Author Topic: Regarding interrupting negation (Re-Opened: Elders, is this now ruled?) (Read 21917 times)

Praeceps · « **Reply #150 on:** March 18, 2012, 03:06:08 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 02:59:00 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 02:12:33 PM
Quote
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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #151 on:** March 18, 2012, 03:09:41 PM »

Quote

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #152 on:** March 18, 2012, 03:13:28 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #153 on:** March 18, 2012, 03:19:56 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 03:13:28 PM

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.

Praeceps · « **Reply #154 on:** March 18, 2012, 03:27:04 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 03:19:56 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #155 on:** March 18, 2012, 03:30:34 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #156 on:** March 18, 2012, 04:27:00 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #157 on:** March 18, 2012, 04:56:32 PM »

And we're saying you can't just make a huge change to the rules and not tell anyone about it.

Redoubter · « **Reply #158 on:** March 18, 2012, 06:51:00 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 04:56:32 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #159 on:** March 18, 2012, 08:04:49 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #160 on:** March 18, 2012, 09:07:22 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 08:04:49 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #161 on:** March 18, 2012, 09:18:10 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #162 on:** March 18, 2012, 09:37:47 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 09:18:10 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #163 on:** March 18, 2012, 09:42:08 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #164 on:** March 18, 2012, 09:55:45 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 09:42:08 PM

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:

Quote

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #165 on:** March 18, 2012, 09:59:28 PM »

The REG is not consistent. Or your interpretation of it is flawed.

lp670sv · « **Reply #166 on:** March 18, 2012, 09:59:56 PM »

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

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #167 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:11:05 PM »

I agree. Malay is trying to say otherwise.

Redoubter · « **Reply #168 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:11:50 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 18, 2012, 09:59:56 PM

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?

Quote from: lp670sv on March 18, 2012, 09:59:56 PM

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.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 09:59:28 PM

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?

lp670sv · « **Reply #169 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:16:32 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 10:11:50 PM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #170 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:19:21 PM »

Quote from: lp670sv on March 18, 2012, 10:16:32 PM

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.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #171 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:22:06 PM »

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.

lp670sv · « **Reply #172 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:23:08 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #173 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:25:13 PM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 18, 2012, 10:22:06 PM

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.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #174 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:50:55 PM »

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.

News:

Author Topic: Regarding interrupting negation (Re-Opened: Elders, is this now ruled?) (Read 21917 times)