Author Topic: Regarding interrupting negation (Re-Opened: Elders, is this now ruled?) (Read 21860 times)

browarod · « **Reply #75 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:25:06 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 25, 2012, 02:05:16 PM

Quote from: browarod on February 25, 2012, 02:03:48 PM
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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #76 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:30:28 PM »

Quote from: browarod on February 25, 2012, 02:25:06 PM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #77 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:34:05 PM »

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).

Redoubter · « **Reply #78 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:37:23 PM »

Quote from: browarod on February 25, 2012, 02:34:05 PM

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #79 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:43:23 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #80 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:47:18 PM »

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #81 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:50:23 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 25, 2012, 02:37:23 PM

Quote from: browarod on February 25, 2012, 02:34:05 PM
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.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 25, 2012, 12:03:52 PM

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.

Quote from: lp670sv on February 25, 2012, 02:43:23 PM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #82 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:53:22 PM »

Quote from: browarod on February 25, 2012, 02:47:18 PM

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.

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 02:50:23 PM

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #83 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:57:38 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #84 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:59:55 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 02:57:38 PM

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?

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #85 on:** February 25, 2012, 03:02:40 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on February 25, 2012, 02:59:55 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 02:57:38 PM
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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #86 on:** February 25, 2012, 03:06:06 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 03:02:40 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on February 25, 2012, 02:59:55 PM
Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 02:57:38 PM
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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #87 on:** February 25, 2012, 03:17:06 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #88 on:** February 25, 2012, 03:24:37 PM »

Chronic put it better than I could.

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 03:17:06 PM

so you're just going to have to take the word of Pol, an Elder, and I.

And me....

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #89 on:** February 25, 2012, 03:25:43 PM »

Quote from: browarod on February 25, 2012, 03:24:37 PM

Chronic put it better than I could.

It was all the italics. Really makes all the difference.

Quote

And me....

Haha, sorry, you too. If it makes you feel any better, I couldn't remember which Elder it was either.

Redoubter · « **Reply #90 on:** February 25, 2012, 03:27:47 PM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 25, 2012, 03:17:06 PM

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.

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #91 on:** February 25, 2012, 04:39:46 PM »

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.

Quote

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #92 on:** February 25, 2012, 04:52:23 PM »

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

galadgawyn · « **Reply #93 on:** February 26, 2012, 01:35:57 AM »

Quote

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)

Chronic Apathy · « **Reply #94 on:** February 26, 2012, 10:39:44 AM »

Quote from: galadgawyn on February 26, 2012, 01:35:57 AM

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #95 on:** February 26, 2012, 11:14:16 AM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #96 on:** February 26, 2012, 11:46:39 AM »

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 26, 2012, 10:39:44 AM

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:

Quote

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

), 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

Praeceps · « **Reply #97 on:** February 26, 2012, 02:15:24 PM »

Quote from: Korunks on February 24, 2012, 06:06:55 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on February 24, 2012, 05:16:58 PM
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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #98 on:** February 26, 2012, 04:08:19 PM »

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.

browarod · « **Reply #99 on:** February 26, 2012, 05:33:27 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on February 26, 2012, 02:15:24 PM

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.

News:

Author Topic: Regarding interrupting negation (Re-Opened: Elders, is this now ruled?) (Read 21860 times)

browarod

browarod

browarod

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

browarod

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

Chronic Apathy

browarod