Author Topic: Regarding interrupting negation (Re-Opened: Elders, is this now ruled?) (Read 21914 times)

Redoubter · « **Reply #175 on:** March 18, 2012, 10:55:29 PM »

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 18, 2012, 10:50:55 PM

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:

Quote

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.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #176 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:01:38 PM »

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?

Redoubter · « **Reply #177 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:06:37 PM »

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.

Wings of Music · « **Reply #178 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:13:35 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #179 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:16:16 PM »

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

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #180 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:23:55 PM »

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?

lp670sv · « **Reply #181 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:27:54 PM »

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #182 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:28:41 PM »

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #183 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:30:04 PM »

Sorry Prof, that is not what this thread is about

(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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #184 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:34:39 PM »

Quote

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #185 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:37:53 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 11:30:04 PM

- 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

Redoubter · « **Reply #186 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:40:20 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 11:34:39 PM

Quote
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**

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 18, 2012, 11:37:53 PM

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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #187 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:42:28 PM »

Quote

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #188 on:** March 18, 2012, 11:48:40 PM »

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 11:42:28 PM

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.

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 11:42:28 PM

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.

browarod · « **Reply #189 on:** March 19, 2012, 09:38:26 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 11:48:40 PM

Quote from: Minister Polarius on March 18, 2012, 11:42:28 PM
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.

Praeceps · « **Reply #190 on:** March 19, 2012, 01:53:34 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 10:55:29 PM

Quote from: Wings of Music on March 18, 2012, 10:50:55 PM
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:
Quote
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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #191 on:** March 19, 2012, 06:42:13 PM »

Quote from: Praeceps on March 19, 2012, 01:53:34 PM

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.

Quote from: browarod on March 19, 2012, 09:38:26 AM

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).

Redoubter · « **Reply #192 on:** April 23, 2012, 06:49:35 PM »

**RESURRECTION**

In light of this post regarding the ruling of when abilities check, I refer back to this post by Prof U:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 18, 2012, 11:37:53 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 11:30:04 PM
- 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

Josh · « **Reply #193 on:** April 25, 2012, 12:49:07 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 11:48:40 PM

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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #194 on:** April 25, 2012, 01:03:31 PM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #195 on:** April 25, 2012, 05:38:46 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 11:30:04 PM

- 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.

Redoubter · « **Reply #196 on:** April 25, 2012, 05:40:23 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 25, 2012, 05:38:46 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on March 18, 2012, 11:30:04 PM
- 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.

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #197 on:** April 25, 2012, 11:46:30 PM »

I think the wording in the REG is ridiculous and overcomplicated anyway.

galadgawyn · « **Reply #198 on:** April 26, 2012, 02:58:22 AM »

Quote

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.

Master KChief · « **Reply #199 on:** April 26, 2012, 04:52:05 AM »

Obligatory *cough cough Redemption needs a stack/chain/etc cough cough*.

News:

Author Topic: Regarding interrupting negation (Re-Opened: Elders, is this now ruled?) (Read 21914 times)

browarod