Serpent thread continued and the possible discontinuity

[SEB]

I made a new thread as the last thread really had two points of discussion.

My question is: doesnt there seem to be some discontinuity for how the ongoing effect of the Serpent's ability is being ruled? If you are saying that a non-territory class card (the serpent) sitting in the territory can be prevented thus "freezing" the "Restrict" ability until it is not prevented, and if the Serpent should cease to be in play it cannot be prevent because it cannot be targeted, it seems that you are being inconsistent. The issue with this is that other ongoing abilities that are tied to a card cease when the card is removed from play, so if an ongoing ability can be prevented/negated then it is also "Stopable" when you remove the source-card.

It seems to make more sense that the Serpent's ability is a triggered ability that produced an ongoing effect and not the game state of the card itself. I guess the difference is when killing a weed, you kill the root - so, which is the root of the ability for The Serpent? The card or the triggered ability? Because the card is not territory-class, it would be the trigger. This explanation seems to be more in line with ongoing triggered affects.

Basically, all that to say, I am really confused how a card can be prevent, but persist through discard. Is there another example where a card that has an ongoing affect persist when removed from play?

Thanks for clarification.

[Kevinthedude]

The issue with this is that other ongoing abilities that are tied to a card cease when the card is removed from play

The only ability type that works that way is territory class abilities, and more specifically it's when they are removed from territory. The default behavior is that abilities last until the end of the phase regardless of what happens to card that it came from. Cards that specify a duration for the ability like Serpent does don't terminate on phase end.

[SEB]

The issue with this is that other ongoing abilities that are tied to a card cease when the card is removed from play

The only ability type that works that way is territory class abilities, and more specifically it's when they are removed from territory. The default behavior is that abilities last until the end of the phase regardless of what happens to card that it came from. Cards that specify a duration for the ability like Serpent does don't terminate on phase end.

In an effort of clear communication: are you agreeing to the point that because The Serpent's ability triggers in the battlefield and that triggering determines the duration of the ongoing ability, regardless of where The Serpent is after that?

[Kevinthedude]

The issue with this is that other ongoing abilities that are tied to a card cease when the card is removed from play

The only ability type that works that way is territory class abilities, and more specifically it's when they are removed from territory. The default behavior is that abilities last until the end of the phase regardless of what happens to card that it came from. Cards that specify a duration for the ability like Serpent does don't terminate on phase end.

In an effort of clear communication: are you agreeing to the point that because The Serpent's ability triggers in the battlefield and that triggering determines the duration of the ongoing ability, regardless of where The Serpent is after that?

I think so? I'm saying that once the ability is activated the ability will persist until the duration has ended regardless of the location(s) Serpent ends up in during that time. However, also regardless of the location Serpent is in, if Serpent gets targeted with a negate the ability ends.

[SEB]

I guess this is where we differ. Serpent's ongoing affect happened in battle. The ability was contingent upon using it in battle, and has nothing to do with it in the territory. Negating it after should be null because while it is sitting in the territory it's not doing anything - the serpent is not active in the territoy, thus you are negating no ability.

My point is, if you can negate the serpent in a territory, you could also stop the "restrict" by removing the card from territory because you are treating as if it were a territory-class character.

[Kevinthedude]

I guess this is where we differ. Serpent's ongoing affect happened in battle. The ability was contingent upon using it in battle, and has nothing to do with it in the territory. Negating it after should be null because while it is sitting in the territory it's not doing anything - the serpent is not active in the territoy, thus you are negating no ability.

My point is, if you can negate the serpent in a territory, you could also stop the "restrict" by removing the card from territory because you are treating as if it were a territory-class character.

You're not "treating it like a TC character". You can't think of card game rules that way. We "treat" ignore like protect in many ways but regardless of protection doesn't get through the pseudo protection offered by ignore. Specified duration abilities are not territory class abilities and don't have the same interactions.

[SEB]

Ok symantics aside. the issue is you are saying that the "card" The Seperent can be negated, so then, if it ceases to be in play the ability will also cease.

This is the discontinuity I am talking about. That ruling is in direct contradiction.

[Kevinthedude]

the "card" The Seperent can be negated, so then, if it ceases to be in play the ability will also cease.

Can you elaborate on that "so then"? I'm not sure how you are inferring the latter statement from the former. The Serpent's location has no bearing on the duration of it's ability.

[SEB]

(I want to first say that I am in no way trying to be hostile on this thread. I have a lot of "Type-A" people around me, and that sometimes rubs off as I discuss topics, which may be interpreted as hostile - apologies. Please enjoy this discussion, as I am.)

I agree that the Location of the card, "The Serpent." should have no barring on the ongoing ability that it set in motion (activated) at some point in the past (be it the phase before or "N" turns back).

What it seems like is being said is that because the card "The Serpent" can be negated in a territory when it's ability is not active, and thus negating an activated ability from the past, some sense of territory presence is required (otherwise, how can a non-activated ability be negated). To which end, ("so then") in order for the law of noncontradiction to be present in the ruling, the card should either be: 1) Negate-able in the territory AND also cease to be ongoing if the source is removed; or 2) cannot be negated in territory and continue if the source is removed.

I say this because, in logic, the Law of Contradiction states, "contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive"

In the example that I think is discontinuous (The ruling on The Serpent): It has been said that The ongoing ability of "The Serpent" can be negated in the territory, which means the ongoing affect of the card is tied to the Serpent ({A]Ongoing ability is [B}contingent on the card), but if the card leaves play the ability is still ongoing ({A] Ongoing Ability is [B} NOT contingent on the card) - this is the issue I am having a hard time resolving.

Can activated abilities be retroactively negated?

[Kevinthedude]

which means the ongoing affect of the card is tied to the Serpent

It might help to think about the connection between the card and the ability differently. Imagine abilities are separate, invisible entities that are created by cards. When the Serpent activates, it creates an invisible entity that restricts you from playing dominants. This invisible entity is not attached to the Serpent at all. It transcends location. Now imagine that when you target a card with a negate, the game goes and finds all entities created by that card and destroys them. The reason you can affect the restrict by targeting Serpent is because the ability originated from the Serpent, not because it is attached to it in any way.

As for this discussion in general, I don't notice any hostility from your posts. Even if I did, I wouldn't really mind. The beauty of an online forum is you can enter and exit any conversation at will so if I was no longer enjoying this thread I would simply stop replying

[SEB]

which means the ongoing affect of the card is tied to the Serpent

It might help to think about the connection between the card and the ability differently. Imagine abilities are separate, invisible entities that are created by cards. When the Serpent activates, it creates an invisible entity that restricts you from playing dominants. This invisible entity is not attached to the Serpent at all. It transcends location. Now imagine that when you target a card with a negate, the game goes and finds all entities created by that card and destroys them. The reason you can affect the restrict by targeting Serpent is because the ability originated from the Serpent, not because it is attached to it in any way.

As for this discussion in general, I don't notice any hostility from your posts. Even if I did, I wouldn't really mind. The beauty of an online forum is you can enter and exit any conversation at will so if I was no longer enjoying this thread I would simply stop replying

(Concerning my tone, it was an effort to help people get to know me, I was taking precaution to not seem argumentative for no reason)

Interestingly enough, That is exactly how I view the ability (invisible). The issue is the serpent created an activated "invisible" entity. Most cards that do this are just Instant in nature. The Serpent adds an ongoing effect (could be argued a modifier given the word "while": "A modifier is part of a special ability that modifies abilities or effects. Modifiers are not themselves abilities, but alter the behavior of abilities or effects. "). Simply put, The Serpent is sitting in territory not doing anything - it's ability is not active; it was active but now it's not. Negating a card in a territory that has an activated ability only stops it from being able to activate. You have to engage in the "invisible" entity and not The Serpent.

[Kevinthedude]

Negating a card in a territory that has an activated ability only stops it from being able to activate.

No that's what prevent does. Negate does indeed do that but it also attempts to undo everything that card has done.

You have to engage in the "invisible" entity and not The Serpent.

Negating a card attempts to destroy all ability entities created by that card, both ongoing and instant. If somehow a card existed that read "negate a card in opponent's deck" and Serpent had gotten shuffled, you could go through their deck, negate Serpent, and the restrict would be negated. If the negate can find the Serpent it can find the entity responsible for the restrict.

[SEB]

So, the entity that the serpent created is "linked" to it which mean you can negate it?

[SEB]

So, the entity that the serpent created is "linked" to it which mean you can negate it?

So, if you Negate The Serpent why is the "paralyze" portion not negated?

[SEB]

Negating a card in a territory that has an activated ability only stops it from being able to activate.

No that's what prevent does. Negate does indeed do that but it also attempts to undo everything that card has done.

You have to engage in the "invisible" entity and not The Serpent.

Negating a card attempts to destroy all ability entities created by that card, both ongoing and instant. If somehow a card existed that read "negate a card in opponent's deck" and Serpent had gotten shuffled, you could go through their deck, negate Serpent, and the restrict would be negated. If the negate can find the Serpent it can find the entity responsible for the restrict.

I dont understand how you can retroactively negate an activated ability.

[Kevinthedude]

So, the entity that the serpent created is "linked" to it which mean you can negate it?

Yep. Pretend every negate ability is written as "negate all abilities created by [target]". The restrict is an ability created by the Serpent so if they Serpent is targeted the ability is negated.

So, if you Negate The Serpent why is the "paralyze" portion not negated?

The paralyze is an instant ability that completed in a previous phase so it cannot be negated.

I dont understand how you can retroactively negate an activated ability.

Because that's exactly what negate does? If your confusion is because you believe you can't undo something that activated in a previous phase. The actual rule is that you cannot undo something that completed in a previous phase. Ongoing abilities aren't considered completed until their duration has ended.

[SEB]

Ok. Can you please explain how the ongoing affect created by The Serpent will continue if The Serpent leaves play.

[sepjazzwarrior]

because it wasn't negated.

[SEB]

because it wasn't negated.

sigh. this is why I am confused.


If a card that has an ongoing ability leaves play, doesnt the ability stop?

[Kevinthedude]

If a card that has an ongoing ability leaves play, doesnt the ability stop?

Nope.

[Jeremystair]

Then shouldn't you be able to negate it even if the card is not in play because the ability stuck around?

[The Guardian]

Then shouldn't you be able to negate it even if the card is not in play because the ability stuck around?

In order to negate the ability on a card, that card must be in a location where it can be targeted by your negate.

[SEB]

If a card that has an ongoing ability leaves play, doesnt the ability stop?

Nope.

well, if that is true, this discussion makes logical sense.

[The Guardian]

If a card that has an ongoing ability leaves play, doesnt the ability stop?

Nope.

Correct, with the one exception being if a TC character (with an on-going ability) leaves play from territory then the ability stops.

[SEB]

If a card that has an ongoing ability leaves play, doesnt the ability stop?

Nope.

Correct, with the one exception being if a TC character (with an on-going ability) leaves play from territory then the ability stops.

ok, this all makes sense now. thank guys for helping clarify this