Under normal circumstances, yes. However, this is the way to look at this scenario: was it negated? Yes. Then a different card suspended its negation and removed both it and the card negating it from the game. Hunger does not take place.
-
Under normal circumstances, yes. However, this is the way to look at this scenario: was it negated? Yes. Then a different card suspended its negation and removed both it and the card negating it from the game. Hunger does not take place.
I am not trying to be snarky, but proof please? This is contrary to my understanding of the game. This thread is long on opinion but short on sources.
-
Related example: You play a battle winner that's trying to remove my Egyptian EC from battle. I respond with Swift Horses followed by Wonders Forgotten. I didn't explicitly negate your battle winner, but by the time my enhancements resolve, the state of the battle/cards in battle is no longer correct for your battle winner to retry its special ability.
-
Related example: You play a battle winner that's trying to remove my Egyptian EC from battle. I respond with Swift Horses followed by Wonders Forgotten. I didn't explicitly negate your battle winner, but by the time my enhancements resolve, the state of the battle/cards in battle is no longer correct for your battle winner to retry its special ability.
But in that case the battle winner is interrupted, in my scenario Hunger is not.
-
That's what you're missing. Hunger IS effectively interrupted because cards have to complete (i.e., JiP has to interrupt AND rfg) before other cards can take effect.
I block with an Assyrian and play Captured by Assyria to grab the hero in battle and one in your territory. You negate CbA so I play Achan's Sin. CbA does not capture the hero in territory because it is rfg'd by the time it tries to re-resolve.
-
That's what you're missing. Hunger IS effectively interrupted because cards have to complete (i.e., JiP has to interrupt AND rfg) before other cards can take effect.
I block with an Assyrian and play Captured by Assyria to grab the hero in battle and one in your territory. You negate CbA so I play Achan's Sin. CbA does not capture the hero in territory because it is rfg'd by the time it tries to re-resolve.
And that is what I want confirmation on, I have never heard or seen it ruled that way, and the REG is not much help. If the card negating you is interrupted, you are no longer negated. Maybe I am just obtuse today, but it doesn't make sense to me.
-
I'm not denying that Hunger is no longer negated, but it never gets a chance to resolve because it gets rfg'd at the same time that the interrupt is undoing the negate.
-
+1 I'm with browarod here. It seems to me that there is no time for Hunger to activate. JiP's ability would have to complete before Hunger could reactivate. But since hunger gets removed from the game it can't reactivate.
-
I'll do my best to explain without rehashing this, but browarod and Pol are definitely correct. When Player 1 plays Hunger, it activates, granting special initiative to Player 2 in battle. Player 2 plays a negate and discard last enhancement (the first part is the only part that really matters here), effectively stopping Hunger, and granting Player 1 initiative. Player 1 plays Joseph in Prison. Now what happens is that when Player 1 plays Joseph in Prison, the last enhancement played (the negate and discard last) gets interrupted, bringing Hunger back into battle. However, Hunger cannot reactivate before Joseph in Prison's ability completes. The last half of Joseph in Prison kicks in, removing all cards from play, before Hunger is allowed to kick back in.
-
I'll do my best to explain without rehashing this, but browarod and Pol are definitely correct. When Player 1 plays Hunger, it activates, granting special initiative to Player 2 in battle. Player 2 plays a negate and discard last enhancement (the first part is the only part that really matters here), effectively stopping Hunger, and granting Player 1 initiative. Player 1 plays Joseph in Prison. Now what happens is that when Player 1 plays Joseph in Prison, the last enhancement played (the negate and discard last) gets interrupted, bringing Hunger back into battle. However, Hunger cannot reactivate before Joseph in Prison's ability completes. The last half of Joseph in Prison kicks in, removing all cards from play, before Hunger is allowed to kick back in.
Emphasis mine, That is the part I don't believe is correct. Hunger does not need to reactivate, it is not in a negated state, once the negate is interrupted it is like Hunger was never negated. I would love to see the section of the rule book that specifies otherwise. Look at the warriors spear ruling. Did Hunger enter battle, yes. Was it negated? At the end of JIP ability the answer is no(because of JIP interrupt). Therefore it was played in battle and was not interrupted or negated, it happens.
-
Did Hunger enter battle, yes. No
Well essentially no. Since hunger was negated and discarded it's as if it never was in battle. Before Hunger can be put back in battle all cards in battle are removed.
-
it's still being interrupted until JIBs ability completes though...
-
Frpm the REG:
"Interrupt abilities are always paired with one or more other abilities. Once the specified abilities are interrupted the paired abilities activate. The interrupt ability completes when all of the paired abilities (and abilities resulting from the paired abilities) have activated. At that point the temporarily suspended abilities are reactivated." (italics mine)
JiP has to complete its ability before any suspended abilities take place per this.
-
Frpm the REG:
"Interrupt abilities are always paired with one or more other abilities. Once the specified abilities are interrupted the paired abilities activate. The interrupt ability completes when all of the paired abilities (and abilities resulting from the paired abilities) have activated. At that point the temporarily suspended abilities are reactivated." (italics mine)
JiP has to complete its ability before any suspended abilities take place per this.
To add on to this, when the suspended ability of Hunger reactivates, there's no card for it to be activated on (especially since it in itself is no longer in battle). Unless a card can active in the discard pile off of another card in the discard pile, I believe we have our answer.
-
To add on to this, when the suspended ability of Hunger reactivates, there's no card for it to be activated on (especially since it in itself is no longer in battle).
This is what I was trying to argue.
-
JIP removes them from the game entirely so even discard pile is a no go
-
Then the Spy/Warriors Spear ruling cannot work. Spy is no longer in battle for Warriors Spear to activate on. I honestly cannot see how one works and the other does not.
-
I don't think Spy+Warrior's Spear should work, but that's just my opinion.
-
I don't think Spy+Warrior's Spear should work, but that's just my opinion.
It's not releveant how we want it to work(although I agree),but it is inconsistent with how we are playing cards right now. If a card enters battle and is not negated, then depending on whether or not its is spy it gets to work? o_O
Scenario 1:
Spy enters battle and runs like cheap paint, since he dragged warriors spear along into battle, and it was not negated it fires.
Scenario 2:
Our Hunger scenario, Hunger entered battle was not negated (by the time of resolution) but does not fire.
:scratch:
-
I agree it's inconsistent (and I think Hunger not activating makes more sense, which is why I don't think Warrior's Spear should work :P) but I've posted everything I'm confident of, so I'll let an Elder or another REP take it from here.
-
I agree it's inconsistent (and I think Hunger not activating makes more sense, which is why I don't think Warrior's Spear should work :P) but I've posted everything I'm confident of, so I'll let an Elder or another REP take it from here.
Fair enough, at this point I am just driving on to try and achieve consistency. One of these rulings is wrong, we just need input as to which it is.
-
What is this Spy + Warrior's Spear ruling?
-
I actual think that the WS spy and the hunger not firing is consistent. WS activates because it entered battle and did not get negated, hunger on the other hand entered battle, got negated, then got removed from the game.
But I do agree this should get an official ruling.
(I did this mostly just to get this on the "show new replies to your posts" tab ;D)
-
What is this Spy + Warrior's Spear ruling?
If Spy holding Warriors Spear enters battle and retreats using his special ability, Warriors Spear still activates and discards the top card of opponents deck.
I actual think that the WS spy and the hunger not firing is consistent. WS activates because it entered battle and did not get negated, hunger on the other hand entered battle, got negated, then got removed from the game.
But I do agree this should get an official ruling.
(I did this mostly just to get this on the "show new replies to your posts" tab ;D)
They are the same scenario though:
At the point that Warriors spear triggers it is no longer in battle, but was not negated. And it triggers.
At the point JIP finishes its special ability Hunger is not in battle, but was not negated thanks to JIP. But it does not trigger. However it did enter battle.
Hunger did not end up being negated because JIP "undid" the negate, but not Hunger (due to it being an instanteous ability). In both cases a card that at the time of firing is no longer in battle. In one cases it performs it ability in another it does not.
-
There's one major difference there before we get too up in arms about them being mutually exclusive. In the case of Hunger v. Joseph in Prison, a card simply cannot activate from the discard pile or out of the game. That just doesn't happen. I'm not sure what the precedent is allow cards to activate from territory however. Now that said, I'm about 90% sure that the Warrior's Spear ruling is wrong.
-
There's one major difference there before we get too up in arms about them being mutually exclusive. In the case of Hunger v. Joseph in Prison, a card simply cannot activate from the discard pile or out of the game. That just doesn't happen. I'm not sure what the precedent is allow cards to activate from territory however. Now that said, I'm about 90% sure that the Warrior's Spear ruling is wrong.
Thats where I am right now, If Hunger is to be ruled that way, then Warriors spear should as well. Unless they make a special rule just to preserve that ruling. In the end we need Elder input. Are they even discussing this?
-
I think we may be looking at this the wrong way.
Perhaps reason that Hunger cannot activate is because there is no character to activate on. (JiP removed the character)
In the Spy + Warriors spear ruling Warriors spear still had someone to activate on (whether in territory or in battle). Hunger has no such character so it doesn't activate.
-
I think we may be looking at this the wrong way.
Perhaps reason that Hunger cannot activate is because there is no character to activate on. (JiP removed the character)
In the Spy + Warriors spear ruling Warriors spear still had someone to activate on (whether in territory or in battle). Hunger has no such character so it doesn't activate.
But that is not the reason being given for Hunger not activating, and lets say somehow we had an EC that was protected from JIP CBI, would that effect the ability?
-
But that is not the reason being given for Hunger not activating,
I understand that but I'm suggesting it as an alternative solution to the situation in question, so that Redoubter has some kind of ruling that he can settle on. I know that the other warrant for Hunger not activating is where the discussion lies, but all the same I think it's important that the original question be answered. Remember this board at it's core is to help people figure out what happens in certain situations, and that's what I'm trying to do.
and lets say somehow we had an EC that was protected from JIP CBI, would that effect the ability?
This is the question of the current debate, one that I still want answered, just not at the expense of the original question.
-
But that is not the reason being given for Hunger not activating,
I understand that but I'm suggesting it as an alternative solution to the situation in question, so that Redoubter has some kind of ruling that he can settle on. I know that the other warrant for Hunger not activating is where the discussion lies, but all the same I think it's important that the original question be answered. Remember this board at it's core is to help people figure out what happens in certain situations, and that's what I'm trying to do.
and lets say somehow we had an EC that was protected from JIP CBI, would that effect the ability?
This is the question of the current debate, one that I still want answered, just not at the expense of the original question.
Me and Redoubter are in the same playgroup, so either way he will get the message. I still am not convinced that having no EC in battle after the interrupt causes Hunger to fail. There was an EC around when it was played, and it was not negated. I thought it had been ruled that abilities do not get to reactivate, so there doesn't have to be an EC for it to "reactivate upon". It's original activation is still valid because the neagte that tried to stop it failed. I am not trying to muddy the waters but his original question is still very much up in the air, IMO.
-
I thought it had been ruled that abilities do not get to reactivate, so there doesn't have to be an EC for it to "reactivate upon".
The negate makes it like it had never activated in the first place because the original activation was prevented after it was interrupted. So there isn't actually a 'reactivation' just an activation. However an enhancement can't activate unless there is a character for it to be activated upon, JiP removes that character, therefore Hunger can't activate at all. So essentially hunger goes through the battle without it's special ability affecting anything at all.
-
and lets say somehow we had an EC that was protected from JIP CBI, would that effect the ability?
No, because Hunger cannot activate from outside the game. If you were able to protect both the EC and Hunger from RFG, then it would work.
-
I thought it had been ruled that abilities do not get to reactivate, so there doesn't have to be an EC for it to "reactivate upon".
The negate makes it like it had never activated in the first place because the original activation was prevented after it was interrupted. So there isn't actually a 'reactivation' just an activation. However an enhancement can't activate unless there is a character for it to be activated upon, JiP removes that character, therefore Hunger can't activate at all. So essentially hunger goes through the battle without it's special ability affecting anything at all.
Since the negate was negated the original activation was never undone, therefore is still active. Because when you negate a card it makes it so it never happened, so when you negate a negate you make it like the negate ever happened. Therefore the original activation stands.
******Instaposted
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falltheragefaces.com%2Fimg%2Ffaces%2Fpng%2Fangry-desk-flip.png&hash=b5b65e1e2ca6b4eee7224393667792d75c26a2ae)
my feelings as the discussion goes further and further
-
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falltheragefaces.com%2Fimg%2Ffaces%2Fpng%2Fangry-desk-flip.png&hash=b5b65e1e2ca6b4eee7224393667792d75c26a2ae)
my feelings as the discussion goes further and further
Well I am sorry that my desire to make sure I fully understand the scenario upsets you so much.
But seriouslly all I desire before I let this go is proof from the REG, elder, or rulebook that if an ability is negated, and the its negate is negated that it does indeed need to reactivate. Then I should be all set.
-
You ARE NOT negating the negate you interrupted it, that does not mean you negated it, you still have to do something about it to negate. To give you a real world analogy I see a guy running towards a bank in skimask and with a pistol I say "stop right there" he stops for a moment....than continues on his way to rob the bank. I interrupted him for a second, but I didn't stop him from robbing the bank. You interrupted the negate for a second, you didn't stop it
-
You ARE NOT negating the negate you interrupted it, that does not mean you negated it, you still have to do something about it to negate. To give you a real world analogy I see a guy running towards a bank in skimask and with a pistol I say "stop right there" he stops for a moment....than continues on his way to rob the bank. I interrupted him for a second, but I didn't stop him from robbing the bank. You interrupted the negate for a second, you didn't stop it
Actually, you're removing it from the game, so in your example after you tell him to stop, you airlift him out of the area with a helicopter so there is no chance he can continue...
(By the way, I haven't said anything in the discussion before because I have no idea what the answer/explanation is.)
-
You are doing the same thing to hunger though, that is the issue here. Hunger can't just refire because the thing interrupting it has been interrupted until JIP completes and by the time it does hunger is no longer in the game and can't refire.
-
You are doing the same thing to hunger though, that is the issue here. Hunger can't just refire because the thing interrupting it has been interrupted until JIP completes and by the time it does hunger is no longer in the game and can't refire.
But then it was never actually negated and does not need to refire, In redemption when something is "negated" (whether by negate or interrupt and remove, same thing) we treat it like the negated event never happened (ie indirect negation from negating a band). So If the card negating never techinaclly happened why do I need to reactivate?
-
because JiP has to 100% complete before the interrupting is truly undone, and by the time that happens hunger has been removed from the game and can't take place. Interrupting something that interrupts also interrupts the card the OG interrupt was interrupting. Its a stack.
-
because JiP has to 100% complete before the interrupting is truly undone, and by the time that happens hunger has been removed from the game and can't take place. Interrupting something that interrupts also interrupts the card the OG interrupt was interrupting. Its a stack.
Not in this case beacuse Hunger is an instanteous ability and by definition not interrupted by JIP. JIP only interrupts ongoing abilities and the last card played(the negate). So JIP is not interrupting Hunger, but it is interrupting its negate.
-
But seriouslly all I desire before I let this go is proof from the REG, elder, or rulebook that if an ability is negated, and the its negate is negated that it does indeed need to reactivate. Then I should be all set.
This is true, and has always been the case.
-
I understand where you're coming from, but that's not how it works. You did not negate the negate, you interrupted it and removed both it and Wrath from the game. This effectively negates the negate, but it is not the same thing as an actual negate. It would almost be better to put it in terms of forcing it to fizzle rather than negating it, and the same action you used to fizzle the negate fizzled Wrath.
For example. I attack with a Judge and play Shibboleth. You respond with a Negate. I play Samuel's Edict to Negate the Negate and Discard the EC. Shibboleth works. However, if I attack with an Angel banded to a Judge and play Shibboleth, you negate it, and I respond with Swift Beings followed by Samson's Sacrifice, Shibboleth does not work. Do you see the difference?
-
But seriouslly all I desire before I let this go is proof from the REG, elder, or rulebook that if an ability is negated, and the its negate is negated that it does indeed need to reactivate. Then I should be all set.
This is true, and has always been the case.
Thank you, now can you explain how Wariiors Spear/ Spy works then? I have never actually understood that ruling.
For example. I attack with a Judge and play Shibboleth. You respond with a Negate. I play Samuel's Edict to Negate the Negate and Discard the EC. Shibboleth works. However, if I attack with an Angel banded to a Judge and play Shibboleth, you negate it, and I respond with Swift Beings followed by Samson's Sacrifice, Shibboleth does not work. Do you see the difference?
But that seems inconsistent with Spy / Warriors Spear. Explain how that scenario is functionally different.
-
There is zero negation involved at any point in the case of Spy and Warrior's Spear. Spear does not need to re-activate in battle because it was played once and nothing ever messed with it.
-
There is zero negation involved at any point in the case of Spy and Warrior's Spear. Spear does not need to re-activate in battle because it was played once and nothing ever messed with it.
But there is no character there for the enhancement to activate on. Hero abilities come before weapon abilities and the character is not there for the enhancement to activate on. But the ruling was if the card entered battle and was not negated it triggers, regardless of it location, or if there is a character there for it to activate on. I am just trying to figure out why this seems to not be the case for defense's. If I have Otho with Naaman's chariots and block and use Otho's ability to blow up everything in battle, can I still draw 2 and play?
Emperor Otho (FF)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Gray • Ability: 10 / 1 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: You may discard a N.T. evil Enhancement from hand to discard all cards in battle. • Identifiers: Male Human, Emperor (Rome), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Josephus (NT) • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)
Namaan’s Chariot and Horses (FF)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Gray • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: Weapon • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and draw two cards. If used by a unique character, you may play the next Enhancement. • Play As: You may interrupt the battle and draw 2. If used by a unique character, you may play an enhancement. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: II Kings 5:9 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)
-
I would say no. But I can't think of a ruling to support that. Does anyone have the link to the Spy+Warriors spear ruling?
-
I would say no. But I can't think of a ruling to support that. Does anyone have the link to the Spy+Warriors spear ruling?
The infamous Warrior's Spear / Spy ruling:
Spy + Warriors Spear "works," if by "works," you mean the discard happens.
Did the spear enter battle? yes
Was it negated (directly or indirectly)? no
Then it works.
The discard happens AFTER the withdraw option. So, if you choose to withdraw, and then the discard makes a lost soul become available, you can't decide "oh, I mean Spy stays in battle." :)
Did chariots enter battle? yes
Was it negated (directly or indirectly)? no
Then it works.
I can't interrupt because you can't interrupt your own ability removing you from battle, I couldn't play because there would be no EC, but I could draw 2.
-
Sick for a day and come back to this...I agree with table flipping :)
Alright, I have another what-if to ask you then:
Let's say that the hero in battle DID NOT have special initiative (let's say he was a beefcake). Well, everyone got discarded in territory. THEN he negates it, I interrupt the negate. What happens to those guys in territory?
This situation is actually no different than the one I started the thread with, but different visuals. It helps to show that Hunger already DID happen, it's instantaneous, and THEN other stuff happens. In the end, nothing ever negated it. It STILL happens, because it never STOPPED happening.
MY REQUEST:
If we still go in circles after this, can we please just ask the elders to help out and resolve this? I respect everyone posting and I think both 'sides' are looking at this going ":o COME ON HOW CAN'T YOU SEE THIS?! >:(" and there is no reason for us to get at each other when we're obviously not coming to an agreement :D
-
The difference between Warrior's Spear and this, as well as the new thing Redoubter posted, is that Hunger is no longer in play when JiP resolves so it can't finish its effect. As to the Otho thing, I would say no you don't get to play because Chariot is out of play when it would get to resolve.
-
The difference between Warrior's Spear and this, as well as the new thing Redoubter posted, is that Hunger is no longer in play when JiP resolves so it can't finish its effect. As to the Otho thing, I would say no you don't get to play because Chariot is out of play when it would get to resolve.
But back to the wording of the WS/Spy ruling it should work. Is there a rule that says otherwise?
-
What wording are you talking about? The distinction has nothing to do with what the cards say and everything to do with where they are located after the interceding ability completes.
-
Warrior's Spear is still in a valid location for Enhancements to activate from, and the Hero it was played with is still in play. Removed from Game and Discard Pile are not valid locations for Enhancements to activate from, while territory is.
-
Warrior's Spear is still in a valid location for Enhancements to activate from, and the Hero it was played with is still in play. Removed from Game and Discard Pile are not valid locations for Enhancements to activate from, while territory is.
I'm not sure that that is how it should work. While I understand the difference between territory and discard pile/removed from the game in this particular issue, I'm also not sure that enhancements should be able to activate from territory (beyond territory class, placed enhancements, set-aside, etc). Is there a REG quote (or other precedent) to back this up?
-
High Places and Altar of Burnt Offering. "BUT THOSE ARE DUE TO AN SA BY DEFAULT YOU CAN ONLY PLAY CERTAIN KINDS OF ENHANCEMENTS IN TERRITORY!!!" Yes, and due to the fact that Spy+Warrior's Spear works, one of those circumstances must be weapons (which can be played in territory) that have pending activation from having been in battle.
I think you would agree with this example: guy with Horses blocks and draws. White character plays Words followed by Lion Dwelling with the Calf. Player 1 gets to keep the 2 drawn cards.
-
High Places and Altar of Burnt Offering. "BUT THOSE ARE DUE TO AN SA BY DEFAULT YOU CAN ONLY PLAY CERTAIN KINDS OF ENHANCEMENTS IN TERRITORY!!!" Yes, and due to the fact that Spy+Warrior's Spear works, one of those circumstances must be weapons (which can be played in territory) that have pending activation from having been in battle.
That's not a precedent nor a REG quote. Clearly the Elders (or at least Bryon) have said it works, and I understand why that would be, however, I'm curious why it was ruled that way, because I don't agree with it.
I think you would agree with this example: guy with Horses blocks and draws. White character plays Words followed by Lion Dwelling with the Calf. Player 1 gets to keep the 2 drawn cards.
I'm not sure this example holds any weight. The whole reason I don't believe Spy + Warrior's Spear should work is because Spy's ability, when used, kicks him out of battle before Warrior's Spear can activate, and I don't believe that weapons (regardless of what the rules are right now) should be able to activate outside of battle.
-
I'm not sure this example holds any weight. The whole reason I don't believe Spy + Warrior's Spear should work is because Spy's ability, when used, kicks him out of battle before Warrior's Spear can activate, and I don't believe that weapons (regardless of what the rules are right now) should be able to activate outside of battle.
I agree I don't think weapons should activate outside of battle.
-
Precedent is not needed when there is a rule directly addressing the issue, only when there is currently no answer and we have to make educated guesses. Unless you're asking me to prove that there is, in fact, a rule that Warrior's Spear works off a withdrawn spy, there's no burden of proof on me.
Since Warrior's Spear does work, I am offering possible mechanisms for that. The most obvious one I can see is that Enhancements are able to activate off characters in territory, and that when Warrior's Spear entered battle it entered the que of played cards waiting to activate (just like a banding card that brings in multiple characters at once). Since it was never negated and the battle is still going, it merely activates when its turn comes since it has a valid character to activate off and is itself still in play.
-
*feels left out that he wasn't a part of the original ruling on Spy+WS*
Does anyone have an answer to my second scenario yet? What if there was no special initiative for a beefcake in battle, Hunger resolved, and THEN negate + JiP happen. How can it be argued in this case that all of the heroes are not discarded? And if it cannot, why would special initiative change the fact that Hunger has already activated and then was never negated?
-
Type of initiative, in this case, doesn't change anything. All that matters is JiP is both interrupting the negate and rfg'ing everything in battle, so Hunger never gets a chance to resolve.
-
Type of initiative, in this case, doesn't change anything. All that matters is JiP is both interrupting the negate and rfg'ing everything in battle, so Hunger never gets a chance to resolve.
And again, I go back to the fact that it does not interrupt Hunger, only the negate, and as an INSTANT ability, it still will have happened. It never has to 'reactivate'. The interrupt of JiP just goes back to before it was negated. Ability happens.
-
But seriouslly all I desire before I let this go is proof from the REG, elder, or rulebook that if an ability is negated, and the its negate is negated that it does indeed need to reactivate. Then I should be all set.
This is true, and has always been the case.
-
Type of initiative, in this case, doesn't change anything. All that matters is JiP is both interrupting the negate and rfg'ing everything in battle, so Hunger never gets a chance to resolve.
And again, I go back to the fact that it does not interrupt Hunger, only the negate, and as an INSTANT ability, it still will have happened. It never has to 'reactivate'. The interrupt of JiP just goes back to before it was negated. Ability happens.
Abilities have to come from somewhere, and rfg is not a place that abilities can come from. Hunger's un-negation (i.e.: reactivation) cannot fire during the resolution of JiP (because abilities as a whole have to complete before anything else can happen) and by the time JiP finishes Hunger is rfg which, as stated before, is not a place abilities can come from, so it fizzles.
-
Abilities have to come from somewhere, and rfg is not a place that abilities can come from. Hunger's un-negation (i.e.: reactivation) cannot fire during the resolution of JiP (because abilities as a whole have to complete before anything else can happen) and by the time JiP finishes Hunger is rfg which, as stated before, is not a place abilities can come from, so it fizzles.
I would understand this point it it were an ongoing ability like protection or immunity. However, every ruling I have seen before has stated that instant abilities that have not been negated still happen, regardless of where the card ends up. I ask again that someone points me to where such a rule or ruling is so that I can make sure that rulings are consistent.
-
The burden of proof is on you to show that any ability works from rfg, or that any ability (whether instant or ongoing) can resolve during another card's ability (not including play abilities, because this isn't one of those).
-
The burden of proof is on you to show that any ability works from rfg, or that any ability (whether instant or ongoing) can resolve during another card's ability (not including play abilities, because this isn't one of those).
Why is the burden on me? Because many people agree with you, or that's how most people have played it? That doesn't mean that a ruling has been correct (see Sam currently). I'm not trying to be a jerk in this, and I would ask for the same respect in return and some HELP in finding what rule or ruling you're talking about. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong, but I need to know WHY.
I've presented a case no one has seemed to try to refute. If the character in battle had no special initiative, and everyone got discarded but him, why would interrupting the negate NOT bring us back to that state? Please show me that.
-
I didn't quote that post for the fun of it. that is an elder ruling the hunger needs to refire, which it can't do after it's been removed from game.
-
The state of what exactly? I've been trying to point out that as long as Joseph in Prison is in the example, Hunger won't work (regardless of special or normal initiative). If this is not the state you're now asking about, I would appreciate if you spelled it out exactly again (maybe you already did, my memory stinks, lol) and I'll see if I can help clarify.
Apologies if you took offense to anything I've said, I meant no disrespect. I mentioned that the burden was on you because rfg being a non-ability zone is a game rule (or, at least, no cards have changed that (yet)) so if you're suggesting that something different is the case then you would need to back it up. If you're not suggesting that, then please ignore my comment.
It might be helpful if you post a list or other ordering of exactly how you think things play out, what exact order you think the abilities should resolve in. That might help me be able to make a better explanation for you.
-
The burden of proof is on you to show that any ability works from rfg, or that any ability (whether instant or ongoing) can resolve during another card's ability (not including play abilities, because this isn't one of those).
Why is the burden on me? Because many people agree with you, or that's how most people have played it? That doesn't mean that a ruling has been correct (see Sam currently). I'm not trying to be a jerk in this, and I would ask for the same respect in return and some HELP in finding what rule or ruling you're talking about. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong, but I need to know WHY.
I've presented a case no one has seemed to try to refute. If the character in battle had no special initiative, and everyone got discarded but him, why would interrupting the negate NOT bring us back to that state? Please show me that.
I'm not sure what scenario you're presenting here. The reason Hunger won't kick back in when Joseph in Prison is played is because one ability cannot take place until all other abilities have completed. For instance, if I played Sam's Edict, my opponent couldn't play Christian Martyr after the negate but before the discard - it just doesn't work that way. So in this case, Joseph in Prison activates and must complete before Hunger could reactivate. However, before Hunger can reactivate, it (along with the character(s) it's played on) has been removed from the game. It is entirely illogical to presume that an enhancement can activate after it's been removed from the game.
Precedent is not needed when there is a rule directly addressing the issue, only when there is currently no answer and we have to make educated guesses. Unless you're asking me to prove that there is, in fact, a rule that Warrior's Spear works off a withdrawn spy, there's no burden of proof on me.
I'm asking for proof of a rule that allows an enhancement that isn't territory class, set-aside, or played off of High Places to activate in territory. As far as I can tell, Spy + Warrior's Spear is the only example of this.
I didn't quote that post for the fun of it. that is an elder ruling the hunger needs to refire, which it can't do after it's been removed from game.
That doesn't mean we can't help him understand why the ruling is what it is.
-
It might be helpful if you post a list or other ordering of exactly how you think things play out, what exact order you think the abilities should resolve in. That might help me be able to make a better explanation for you.
BTW, I took no offense with your particular post, but I wanted to make sure no one thought I was just trying to fight.
What I see as happening:
1) Hunger -> Everyone in territory dies (let's say beefcake in battle does not)
2) Beefcake plays a negate
3) With initiative, I play JiP, interrupting the negate
4) At this point, everyone and everything is being removed, BUT:
a) Hunger's SA triggered and was NOT negated
5) Everything in battle is removed and all heroes in territory die
I am not trying to say that things resolve from RFG, and I'm sorry if that didn't get across. What I'm saying is that the SA was already in battle and resolved, was not negated, so it happens. Please help me out with why this would not be the case.
That doesn't mean we can't help him understand why the ruling is what it is.
Thank you! I am not trying to fight, I am trying to understand. If this is really the ruling, I want to know why, and what rule supports it.
-
The point is that it was negated up until the point that Joseph in Prison is played. It cannot reactivate, however, until Joseph in Prison resolves, at which point, it's already been removed from the game, so it cannot reactivate.
-
The point is that it was negated up until the point that Joseph in Prison is played. It cannot reactivate, however, until Joseph in Prison resolves, at which point, it's already been removed from the game, so it cannot reactivate.
I agree, that it was, but there was no negation once JiP resolved, because the negate was being interrupted at that point. Why would Hunger not already have been active and its SA resolved?
-
The point is that it was negated up until the point that Joseph in Prison is played. It cannot reactivate, however, until Joseph in Prison resolves, at which point, it's already been removed from the game, so it cannot reactivate.
I agree, that it was, but there was no negation once JiP resolved, because the negate was being interrupted at that point. Why would Hunger not already have been active and its SA resolved?
Because it's SA is no longer in play, and thus, cannot resolve.
-
The point is that it was negated up until the point that Joseph in Prison is played. It cannot reactivate, however, until Joseph in Prison resolves, at which point, it's already been removed from the game, so it cannot reactivate.
I agree, that it was, but there was no negation once JiP resolved, because the negate was being interrupted at that point. Why would Hunger not already have been active and its SA resolved?
Because it's SA is no longer in play, and thus, cannot resolve.
And I think this is our sticking point. What I'm saying is that the SA, being instant, was already active and resolved in the field of play. The card and SA being RFG after everything resolved is moot if that is the case, from how I read interrupt. I have never seen anything to counter this, so our debate comes down to that one point.
-
That's the thing though, one of the core parts of this whole debate is the fact that Hunger was negated. At that point, it does not work, and has been negated. Now Joseph in Prison's ability must complete before anything else can happen. Hunger doesn't get to insert itself in there, it doesn't get to do anything until Joseph in Prison completes, because Joseph in Prison's abilities are the only reason that Hunger doesn't remain negated. So when Joseph in Prison completes - which, keep in mind, involves removing all cards in battle from the game - it's only then that Hunger can attempt to reactivate, which it cannot, due to having been removed from the game. The fundamental rule that you're looking for is the fact that Joseph in Prison completes before Hunger gets to do anything at all. I'm scouring the REG but I cannot find anything directly relating to this, so you're just going to have to take the word of Pol, an Elder, and I.
-
Chronic put it better than I could.
so you're just going to have to take the word of Pol, an Elder, and I.
And me....
-
Chronic put it better than I could.
It was all the italics. Really makes all the difference.
And me....
Haha, sorry, you too. If it makes you feel any better, I couldn't remember which Elder it was either.
-
That's the thing though, one of the core parts of this whole debate is the fact that Hunger was negated. At that point, it does not work, and has been negated. Now Joseph in Prison's ability must complete before anything else can happen. Hunger doesn't get to insert itself in there, it doesn't get to do anything until Joseph in Prison completes, because Joseph in Prison's abilities are the only reason that Hunger doesn't remain negated.
I do not necessarily agree with how this is ruled, but that bolded bit does help to explain it more. Again, like you said, nothing I can find in the rules or ruling help on this, and that doesn't sit well with me. I would prefer if someone could help me out on that part (finding an actual rule/ruling on time-travel theory what happens with interrupts), but I'll just have to go with it now.
Again, I was not looking for a fight, but help on a ruling. Thanks to everyone who offered the latter instead of the former :)
...but seriously, if you find a rule or ruling please let me know.
-
You have the ruling of an Elder, with multiple REPs backing him up, with more-or-less zero descent aside from yourself, so if that's the issue, you can consider this 100% official.
Interrupting an ability only undoes the completion of that ability's activation. It does not undo the beginning of the ability's activation or the declaration of targets for the ability. The interrupted abilities go back to being pending abilities until they reactivate.
This is the best I can come up with in terms of REG quotes that back up my position. The negate last enhancement enhancement does this to Hunger, essentially making it a "pending ability" (I'm well aware this isn't exactly how it works, but it will suffice for this example, so bear with me here). When Joseph in Prison is played, it essentially makes that negate a pending ability, which in turn makes Hunger a pending ability as well (everything is pending while waiting for Joseph in Prison to resolve).
What exactly is it that you don't like about the ruling? It's not even as if Hunger could reactivate halfway through Joseph in Prison's ability anyway, since the interrupt doesn't stop the negate enhancement, it just stalls it. The remove from the game ability is what actually completely stops the negate enhancement.
-
I did not see how a resolved ability like Hunger was not already completed and would not be considered resolved at the end of all of this. What you just posted (the clarifications from the REG) is what I was looking for. The way it is worded backs up your argument, and I have ceded your point.
My main problem before you posted that quote was the lack of something from the rules to show why the instant abilities weren't already active. You cleared that up now, I'm good :)
-
with more-or-less zero descent aside from yourself,
Why is he the only one going down? ;) Regardless, I don't know that I have a dissenting opinion on what the rule is but I will say that I have often found the rules on interrupt/prevent/negate to be illogical and inconsistent.
It seems like the negating of an ability and the negating of negation are not treated the same. If you play a banding card and I then play a negate, it undoes that ability like it never happened. You could then play another banding card to bring the same hero into battle for the second time this turn even though there is a game rule that characters can only enter battle once a turn, because the hero is considered to have not entered battle yet. So in this case the battle situation reverts back to what it was before the negated card was played.
But in the thread situation when JiP is played you don't play it as if the good negate was never played; you don't revert back to what the situation was before the good negate was played. Alternatively, I could see it as: If you played Reach of Desperation after I played Hunger, then Hunger is paused and reactivates if it can after Reach and cards played off it finish but in the given case Hunger is active (not reactivating) because the interrupt (on JiP) just returns the battle back to the previous state where Hunger was activated.
For comparison:
scenario1
You make a rescue attempt, I block, you play a banding card, I play JiP, who is removed? Because JiP interrupts your banding card (temporarily undoing it) then JiP doesn't remove the hero that was going to be banded in.
scenario2
You make a rescue attempt, I block, you play Jehoidia's Strength to bring all your heros into battle, I play a negate to kick them out, you play a negate on mine to bring them back, I play another negate to kick them out, you play another negate to bring them back, then I play JiP. Who is removed? It should be the same as the first, right? but in this case JiP isn't directly interrupting Jehoidia's Strength. The state of battle before JiP is played is that all the heros are in battle. So if JiP doesn't interrupt the previous good enhancement to revert the battle back to the state before it was played (as if that good negate was never played so Jehiodia's Strength is negated and the heros are not in battle) then it seems to be consistent with the Hunger ruling it will remove all the heros from the game. But that is not consistent with scenario 1. I don't see how adding a couple negates in the middle that cancel out should affect the outcome.
Again, not saying that I play it differently or necessarily think the rule should change but just trying to explain what I think was Redoubter's and others problems with the logic. (its late so I hope that made sense)
-
But in the thread situation when JiP is played you don't play it as if the good negate was never played; you don't revert back to what the situation was before the good negate was played. Alternatively, I could see it as: If you played Reach of Desperation after I played Hunger, then Hunger is paused and reactivates if it can after Reach and cards played off it finish but in the given case Hunger is active (not reactivating) because the interrupt (on JiP) just returns the battle back to the previous state where Hunger was activated.
You have the first part of this correct, and that's actually a great analogy. When Reach of Desperation is played, it puts all cards being interrupted into a sort of stasis. If no other enhancement is played, then the cards reactivate and go about their business. This case really isn't different with JiP. The negate and discard that takes out Hunger is put in that stasis mode when the interrupt kicks in, however, that doesn't mean Hunger immediately activates again, since it can't reactivate before Joseph in Prison's second ability activates. What I have in italics there is the main point this entire rule is based around, and it's a well-established and concrete game rule.
scenario1
You make a rescue attempt, I block, you play a banding card, I play JiP, who is removed? Because JiP interrupts your banding card (temporarily undoing it) then JiP doesn't remove the hero that was going to be banded in.
This is correct.
scenario2
You make a rescue attempt, I block, you play Jehoidia's Strength to bring all your heros into battle, I play a negate to kick them out, you play a negate on mine to bring them back, I play another negate to kick them out, you play another negate to bring them back, then I play JiP. Who is removed? It should be the same as the first, right? but in this case JiP isn't directly interrupting Jehoidia's Strength. The state of battle before JiP is played is that all the heros are in battle. So if JiP doesn't interrupt the previous good enhancement to revert the battle back to the state before it was played (as if that good negate was never played so Jehiodia's Strength is negated and the heros are not in battle) then it seems to be consistent with the Hunger ruling it will remove all the heros from the game. But that is not consistent with scenario 1. I don't see how adding a couple negates in the middle that cancel out should affect the outcome.
It's too early for me to wrap my mind around this. I'll tackle it later.
Again, not saying that I play it differently or necessarily think the rule should change but just trying to explain what I think was Redoubter's and others problems with the logic. (its late so I hope that made sense)
I don't mean this with any maliciousness, so please don't take it that way, but I don't think it has anything to do with you have problems with the logic, I think you just don't understand the logic, or at the very least, why the rules we're talking about directly affect what is going on here. Joseph in Prison's interrupt does not just revert the battle to a previous state. It suspends all abilities being interrupted, which cannot reactivate until after Joseph in Prison is complete, at which point, they've all been removed.
-
Scenario 2 also only removes the initial Hero. When JiP is played, the last GE was the last in a chain of negates that allowed Strength to work. When JiP is played, it suspends the last good negate, putting the Heroes temporarily out of battle since the chain of negates ends with Strength being negated, then removes all the cards in the battle from the game, including Strength and the Hero it could have activated on. Strength fizzles and the battle is over if JiP is not negated.
-
I don't mean this with any maliciousness, so please don't take it that way, but I don't think it has anything to do with you have problems with the logic, I think you just don't understand the logic, or at the very least, why the rules we're talking about directly affect what is going on here.
Now you're confusing me with YOUR logic :|
BUT, I do understand what he's saying, I saw (and still can see) the logic the exact same as he does. HOWEVER, since you had to bring up the actual rule and convert me... ::)
Basically, based on this clarification of the rule from the REG that Chronic was helpful enough to provide:
Interrupting an ability only undoes the completion of that ability's activation. It does not undo the beginning of the ability's activation or the declaration of targets for the ability. The interrupted abilities go back to being pending abilities until they reactivate.
In Scenario 1, your banding card is in a pending state, and while it is an immediate ability (I know it doesn't matter, but this is how I know this is being seen, guys :P), it has not technically activated because it has targeted but not completed (see the exact wording above). When it wants to complete, everything is gone, poof, out of the game. And (points to the rule again) it doesn't reactivate.
In Scenario 2, your negate battle actually adds nothing to the chain. Because your last negate (which would stop the negation of the band and allow the heroes in) is pending, the same thing happens. It never has a chance to reactivate (from that rule) and cannot complete (from the rule).
Trust me, I know EXACTLY where this thought process comes from (see pages 1-7 of this thread). However, Chronic and Pol are right. In this game, the abilities are all pending until the interrupt resolves. The logic in this game means that in these cases those particular outcomes are reached. I'm just glad to finally have a reason to argue one way or the other based on a RULE instead of logic...because logic hurts my head :P
-
There is zero negation involved at any point in the case of Spy and Warrior's Spear. Spear does not need to re-activate in battle because it was played once and nothing ever messed with it.
But there is no character there for the enhancement to activate on. Hero abilities come before weapon abilities and the character is not there for the enhancement to activate on. But the ruling was if the card entered battle and was not negated it triggers, regardless of it location, or if there is a character there for it to activate on. I am just trying to figure out why this seems to not be the case for defense's. If I have Otho with Naaman's chariots and block and use Otho's ability to blow up everything in battle, can I still draw 2 and play?
Emperor Otho (FF)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Gray • Ability: 10 / 1 • Class: Warrior • Special Ability: You may discard a N.T. evil Enhancement from hand to discard all cards in battle. • Identifiers: Male Human, Emperor (Rome), Royalty, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Josephus (NT) • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)
Namaan’s Chariot and Horses (FF)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Gray • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: Weapon • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and draw two cards. If used by a unique character, you may play the next Enhancement. • Play As: You may interrupt the battle and draw 2. If used by a unique character, you may play an enhancement. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: II Kings 5:9 • Availability: Faith of our Fathers booster packs (None)
You would get to draw and play before discarding everything in Battle. Horses interrupts Otho's ability.
-
Not so. If you have Horses on Otho and use his SA upon blocking, you do not get to use Horses. The difference is that Warrior's Spear and a Hero for it to activate on are still in play, while Otho and Horses are both Discarded by the time Horses would activate.
-
You would get to draw and play before discarding everything in Battle. Horses interrupts Otho's ability.
Pol is correct that you cannot use Horses on Otho after using Otho's ability, however his reasoning is a little off. Horses actually does NOT interrupt Otho because ITB doesn't interrupt your own instant abilities, only opponents'. As such, it has to wait for Otho to resolve and by that time it's in the discard and can't activate.
-
How does that go against what I said?
-
Not so. If you have Horses on Otho and use his SA upon blocking, you do not get to use Horses. The difference is that Warrior's Spear and a Hero for it to activate on are still in play, while Otho and Horses are both Discarded by the time Horses would activate.
Let me think of another scenario:
I blockKing Saul(for simplicity) with the Pale Green Panic Demon, I play 2k horses than Death of Unrighteous do I get to place the demon?
-
In this case, it would work if you want, since you don't have to interrupt the battle with 2kH. If you did have to interrupt the battle, for instance if Abigail was in battle and would protect the LS's from DoU otherwise, then you would interrupt the triggered ability of Panic Demon and he wouldn't be placed.
-
oh hi page 3, this ruling thread seems to be particularly controversial
-
oh hi page 3, this ruling thread seems to be particularly controversial
My thoughts exactly.
-
Hey,
First, I only skimmed the last 4 pages of this thread so if I'm repeating something, I apologize.
Second, Hunger is (or should be) ongoing. It has a duration ("for remainder of turn") and an instant ability can't have a duration. So in the original example Joseph in Prison would interrupt hunger, remove it from the game, and stop it from happening.
As far as the issue of reactivating abilities, there's a reason it's in the interrupt entry of the REG and not anywhere else. Because you only reactive abilities after they've been interrupted. If an ability is negated and the negate is negated you do not have to reactivate the original ability. When you negate something you undo it, you revert the state of the game to where it was/would have been if the negated ability never happened. So when the ability you are negating is a negate, undoing it means putting the game back in a state where the ability it negated is being carried out. (Interrupt is basically a temporary negate, which becomes a permanent negate if the thing interrupted can't reactivate when the time comes.)
Using the original example, replacing Hunger with Net (targeting a character in a territory), Net happens and leaves the game in a state with a captured character. The first negate happens and leaves the game in a state with no captured character. Joseph in Prison then interrupts (temporarily negates) the first negate which puts the game back in the state before the first negate happened, which means the character goes back to being captured. Joseph in Prison then goes on to remove cards in battle from the game.
If you want to say that an ability has to reactivate after it has been negated, then effectively that reactivation is part of "undoing" the ability that negated the original ability.
I realize this may not entirely jive with what Prof A said, so we may have to work this out a little between the elders, but what I said above is what the REG is trying to say.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Dear Sir,
I understand the logic of what you are saying completely (see pages 1-6 of this thread), but the rules from the Reg have proved that logic wrong. From the "How to Play" section of Interrupt:
Reactivating Abilities
After an interrupt ability completes, the suspended abilities that were interrupted attempt to reactivate. They attempt to reactive in the same order they were originally activated. In order to reactivate the suspended abilities, the following conditions must be met:
the card on which the ability exists must still be in battle
if the ability is on an enhancement there must still be a character in battle on which it can activate
the ability was not prevented while it was interrupted
the targets of the ability are still legal targets
If all conditions for reactivation are met and the ability targets all of something, the targets for the ability are updated. Any new possible targets that are available when the ability is ready to reactivate are added as targets. The ability then reactivates.
An interrupt ability is instantaneous. Interrupt abilities target the abilities that they interrupt. An interrupt ability is an interrupt effect.
Unless the REG is dead wrong, no ability that is interrupted just 'goes back' to a state of being active. It must reactivate.
Joseph in Prison then interrupts (temporarily negates) the first negate which puts the game back in the state before the first negate happened, which means the character goes back to being captured. Joseph in Prison then goes on to remove cards in battle from the game.
Unfortunately, as per the reasoning and rules above, this is not the case, especially the last part (emphasis mine). The wording is "After an interrupt ability completes..." JiP finishes itself out. Then, as per the REG, the other abilities try to activate. First, they are no longer in battle (not even in play). Second, there is no character to play them on.
Again, I know exactly that reasoning, and I also think it should end up that way. However, the rules clearly state that I am wrong and I own up to my mistakes, hence my lengthy response here :)
-
Dear Sir,
I understand the logic of what you are saying completely (see pages 1-6 of this thread), but the rules from the Reg have proved that logic wrong. From the "How to Play" section of Interrupt:
Reactivating Abilities
After an interrupt ability completes, the suspended abilities that were interrupted attempt to reactivate. They attempt to reactive in the same order they were originally activated. In order to reactivate the suspended abilities, the following conditions must be met:
the card on which the ability exists must still be in battle
if the ability is on an enhancement there must still be a character in battle on which it can activate
the ability was not prevented while it was interrupted
the targets of the ability are still legal targets
If all conditions for reactivation are met and the ability targets all of something, the targets for the ability are updated. Any new possible targets that are available when the ability is ready to reactivate are added as targets. The ability then reactivates.
An interrupt ability is instantaneous. Interrupt abilities target the abilities that they interrupt. An interrupt ability is an interrupt effect.
Unless the REG is dead wrong, no ability that is interrupted just 'goes back' to a state of being active. It must reactivate.
Joseph in Prison then interrupts (temporarily negates) the first negate which puts the game back in the state before the first negate happened, which means the character goes back to being captured. Joseph in Prison then goes on to remove cards in battle from the game.
Unfortunately, as per the reasoning and rules above, this is not the case, especially the last part (emphasis mine). The wording is "After an interrupt ability completes..." JiP finishes itself out. Then, as per the REG, the other abilities try to activate. First, they are no longer in battle (not even in play). Second, there is no character to play them on.
Again, I know exactly that reasoning, and I also think it should end up that way. However, the rules clearly state that I am wrong and I own up to my mistakes, hence my lengthy response here :)
+1 This guy's good :o
-
Dear Sir,
I understand the logic of what you are saying completely (see pages 1-6 of this thread), but the rules from the Reg have proved that logic wrong. From the "How to Play" section of Interrupt:
Reactivating Abilities
After an interrupt ability completes, the suspended abilities that were interrupted attempt to reactivate. They attempt to reactive in the same order they were originally activated. In order to reactivate the suspended abilities, the following conditions must be met:
the card on which the ability exists must still be in battle
if the ability is on an enhancement there must still be a character in battle on which it can activate
the ability was not prevented while it was interrupted
the targets of the ability are still legal targets
If all conditions for reactivation are met and the ability targets all of something, the targets for the ability are updated. Any new possible targets that are available when the ability is ready to reactivate are added as targets. The ability then reactivates.
An interrupt ability is instantaneous. Interrupt abilities target the abilities that they interrupt. An interrupt ability is an interrupt effect.
Unless the REG is dead wrong, no ability that is interrupted just 'goes back' to a state of being active. It must reactivate.
Joseph in Prison then interrupts (temporarily negates) the first negate which puts the game back in the state before the first negate happened, which means the character goes back to being captured. Joseph in Prison then goes on to remove cards in battle from the game.
Unfortunately, as per the reasoning and rules above, this is not the case, especially the last part (emphasis mine). The wording is "After an interrupt ability completes..." JiP finishes itself out. Then, as per the REG, the other abilities try to activate. First, they are no longer in battle (not even in play). Second, there is no character to play them on.
Again, I know exactly that reasoning, and I also think it should end up that way. However, the rules clearly state that I am wrong and I own up to my mistakes, hence my lengthy response here :)
+1 This guy's good :o
He is indeed.
-
Hey,
Unless the REG is dead wrong, no ability that is interrupted just 'goes back' to a state of being active. It must reactivate.
You seem to be missing one point. Being negated and then being un-negated is not the same as being interrupted and then reactivating.
In my example, Net is never interrupted. It is negated, and then the negate that negated it is interrupted. But Net is never interrupted.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Unless the REG is dead wrong, no ability that is interrupted just 'goes back' to a state of being active. It must reactivate.
You seem to be missing one point. Being negated and then being un-negated is not the same as being interrupted and then reactivating.
In my example, Net is never interrupted. It is negated, and then the negate that negated it is interrupted. But Net is never interrupted.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Exactly what I argued in pages 1-6 of this thread. How, I asked, could you have it not activated, since it was never negated in the first place? Unfortunately, everyone else pointed out the logic behind the other side...and had the REG to back them up :D Back to the important part of the rule:
After an interrupt ability completes, the suspended abilities that were interrupted attempt to reactivate. They attempt to reactive in the same order they were originally activated.
The first part (italicized) explains that everything is in a suspended state during the process of interruption, until all of the abilities of the interrupts complete. In the example you gave (using Net again because, as you pointed out, Hunger is technically ongoing), the good negate card negated (while interrupting) Net.
Now, JiP comes along and interrupts the negate. The problem comes in the second part (underlined): both Net and the negate are in suspension. Net was not allowed to reactivate from suspension after the negate (as the rules state that if it was prevented [negated in this case] while interrupted, it cannot reactivate). Thus, while the negate is being suspended, it is also being suspended.
Then after JiP resolves completely, all cards suspended (Net and the negate) attempt to activate in the same order as they were originally activated. Unfortunately, they are no longer in play, nor are the characters they were played on. By the very definition of interrupt, they both are removed from the game and never activated in the first place.
Again...the logic is VERY sound, hence why I debated that side for so long and demanded to see a rule. I have the rule now, and I have to follow it, even if it means I was wrong :)
-
Hey,
Unless the REG is dead wrong, no ability that is interrupted just 'goes back' to a state of being active. It must reactivate.
You seem to be missing one point. Being negated and then being un-negated is not the same as being interrupted and then reactivating.
In my example, Net is never interrupted. It is negated, and then the negate that negated it is interrupted. But Net is never interrupted.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Exactly what I argued in pages 1-6 of this thread. How, I asked, could you have it not activated, since it was never negated in the first place? Unfortunately, everyone else pointed out the logic behind the other side...and had the REG to back them up :D Back to the important part of the rule:
After an interrupt ability completes, the suspended abilities that were interrupted attempt to reactivate. They attempt to reactive in the same order they were originally activated.
The first part (italicized) explains that everything is in a suspended state during the process of interruption, until all of the abilities of the interrupts complete. In the example you gave (using Net again because, as you pointed out, Hunger is technically ongoing), the good negate card negated (while interrupting) Net.
Now, JiP comes along and interrupts the negate. The problem comes in the second part (underlined): both Net and the negate are in suspension. Net was not allowed to reactivate from suspension after the negate (as the rules state that if it was prevented [negated in this case] while interrupted, it cannot reactivate). Thus, while the negate is being suspended, it is also being suspended.
Then after JiP resolves completely, all cards suspended (Net and the negate) attempt to activate in the same order as they were originally activated. Unfortunately, they are no longer in play, nor are the characters they were played on. By the very definition of interrupt, they both are removed from the game and never activated in the first place.
Again...the logic is VERY sound, hence why I debated that side for so long and demanded to see a rule. I have the rule now, and I have to follow it, even if it means I was wrong :)
This guy could almost be an elder. :D
-
Hey,
The first part (italicized) explains that everything is in a suspended state during the process of interruption, until all of the abilities of the interrupts complete. In the example you gave , the good negate card negated (while interrupting) Net.
A good negate card like Sign of the Rainbow would only negate net, it doesn't interrupt it. Interrupt is not an inherent subset of negate. So at that point Net is negated (undone) it is not interrupted.
Now, JiP comes along and interrupts the negate. The problem comes in the second part (underlined): both Net and the negate are in suspension. Net was not allowed to reactivate from suspension after the negate (as the rules state that if it was prevented [negated in this case] while interrupted, it cannot reactivate). Thus, while the negate is being suspended, it is also being suspended.
Only abilities that are interrupted are in a suspended state. Net is never interrupted, so Net is not suspended.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Dear Sir,
Why would you do this right when I had given up on my side :-[
Alright, I just read the rules on interrupts and the rules on negates as posted in the REG. Sir is correct in that negates never leave suspended abilities, per the rules, only interrupt does that. My interpretation of the rules has always been that negates have an inherent interrupt in them, but the straight-reading of the rules does not have anything about that. Rather, it says about interrupt abilities:
An interrupt ability temporarily undoes a previously completed ability or set of abilities and suspends them while activating other abilities on the interrupt card before the suspended abilities reactivate.
and negate abilities:
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability.
The clarifications are no more detailed than that in the end. By my reading of this, Sir is indeed correct. Plotting this out, and based SOLELY on the REG rules, not the logic I tried to use:
1. If a negate negates a card, it undoes it.
2. If a negate is interrupted, the 'undoing' is suspended.
3. If the 'undoing is suspended, the ability was never undone, and happened unless the negate reactivates (as it is pending)
4. If the negate cannot activate (as in the JiP scenario), then the card was never undone nor suspended.
5. The original ability occurs (occurred).
Please help me, with explanations from the REG, if this is incorrect. As I have shown, I am able to argue either side, but I will do so within the rules and I think that Sir's points are very valid as well.
-
The problem is that the REG uses the exact same terminology for what Negates and Interrupts actually do. Negates undo something, interrupts temporarily undo something, but they both undo it. There is no evidence in the REG to support what Malay is saying. It's either/or, and we've been playing it this way long enough for there to need to be legitimate reason to change it.
-
Actually, the wording in the REG does not use the same terminology.
A negate ability undoes something. An interrupt undoes something and suspends it to reactivate. They must specifically reactivate for interrupt, where they do not have to with negate.
With an elder in disagreement, and the REG offering nothing up to support that interpretation (that negates are also interrupts), I really think that we need to discuss this.
-
An interrupt ability temporarily undoes
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes
Show me the difference. Both undo an ability.
-
You didn't finish the quotes. Let me:
An interrupt ability temporarily undoes a previously completed ability or set of abilities and suspends them while activating other abilities on the interrupt card before the suspended abilities reactivate.
A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability.
The difference is bolded and underlined.
The fact is that interrupts suspend the abilities that they target after undoing, and the abilities reactivate (if able) once all abilities on the interrupt resolve.
The fact is that negate does not suspend the abilities that they target after undoing.
In actuality, if a negate is undone by an interrupt and never reactivates, whatever it undid was already and always active.
-
Tell me how that difference should make any difference in a negate chain ending with JiP.
-
Tell me how that difference should make any difference in a negate chain ending with JiP.
If negate does not suspend, then when it is interrupted (undone), the card it undid was never undone. It is done, and always has been done.
By the REG and the rules I quoted, interrupting a negate means anything the negate undid happened, and does not need to reactivate because they were already active and not suspended.
If you disagree, please explain in the context of the rules presented, instead of how we've always done it. Especially with an elder on the other side, I think this is a very important conversation.
-
I still don't see how you can make that distinction. Both cards undo, but interrupt just also suspends. If negate does not suspend, then when it is interrupted (undone), the card it undid was never undone, sure, but then that would have to be true of an Interrupt as well. Why is it not?
-
The distinction is that interrupt specifically states what happens to the cards it interrupts, in that they are suspended until all interrupt abilities complete. Then they attempt to reactivate.
Cards that are negated do not have to reactivate when the card negating them is interrupted. They were never undone in the first place, and they are not suspended in the same way waiting for the completion of abilities.
-
How is interrupting undoing and suspension different from interrupting undoing? They're both being suspended, i.e. not happening.
-
How is interrupting undoing and suspension different from interrupting undoing? They're both being suspended, i.e. not happening.
No, you are missing the point. NEGATE does NOT suspend. INTERRUPT does.
There is a difference in the abilities.
By the rules, if you interrupt a negate, nothing the negate undid is suspended, and does not need to reactivate, it is already active. The negate is suspended by the interrupt and must reactivate per the interrupt rules to undo the card it negates again.
-
Hey guys, remember that negate was made as a combination of interrupt and prevent. So Negate interrupts (suspends) an action but then prevents the ability before it can reactivate. :2cents:
-
Hey guys, remember that negate was made as a combination of interrupt and prevent. So Negate interrupts (suspends) an action but then prevents the ability before it can reactivate. :2cents:
Negate is no longer considered a combination of interrupt and prevent. The REG seems to be outdated.
-
Negate can be thought of as like interrupt+prevent, but in reality it's actually more than the sum of those two other abilities (otherwise CBP and CBI would effectively be CBN as well).
-
Hey guys, remember that negate was made as a combination of interrupt and prevent. So Negate interrupts (suspends) an action but then prevents the ability before it can reactivate. :2cents:
You are correct that interrupt and prevent is being treated as negate, but it is NOT the same in reverse. I do not know where you get that 'negate is the same as interrupt and prevent', the REG doesn't have that anywhere in it either.
ALL quotes on the negate special ability:
-- 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.”
Nowhere is there any mention of treating it as an interrupt ability. It is not one, it is a completely separate ability with its own description.
And based on these descriptions of negate and interrupt, interrupting a negate and not allowing it to reactivate results in the negated abilities never being negated, that is they happened. Note the rules also state that you may not negate an ability that has not completed activation. If the ability is undone, and then the negate is undone, then that means that the ability in actuality completed activation.
-
So if I have a CBI ability, it can be stopped after the fact by a Negate? No. Something is wrong here, and I think it runs deeper than we're realizing.
-
Here's what the REG says:
Negate
Negate stops and prevents a targeted special ability or card. The negate ability is played in the Field of Battle. It can undo another card already played unless the card explicitly states it cannot be negated. Negate is the same as ‘interrupt and prevent’ combined. A negate ability interrupts a special ability, and then prevents that special ability for the rest of the battle. (See Cannot be negated).
We have an ability that has been one thing, has always been one thing, but has somehow seemed to morph into something greater than it was ever meant to be. I don't think treating negate as something different than interrupt and prevent is the right way to go about this at all...
-
Hey,
REG 2.0 did not rework the glossary of terms, it was a restructuring of the ability entries. So information in the abilities entries will be more accurate than information in the glossary of terms. The glossary of terms entry for negate has several significant inaccuracies.
Based on the ability entries we can summarize that:
Negate undoes an ability.
Interrupt undoes an ability and sets it to reactivate later.
Prevent stop an ability from activating or reactivating.
The "reactivate later" part of interrupt is eliminated by a prevent that "stops an ability from reactivating" thus, leaving just the "undoes an ability" when the two are combined, which is the same result as what happens with a negate ability.
Interrupt and Prevent leads to the same result as negate, but they are not the same. Namely Negate does not Interrupt.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
So a CBI ability can be Negated? That's wrong.
-
Negate undoes an ability.
Interrupt undoes an ability and sets it to reactivate later.
Prevent stop an ability from activating or reactivating.
The "reactivate later" part of interrupt is eliminated by a prevent that "stops an ability from reactivating" thus, leaving just the "undoes an ability" when the two are combined, which is the same result as what happens with a negate ability.
Interrupt and Prevent leads to the same result as negate, but they are not the same. Namely Negate does not Interrupt.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
If negate is an entirely separate ability, that means I can interrupt a CBN card, right? Or prevent it?
-
No, CBN can't be stopped before or after. Which makes no sense if negate doesn't include interrupt, but there you are. If you are pro-negate you can have your cake and eat it too.
-
You guys are missing what CBP/CBI/CBN actually mean.
CBP means it cannot be stopped by cards played before it.
CBI means it cannot be stopped by cards played after it.
CBN means it cannot be stopped.
CBI does not mean that it is just protected from 'interrupt' abilities, but from any ability that comes after it, from being undone.
In fact, here is the CBI definition on the How to Play from the REG:
Any cannot be interrupted ability inherently cannot be interrupted, which means it can never be targeted by any interrupt or negate ability. An ability targeted by a cannot be interrupted ability cannot be targeted by any interrupt or negate ability.
All cannot be interrupted abilities are ongoing. A cannot be interrupted ability targets the abilities that become uninterruptable.
Notice that it is very specific, and also mentions both as different abilities. They are different, but both cannot affect CBI cards after the fact.
-
Interrupt and negate are as different as A hamburger is from a cheeseburger. Negate just has a little something extra.
-
Interrupt and negate are as different as A hamburger is from a cheeseburger. Negate just has a little something extra.
This is patently untrue by their very rules, definitions, and clarifications. Negate does not suspend the ability of a card, it merely undoes it. Interrupt undoes a card and suspends it.
Cards must reactivate when an interrupt ability is used.
Cards do not have to reactivate if a negate undoing them is negated or interrupted without the opportunity to reactivate (as the negate was suspended).
Again, I ask for an explanation from the actual rules and the REG. As Sir pointed out, the glossary is out-of-date, while the rulebook and definitions themselves are current. By the rules, what I have stated is correct.
-
My question is this, why do we allow CBI abilities to stop negates if negate is separate form Interrupt + Prevent? I understand that this is the way it is, but I would really like to know the elders' reasoning behind this.
-
My question is this, why do we allow CBI abilities to stop negates if negate is separate form Interrupt + Prevent? I understand that this is the way it is, but I would really like to know the elders' reasoning behind this.
Please read again the definition of CBI I posted earlier (I will only re-quote the pertinent part, you can scroll up or go to the REG for full definitions):
Any cannot be interrupted ability inherently cannot be interrupted, which means it can never be targeted by any interrupt or negate ability.
There is no problem, because CBI's definition specifically states that it is not stopped by either of these distinct abilities. It's all there in the REG.
-
Okay, so how am I supposed to explain this to the kids I'm teaching how to play?
Interrupt is an ability that does A. Prevent is an ability that does B. Negate is an ability that does C and B. and even though Negate REALLY sounds like it does A and you can't tell the difference between A and C, it doesn't do A but rather C. What's the difference between A and C? Well A suspends the halted abilities while C doesn't. What effect does this difference have on gameplay as far as you can tell? None whatsoever.
Secondly:
Again, I ask for an explanation from the actual rules and the REG. As Sir pointed out, the glossary is out-of-date, while the rulebook and definitions themselves are current. By the rules, what I have stated is correct.
You say the Rulebook is current? So we should use that rather than the REG? Well, here's the quote from the Rulebook:
Negate: Negate stops and prevents a targeted special ability
or card. The negate ability is played in the Field of Battle. It
can undo another card already played unless the card explicitly
states it cannot be negated. Negate is the same as ‘interrupt
and prevent’ combined. Anegate ability interrupts a
special ability, and then prevents that special ability for the
rest of the battle. (See Cannot be negated).
Now, doesn't that sound familiar...
-
My question is this, why do we allow CBI abilities to stop negates if negate is separate form Interrupt + Prevent? I understand that this is the way it is, but I would really like to know the elders' reasoning behind this.
Please read again the definition of CBI I posted earlier (I will only re-quote the pertinent part, you can scroll up or go to the REG for full definitions):
Any cannot be interrupted ability inherently cannot be interrupted, which means it can never be targeted by any interrupt or negate ability.
There is no problem, because CBI's definition specifically states that it is not stopped by either of these distinct abilities. It's all there in the REG.
If you read my most, I stated that I recognize that they are separate. My question for the Elders is why call it cannot be interrupted if it means 'cannot be interrupted or negated'
And why call CBN Cannot be negated when it means 'cannot be interrupted, prevented, or negated.?'
I know way back in the day we used to distinguish these abilities but then combined them for simplicity of explanation (by saying that negate is a combination of interrupt and prevent). So why did we separate them again, that's my question.
-
If you read my most, I stated that I recognize that they are separate. My question for the Elders is why call it cannot be interrupted if it means 'cannot be interrupted or negated'
Because its not CBI and CBN
Once a CBI is played it can't be Int so the Int and prevent part of a negate won't every be able to "cut in" on the CBI ability.
The problem actually arrives with a CBP ability. Say you play a CBP battle winner and your op plays a negate last enhancement card or (INT and Prevent the last enhancement) card. As of now were playing that all of our CBP abilitys don't work if there negated but if they get a chance to reactivate as of now, they should. This is a problem in the rules that should be addressed or else I can see a lot of people trying to claim there CBP enchantment or character still works if an op plays a FBTN card after there CBP entered battle.
Ex: I play Council of Abigail my opponent responds with Midnight Attack. I then claim CoA will reactivate and still win the battle even after the negate has been played.
-
Because its not CBI and CBN
Once a CBI is played it can't be Int so the Int and prevent part of a negate won't every be able to "cut in" on the CBI ability.
Except Malay is trying to say Negate does not mean interrupt and prevent. If it's a completely distinct ability, than a CBI ability will have no bearing on a negate, only an interrupt. That is an enormous game change that can't be implemented without a major announcement.
-
1. To Praeceps: You missed both Sir's post and my quote where it was pointed out that the glossary of terms is not up to date. You are quoting out-dated material. Everything I have quoted is straight from the rulebook. Please give me an argument from the rules in the REG.
2. To Wings, Jmbeers, and Ploarius: CBP, CBI, and CBN DO NOT MEAN that they just stop P, I, and N.
CBP means that something cannot be stopped by a card that came before it. A card that comes after can stop it, regardless of the type.
CBI means that something cannot be stopped by a card that came after it. A card that came before it can stop it, regardless of the type. You are getting hung up on the "cannot be interrupted", when the REG clearly states that that means it cannot be interrupted or negated. It is right there in the How To Play in the REG, what is the problem?
CBN means that it cannot be stopped by any card, before or after. Does not matter if it is prevent, interrupt, or negate. Just because it says "cannot be negated" doesn't mean that a card can prevent or interrupt it.
The terms CBP, CBI, and CBN do not refer to the abilities they stop. Rather, they clarify when the cards can be stopped (after, before, and never, respectively).
PLEASE read my full posts and all quotes. The quotes from the REG make it very clear that they are distinct abilities, and that CBI does stop negate. It is specified. That is not the debate here.
Interrupt and negate are separate abilities completely. Negate does not mean interrupt and prevent, and no, that is not a change of the rules.
-
1. To Praeceps: You missed both Sir's post and my quote where it was pointed out that the glossary of terms is not up to date. You are quoting out-dated material. Everything I have quoted is straight from the rulebook. Please give me an argument from the rules in the REG.
You said that the REG's glossary is out of date. You said that the rulebook is what I should use as that is current. Where do you think I pulled my definition? The RULEBOOK. And you still haven't told me why negate has suddenly become a seperate ability. It has ALWAYS been Interrupt and Prevent, but now it seamingly means something else?
-
1. To Praeceps: You missed both Sir's post and my quote where it was pointed out that the glossary of terms is not up to date. You are quoting out-dated material. Everything I have quoted is straight from the rulebook. Please give me an argument from the rules in the REG.
You said that the REG's glossary is out of date. You said that the rulebook is what I should use as that is current. Where do you think I pulled my definition? The RULEBOOK. And you still haven't told me why negate has suddenly become a seperate ability. It has ALWAYS been Interrupt and Prevent, but now it seamingly means something else?
Your quote is from the Glossary of Terms, which is out of date. Sir confirmed this for you. Go to the actual rules for Instant Abilities -> Negate, and you will see everything I have quoted. Nowhere in there does it define negate as interrupt and prevent. Rather, it is a separate ability that undoes another ability that has completely activated.
-
Interrupt and negate are separate abilities completely. Negate does not mean interrupt and prevent, and no, that is not a change of the rules.
Wrong, that is a change in rules. A while ago cards that were CBN (as we know it now) said, cannot be interrupted, prevented, or negated. That had the same meaning as Cannot be negated today. To help with word economy Rob and the other Elders decided that negate would mean a combination of interrupt and prevent so that they would only have to print the cannot be negated part on the cards.
There has been a change from that, so that negate doesn't mean interrupt + prevent anymore. However the playerbase has not been notified of this change. What we are taking isssue with are two-fold.
1) Why did the Elders change this? We really can't see a need to implement such a massive rule change.
2) Why hasn't the player-base been notified of this? For years a lot of us have been playing negate as interrupt + prevent, becasue that's what the glossary of terms says.
Essentially, what we are saying Redoubter has nothing to do with you or what you are saying. You're trying to make an argument out of nothing. Our only beef is with the Elders, not with you. That being said, can we get some Elder input here, we would all appreciate it.
-
Hey,
Except Malay is trying to say Negate does not mean interrupt and prevent. If it's a completely distinct ability, than a CBI ability will have no bearing on a negate, only an interrupt. That is an enormous game change that can't be implemented without a major announcement.
You're trying to apply non-Redemption logic to Redemption. It would be nice if we could do that, but it doesn't work that way (and hasn't for a long time). The ability entry for CBI says it stops a negate, so it stops a negate. There's no change to gameplay. The only change is in how you explain to newer players why CBI stops negate. The angel wars insert uses the "it stops cards played after" explanation, that still works.
I used an "interrupt effect" explanation in the early drafts of REG 2.0 that got dropped at some point. The explanation was that "interrupt effects" are abilities that can use special initiative - i.e. interrupt and negate abilities. And CBI stops interrupt effects.
To help with word economy Rob and the other Elders decided that negate would mean a combination of interrupt and prevent so that they would only have to print the cannot be negated part on the cards.
This makes me wonder how long you've been playing the game. The "interrupt + prevent = negate" ruling is REALLY old. It long predates the existence of elders (most of the current elders weren't even playing at the time), it predates word economy being an issue, and it predates this message board (and the message board we used before this one).
The original ruling was that "interrupt + prevent = negate." And was used to argue that the "interrupt and prevent" on ehud's dagger had the same result as "negate" on Foolish Advice. The fact that interrupt and prevent has the same result as negate is as true today as it was in 1999. But because the original ruling used symbols rather than words it was interpreted in some different ways, was poorly expressed over the years, and eventually morphed into "negate means interrupt and prevent."
There has been a change from that, so that negate doesn't mean interrupt + prevent anymore. However the playerbase has not been notified of this change. What we are taking isssue with are two-fold.
1) Why did the Elders change this? We really can't see a need to implement such a massive rule change.
2) Why hasn't the player-base been notified of this? For years a lot of us have been playing negate as interrupt + prevent, becasue that's what the glossary of terms says.
It's not a massive rule change. It doesn't change how any situation in the game is played. It's just a change in how the game is explained. It's in the REG 2.0, so if you read that I hope you would have figured it out. We didn't make a point of explicitly notifying the playerbase, because it has no net change on how the game is played. The "change" was made because the ruling had drifted far enough from it's original intent to be causing problems, so we pulled it back to it's original intent.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
because it has no net change on how the game is played
So you're retracting your assertion that negation and interruption behave differently when they're interrupted or negated?
-
because it has no net change on how the game is played
So you're retracting your assertion that negation and interruption behave differently when they're interrupted or negated?
His entire post was very well worded and I think explained the situation very well. You cherry-picked one portion of one statement out-of-context to try and make it say something else. He said that the ruling was originally that interrupt and prevent equals negate, but not the other way around. However, this got distorted through the boards, and was expressed in the original form in REG 2.0.
I don't see the confusion or the problem, or how his post changed his position on this issue.
-
because it has no net change on how the game is played
So you're retracting your assertion that negation and interruption behave differently when they're interrupted or negated?
His entire post was very well worded and I think explained the situation very well. You cherry-picked one portion of one statement out-of-context to try and make it say something else. He said that the ruling was originally that interrupt and prevent equals negate, but not the other way around. However, this got distorted through the boards, and was expressed in the original form in REG 2.0.
But how can A + B = C, when C =/= A + B? That makes zero sense.
I don't see the confusion or the problem, or how his post changed his position on this issue.
-
But how can A + B = C, when C =/= A + B? That makes zero sense.
A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square (s=r, but r=/=s). Does that make sense?
You're mixing apples and oranges in this case. Interrupt + Prevent = Negate, in effect. This was ruled, as Sir pointed out. HOWEVER: That does not mean that this new ability, Negate, is the same in reverse.
What we're saying is that I+P=N, but N itself is its own ability, and does something different than I+P would indicate. This is represented in how they are explained in the REG, and Sir pointed out all of this nicely as far as the timeline.
-
He's saying there's no change to the game, but if the OP is resolved like he wants it to be, then that is a change.
-
He's saying there's no change to the game, but if the OP is resolved like he wants it to be, then that is a change.
I understand that this would be a change to some people, but obviously not to others. If there were no boards, and people from different areas got together and discussed their rulings, we would have crazy-different rules from each other (see: I am Sam, the Royalty Bomber?).
The point is that no one is able to point to something from the actual rules, just personal experience and thoughts on the matter, or how they thought it was always played. We have to rule based on the rules.
-
The point is that no one is able to point to something from the actual rules, just personal experience and thoughts on the matter, or how they thought it was always played. We have to rule based on the rules.
That's just it, we're saying that the rules used to say that Interrupt and Prevent was the same as Negate but somewhere and somewhen this was changed and no one bothered to make note of this. You say we don't have rules to point out, we say that's because the rules were changed without anyone knowing.
-
The rulebook says negate=interrupt+prevent. I'd say the rulebook is citing the rules. Whether or not it's out of date, it's definitive proof that it at least used to be that way and that doing it this way is a change.
-
This would be valid if the rulebook itself was not error-prone, redacted, and changed as much as it has been in the past six years. I am not debating how it may have once been ruled, or how people thought it is ruled, but I am pointing to the current rules and rulings and saying that this is the way that it is and ask for someone to refute it using the actual, current rules.
-
And we're saying you can't just make a huge change to the rules and not tell anyone about it.
-
And we're saying you can't just make a huge change to the rules and not tell anyone about it.
Sorry, I didn't have anything to do with anything you're referring to now ;)
But, do we agree that by the current rules, this is the situation that would develop from all of this? Because I see no reason against it per the rules and REG.
-
I won't be satisfied until I hear this is actually the planned will of the consensus. It seems much more like something that got slipped into the new REG and is being interpreted very liberally.
Regardless, whether interruption or negation vary in how they're carried out, it's still a moot point because BOTH are being undone by JiP. Whatever their different functions are shouldn't matter when they're being disregarded.
-
Regardless, whether interruption or negation vary in how they're carried out, it's still a moot point because BOTH are being undone by JiP. Whatever their different functions are shouldn't matter when they're being disregarded.
In the case of Hunger, that is correct, as Decrease is technically an Ongoing ability. We have amended the example to Net, which is an instant ability.
JiP will not interrupt Net, as ITB does not interrupt any evil instant abilities (only ongoing, abilities causing loss by removal, and last enhancement played by opponent). Therefore, this is still an issue where the no-longer-negated card will still have effect.
-
No, but JiP will remove it from the game while it's still "on the stack." Conditions aren't checked for and abilities don't re/activate in the middle of other abilities. Just as the Nebuchadnezzar+Iron Pan situation doesn't allow for rechecks in the middle of other things happening, Net never enters a state where it's either not undone (doesn't matter whether it's via negate or interrupt as they both undo per the rules) or removed from the game.
-
No, but JiP will remove it from the game while it's still "on the stack." Conditions aren't checked for and abilities don't re/activate in the middle of other abilities. Just as the Nebuchadnezzar+Iron Pan situation doesn't allow for rechecks in the middle of other things happening, Net never enters a state where it's either not undone (doesn't matter whether it's via negate or interrupt as they both undo per the rules) or removed from the game.
You have missed the entire point of all of my posts lately, because I am pointing out that Net does not need to reactivate. Negate does not leave anything suspended, it undoes it after it has completely activated (see my previous posts for quotes from the REG, or see in the REG itself).
If the undoing is undone, Net is not suspended and does not need to reactivate. Reactivation is exclusive to the definition and play-as of Interrupt. Negate is a different animal.
-
Step 1, block with Astrologers.
Step 2, play Abraham's Servant to Ur.
Step 3, Astrologers is now negated.
You're trying to have it both ways. Either Interrupt is a part of Negate or it isn't.
-
Step 1, block with Astrologers.
Step 2, play Abraham's Servant to Ur.
Step 3, Astrologers is now negated.
You're trying to have it both ways. Either Interrupt is a part of Negate or it isn't.
It is getting very frustrating to have to quote the same thing over and over, but here it is...AGAIN:
Any cannot be interrupted ability inherently cannot be interrupted, which means it can never be targeted by any interrupt or negate ability. An ability targeted by a cannot be interrupted ability cannot be targeted by any interrupt or negate ability.
The REG specifically lists both interrupt and negate as being unable to target a CBI card. This is not a valid argument.
-
The REG is not consistent. Or your interpretation of it is flawed.
-
How many elders have to rule on something before it becomes accepted? Why are we still talking about this? How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? All questions with the same answer. There is none. If something is undone, and then the thing that undid it is undone, it has to redo. 2+2=4
-
I agree. Malay is trying to say otherwise.
-
How many elders have to rule on something before it becomes accepted? Why are we still talking about this?
There was 1 elder on the reactivation side, then 1 elder came in on the other side. So...more than one? Without disagreement? :o
All questions with the same answer. There is none. If something is undone, and then the thing that undid it is undone, it has to redo. 2+2=4
That is nowhere in the rules or explanation of Negate, while it it meticulously described in Interrupt.
They are different abilities with different ends. Negate does not suspend, and in fact says that it can only undo something after completely activated. Interrupt has a specific list of situations that occur after interruption, and suspends abilities, undoing them temporarily.
Please find me a rule that says Negate suspends the target and it must reactivate.
The REG is not consistent. Or your interpretation of it is flawed.
So you disagree, but can't find proof, so I just must be wrong?
-
Please find me a rule that says Negate suspends the target and it must reactivate.
That's not what we're debating here. Negate doesn't suspend it, but when it was already negated it either has to refire or it can't do anything at all. Your choice. Either way it can't happen before JiP completes.
-
That's not what we're debating here. Negate doesn't suspend it, but when it was already negated it either has to refire or it can't do anything at all. Your choice. Either way it can't happen before JiP completes.
What I'm saying is that the negate undid Net after the ability completed. The negate is undone temporarily, and by the rules of Interrupt, must reactivate to negate Net. It cannot, Net already happened and was not stopped.
You're thinking about this backwards: It is the Negate that has to reactivate, not Net, for Net not to happen.
-
Here's the issue that I have. Is if we have our terms separated, why do you use a single term to address both terms?
It makes no sense in Redemption terms or in outside terms. Essentially we have completely inconstant wording in both the Reg/Rulebook, and on the cards. I would really like one of two changes to bring consistency.
1) Allow Interrupt and Prevent to Interrupt or prevent CBN enhancements. And allow Negate to beat Prevent and Interrupt.
2) Combine Interrupt and Prevent to mean Negate again.
I think that this is necessary to regain consistency of terms.
-
It WAS undone, and then the thing that was undoing it was undone but not before both of them are removed from the game as JiP removes them both from the game at the same time.
-
I would really like one of two changes to bring consistency.
1) Allow Interrupt and Prevent to Interrupt or prevent CBN enhancements. And allow Negate to beat Prevent and Interrupt.
2) Combine Interrupt and Prevent to mean Negate again.
I think that this is necessary to regain consistency of terms.
...once again...I have to point to the following:
The definition of CBP means cannot be stopped before, CBI means cannot be stopped after, CBN means cannot be stopped.
There IS no discrepancy. It does not matter what type of ability is used (an ongoing negate is still stopped by CBP, for example). I have quoted all of this from the REG earlier. You can see it there if you have a question.
-
Yes.... there is discrepancy, becasue the terms have been separated. If they have been separated, then they must be different.
Having different terms for something that the rulebook says is the same makes things confusing. Anyway, life will go on if there is no change, but I'm just hoping for a little bit of clarification.
-
Having different terms for something that the rulebook says is the same makes things confusing. Anyway, life will go on if there is no change, but I'm just hoping for a little bit of clarification.
It IS specified. Please read it in the REG or in my numerous quotes.
Here, on CBN, is the definition from the REG:
Any cannot be negated ability inherently cannot be negated, which means it can never be targeted by any interrupt, prevent, or negate ability. An ability targeted by a cannot be negated ability cannot be targeted by any interrupt, prevent, or negate ability.
You are getting hung up on the name of the term, not when they apply. CBP cannot be stopped before, CBI cannot be stopped after, CBN cannot be stopped. It does not matter what type of ability does it, they are specified by the REG. There is no discrepancy.
-
On paper there is no discrepancy but there is a logical one.
Why is it that CBN stops interrupt and prevent along with negate if they all mean different things? I want to hear the logic behind this. From what I see, there isn't a real reason for them to be separated, at least not one that impacts the game. So why can't we change it back to what the glossary already says?
-
The reason that this is the case is that CBP, CBI, and CBN do not mean that they stop those specific abilities. Rather, they are defined as abilities you cannot stop before, after, or ever, respectively.
They are, in fact, defined in respect to all the abilities that cannot stop them. As Sir pointed out earlier, there is a problem with "Cannot be interrupted, prevented, or negated" being put on a card with a lot of special abilities, but the point is that this is how each ability is defined. There is no discrepancy or logic problem.
-
I fully understand the definitions of the terms, but what I want to know is the rationale that caused interrupt + prevent to no longer meant the same as negate. So far, I have not heard that rationale. As I have said to you previously, I take no issue with your or the way the system currently works, I'm ready to accept it if I have to. All I want is to know the reason things were changed.
-
You're going to have to ask somebody else unfortunately if the elder's explanation is insufficient, I don't have anything more, sorry.
Back to the issue at hand, I have yet to see a counter-argument to my position that actually uses the current rules as the base, and would like to make sure we resolve that issue :)
-
I haven't read through this entire thread, but if someone could give me a simple reason why this thread has lasted this long, I'd appreciate it.
Prevent - stops special abilities before they are activated
Interrupt - pauses special abilities after they are activated before allowing them to complete
Negate - stops special abilities before or after they are activated
CBP - can't be stopped by anything played before it
CBI - can't be stopped by anything played after it
CBN - can't be stopped by anything played before it OR after it
That's it. I think it's pretty simple. So where's the hang-up here?
-
the current debate if you play net and capture a card in opponents territory, they negate it, you play joseph in prison, does Net capture.
-
That's not really what we're arguing about.
Per the current rules, some of us see Net>Holy Ground>JiP leaving Net to fizzle, while some say Net reactivates.
-
Sorry Prof, that is not what this thread is about :D (wish it were...) It just...wandered off for a bit.
Basic rundown for those new to the thread:
- Instant ability on EE (Net, let's say) activates.
- Instant ability is negated by a good card.
- Joseph in Prison ITB and removes all.
I contend, and a couple agree (along with 1 elder) that Net happens. It was never actually undone, because the negate was interrupted and suspended. The rules on these abilities make them very different, and negate can only target completely activated abilities. Thus, when it is interrupted, Net was never negated. The negate MUST reactivate, or Net's ability already happened. By the difference in negate vs interrupt, Net was never suspended, it just technically happened before JiP.
Others (along with 1 elder, but hasn't been heard from in a long time) contend that negate has an inherent interrupt, which it does not in the REG or by the other elder's definition. At this point, I am waiting for an explanation from the rules as to why the situation works differently.
-
The negate MUST reactivate, or Net's ability already happened
From our perspective, you're the one seeing it backwards. Net MUST reactivate, or it fizzles. It's no different than playing Reach+AoCP to fizzle an EE. You keep insisting that your position is supported by the rules, but it is no more so than ours. We don't owe you another explanation from the rules, as we see the same rules you are using to make your point and draw the opposite conclusion.
-
- Instant ability on EE (Net, let's say) activates.
- Instant ability is negated by a good card.
- Joseph in Prison ITB and removes all.
OK, I can see why that would go for 8 pages :)
Basically the question is whether the pseudo-completed SA of Net re-activates in the middle of the SA of JiP (between the "interrupt" part and the "remove" part). This does go back to the question of an earlier thread about whether triggers and such can happen in the middle of a another card's SA.
The elders are discussing that on the other side. I imagine that when resolve the other thread, that it will also resolve this one :)
-
The negate MUST reactivate, or Net's ability already happened
From our perspective, you're the one seeing it backwards. Net MUST reactivate, or it fizzles. It's no different than playing Reach+AoCP to fizzle an EE.
It is different. Net is not interrupted by JiP. Therefore, you are arguing that the negate leaves it in a state of suspension it is not in. Nowhere in the rules on Negation does it leave a card suspended, while Interrupt meticulously explains this process.
When a negate is undone, there is no rule that the card must reactivate. It was always active.
When an interrupt completes, there is a rule that the card must reactivate. If it cannot, it fizzles.
These are very different scenarios, and yes, you do owe an explanation from the rules.
**INSTAPOSTED**
Basically the question is whether the pseudo-completed SA of Net re-activates in the middle of the SA of JiP (between the "interrupt" part and the "remove" part). This does go back to the question of an earlier thread about whether triggers and such can happen in the middle of a another card's SA.
I would actually submit that this is a different situation, as Net does not need to reactivate, as I pointed out above. It was always active.
-
When a negate is undone, there is no rule that the card must reactivate. It was always active.
When an interrupt completes, there is a rule that the card must reactivate. If it cannot, it fizzles.
I'm reading the same rules as you, and I disagree with this statement.
Prof U backs up my earlier claim that it's the same as with Neb and Iron Pan and Banquet. Depending on how that ruling goes, so will this. Unfortunately, as of right now neither side is officially correct, which means in about 7 months or so we'll have a definitive answer.
-
Prof U backs up my earlier claim that it's the same as with Neb and Iron Pan and Banquet.
Again, I submit that this is a completely separate matter, as it is the negate that is suspended, meaning Net was never negated. There is no reactivation for Net, but rather for the negate. As such, this is not the same as an artifact checking for Babs.
Unfortunately, as of right now neither side is officially correct, which means in about 7 months or so we'll have a definitive answer.
On this, I agree. Trust me, I do understand your position as well. I did argue both sides in this thread. Frankly, if the official ruling comes down against me, I will be fine as long as it actually makes things consistent and gives us an answer.
-
Prof U backs up my earlier claim that it's the same as with Neb and Iron Pan and Banquet.
Again, I submit that this is a completely separate matter, as it is the negate that is suspended, meaning Net was never negated. There is no reactivation for Net, but rather for the negate. As such, this is not the same as an artifact checking for Babs.
The reason it's the same type of situation as the Bab/IP/Banquet question is because it has to deal with an ability trying to do something while another ability is resolving. Whether or not an ability is undone or not, or forced to reactivate or not, doesn't really seem to matter at all to this question. The key is whether or not Net re-fires (whether or not it's suspended) between when JiP interrupts and when JiP rfgs everything. Your stance is obviously that it does, however Pol and Co. are arguing that that's not supported in the rules. I would tend to agree with Pol in this regard.
-
Having different terms for something that the rulebook says is the same makes things confusing. Anyway, life will go on if there is no change, but I'm just hoping for a little bit of clarification.
It IS specified. Please read it in the REG or in my numerous quotes.
Here, on CBN, is the definition from the REG:
Any cannot be negated ability inherently cannot be negated, which means it can never be targeted by any interrupt, prevent, or negate ability. An ability targeted by a cannot be negated ability cannot be targeted by any interrupt, prevent, or negate ability.
You are getting hung up on the name of the term, not when they apply. CBP cannot be stopped before, CBI cannot be stopped after, CBN cannot be stopped. It does not matter what type of ability does it, they are specified by the REG. There is no discrepancy.
But that's from the glossary of terms and is, thus, outdated. I want real proof from the real rules please. If the definition of Negate in the Rulebook is outdated than surely the definition of CBN must be deemed to be so as well. you can not have it both ways.
-
But that's from the glossary of terms and is, thus, outdated. I want real proof from the real rules please. If the definition of Negate in the Rulebook is outdated than surely the definition of CBN must be deemed to be so as well. you can not have it both ways.
Actually, everything I quoted is from the rulebook :) None of it was from the glossary. You can go look at it for yourself. So yes, I have provided you with real proof from the real rules. For realsies.
The reason it's the same type of situation as the Bab/IP/Banquet question is because it has to deal with an ability trying to do something while another ability is resolving. Whether or not an ability is undone or not, or forced to reactivate or not, doesn't really seem to matter at all to this question. The key is whether or not Net re-fires (whether or not it's suspended) between when JiP interrupts and when JiP rfgs everything. Your stance is obviously that it does, however Pol and Co. are arguing that that's not supported in the rules. I would tend to agree with Pol in this regard.
I understand this argument, but submit that it is flawed because there is no refiring of Net. It fired, and that's it. Nothing suspended it or undid it. The negate is what must reactivate in order to stop it. The onus is on the negate to reactivate, not Net. That is my point.
As long as that is understood and taken into the elder discussion, I'm fine with the result :) I just want a ruling.
Again...NOT trying to keep on arguing this. Just clarifying my position in a nice, neat package for their side of the forums. I understand the other side (I did argue that, too, after all).
-
**RESURRECTION**
In light of this post (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-official-rules/official-new-rulings-announcement-thread/msg477552/#msg477552) regarding the ruling of when abilities check, I refer back to this post by Prof U:
- Instant ability on EE (Net, let's say) activates.
- Instant ability is negated by a good card.
- Joseph in Prison ITB and removes all.
OK, I can see why that would go for 8 pages :)
Basically the question is whether the pseudo-completed SA of Net re-activates in the middle of the SA of JiP (between the "interrupt" part and the "remove" part). This does go back to the question of an earlier thread about whether triggers and such can happen in the middle of a another card's SA.
The elders are discussing that on the other side. I imagine that when resolve the other thread, that it will also resolve this one :)
I still disagree that this is the same scenario as Iron Pan vs Banquet, but does this new ruling somehow answer the questions posed here (where one elder was on each side) about what happens when an interrupt interrupts a negate of an instant ability?
I have stated my side of it as concisely as I can in this thread, and this should not reopen the debate as we hit that 'wall' where no one will budge and need the elders' ruling. So please let me know if this thread is now resolved, and how :)
-
Again, I submit that this is a completely separate matter, as it is the negate that is suspended, meaning Net was never negated. There is no reactivation for Net, but rather for the negate. As such, this is not the same as an artifact checking for Babs.
I know this was posted over a month ago, but I see a problem with the bolded part above. (Full disclosure, I'm in the "Net should not happen" camp.)
I RA with Claudia/ET and play Reach of Desperation.
My opponent blocks with KoT and negates everything.
My opponent then uses Magic Charms and captures ET in territory.
My inish, I play Job's Faith and negate KoT.
At this point, the negate that negated Claudia's band/Reach's draw has been negated, so by your definition they were "never negated". If that's true, then Reach of Desperation activates, even though ET is now sitting in my opponent's LoB. And that is just silly.
Clearly abilities happening between negates can cause the logic above to just break down. How can you say that, by definition, something was never negated when at one point it was? That logic leads to things like Net activating when the card that allowed it to activate also removed Net (and the character Net was played on!) from the game. I'm sorry, I could never support something like that.
-
I was trying to get the elders to respond, not reopen this debate. It has been beaten to death.
Your example is completely different and it is flawed comparing the two scenarios. Negate does not suspend abilities, nor do they have to "reactivate". Read the rules on Negate, heaven knows they've been posted in this thread enough. Nowhere in them does it say that the abilities are suspended or have to reactivate, only that they are "undone". If the "undoing" is "undone" then obviously the ability occurred.
And supporting or not supporting something has nothing to do with our opinion on it, but rather the interpretation of the rules. That's why I'm trying to see if The Elders have ruled on this.
Please, for the love of all that is holy, let the elders respond. We've hashed this out enough, and I don't want the summaries of the arguments for each side buried.
-
- Instant ability on EE (Net, let's say) activates.
- Instant ability is negated by a good card.
- Joseph in Prison ITB and removes all.
Ok, so the final ruling on this is that Net would NOT reactivate in the middle of the SA of Joseph in Prison.
I think that means that in the scenario above, the capture would NOT happen.
-
- Instant ability on EE (Net, let's say) activates.
- Instant ability is negated by a good card.
- Joseph in Prison ITB and removes all.
Ok, so the final ruling on this is that Net would NOT reactivate in the middle of the SA of Joseph in Prison. Therefore in the scenario above, the capture would NOT happen.
Ok, so the ruling includes that if something is Negated, if the Negate is undone, then the ability that was originally Negated does have to reactivate?
I ask because this is different than what is in the REG (only Interrupt suspends and requires reactivation).
If that's the way that it is, can that be reflected in the REG updates as well?
Thanks for responding, btw :)
EDIT: Just to be clear, I understand how the ruling would affect this when I think about it, but I just want to make sure that the discrepancy I pointed out regarding Negate and Interrupt is resolved.
-
I think the wording in the REG is ridiculous and overcomplicated anyway.
-
Ok, so the final ruling on this is that Net would NOT reactivate in the middle of the SA of Joseph in Prison. Therefore in the scenario above, the capture would NOT happen.
For clarities sake, Sirnobody's argument said that Net would NOT reactivate but that the capture WOULD still happen. The idea is that it doesn't need to reactivate because the original activation is valid.
FTR, I'm fine with however this is ruled. I just feel that there hasn't been full understanding of the positions involved. If it is ruled the way that Underwood is stating then I agree with Redoubter that there should be some change of wording to clarify this, in one of those "eventually this will be added to the Reg" ruling threads.
-
Obligatory *cough cough Redemption needs a stack/chain/etc cough cough*.
-
For clarities sake, Sirnobody's argument said that Net would NOT reactivate but that the capture WOULD still happen. The idea is that it doesn't need to reactivate because the original activation is valid.
See, that's what I've been arguing, but the ruling has come down unless a different elder has something to add. I understand the reactivation not being able to happen, but I would like clarification that Negate does require reactivation, which is not currently the case per the rules or the REG.
And Pol, I agree. But unless it is worded correctly, we'll have these problems.