Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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?

oh hi page 3, this ruling thread seems to be particularly controversial

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:

Quote

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.

Quote from: SirNobody on March 08, 2012, 04:09:20 PM

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

  This guy's good

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

Quote from: SirNobody on March 09, 2012, 06:25:53 PM

Hey,

Quote from: Redoubter on March 08, 2012, 07:52:53 PM

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   Back to the important part of the rule:

Quote

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.

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.

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.

You didn't finish the quotes.  Let me:

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

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.

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.

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.