Author Topic: Starter Deck game question  (Read 2506 times)

Offline DDiceRC

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Redemption New Jersey
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Starter Deck game question
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:13:21 PM »
0
Maybe this is dealt with in the REG or something, but I missed it.

Naomi, White 4/5, May band to a Ruth Hero.

Ruth, White 4/3, Negate Evil Characters

Selfish Kinsman, Brown 5/7, Negate Enhancements

Achan's Sin, Brown 1/1, Negate the last good card played this battle. Discard all cards in battle.

J deck RA, Naomi banded to Ruth 8/7 total. Block with Selfish Kinsman, 5/7. SK is negated and losing. Play Achan's Sin, which is not negated by SK. AS negates Ruth as the last good card played this battle. Since Ruth is negated, SK's ability activates, which negates AS. Sin AS is negated, Ruth is no longer negated, so SK's ability is negated again. This reactivates AS...

I see two possible solutions:

1) Although AS's ability is split into two sentences, both parts activate and Ruth (as well as everything else) is discarded before reactivating.

2) During the switching on/off of Ruth and SK, AS ability is considered permanently negated.

Neither one of these is satisfactory. What am I missing? (I suspect it's something really obvious and simple, but it's late and I'm tired.)
Redemption Curmudgeon
"If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God..." (2 Cor. 5:13a)

Offline DrowningFish

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Just a Noob Making lots of mistakes.
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2014, 10:24:08 PM »
0
Selfish kinsmans ability can't activate midway through the battle.? Right?
Praeceps keeps capturing my Peter.

Offline DDiceRC

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Redemption New Jersey
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2014, 10:36:20 PM »
0
That might work, but that would mean any negated ability on a character wouldn't reactivate if the negation was negated.
Redemption Curmudgeon
"If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God..." (2 Cor. 5:13a)

Offline yirgogo

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
  • Better than Marvel ↑
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2014, 10:56:23 PM »
0
The interrupt the battle also interrupts the special ability of selfish kinsmen, and than before it's chain of abilities are done, Selfish Kinsmen are discarded and out of play.
"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2014, 11:20:54 PM »
0
There are two things at play here that may help with your infinite problem.

First, cards cannot indirectly negate themselves.  Your example gives a perfect reason for this rule.  For confirmation of this, look at the ruling of ending a banding chain with a FBTN character who negates the band, with the FBTN still active.  Normally, the cascade negate would negate the FBTN character as well, but then the band still happens, and you get circular events.

Second, no, characters cannot active later in battle if they were prevented.  This would be my ruling, BUT: There has been a lot of debate on this, and in fact I do not know that there was ever a consensus.  It is one of the open questions I am tracking, because you will find conflicting answers.

Offline Praeceps

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2014, 12:02:52 AM »
0
I think the ruling now would be that Kinsman's Ability doesn't get to activate once Ruth is negated, so he never negates AS. Not that he could do to Redoubter's first point.
Just one more thing...

Offline Josh

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2014, 07:51:38 AM »
0
There are two things, both from Redoubter's post, that answer this question.

First, cards cannot indirectly negate themselves.

Second, characters cannot activate later in battle if they were prevented.

The first means that Achan's Sin cannot be negated by indirectly causing Selfish Kinsmen's ability to activate.  The second is actually incorrect for ongoing abilities; since they are ongoing, they are always trying to activate, even if they are prevented. 

Here is the chain of events:
1.  Achan's Sin activates, negating Ruth and discarding all characters in battle.
2.  Selfish Kinsmen is no longer negated, and since he has an ongoing ability, it is now active.
3.  Achan's Sin cannot indirectly negate itself, so all cards in battle are discarded, despite Selfish Kinsmen now being active.
If creation sings Your praises so will I
If You gave Your life to love them so will I

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2014, 04:01:30 PM »
0
The second is actually incorrect for ongoing abilities; since they are ongoing, they are always trying to activate, even if they are prevented. 

That is not true for characters, at least consistent rulings previously showed that to be true.  We need better definition, but (until recently when I heard dissent) it has always been that characters have one chance to activate.  They are a special case, due to the way their abilities activate.

My ruling is that SK is still prevented.  Elders need to define this, regardless, but I'm not sure that will happen anytime soon.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2014, 04:29:56 PM »
-1
The debate about character abilities doesn't really apply in this situation as the same thing happens either way, let's not confuse things with arguing it here. :P

I agree with those that said Achan's Sin still completes and discards all cards in battle.

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2014, 04:31:40 PM »
0
We get to the same end-point, but it is very important to know whether the good side has negated enhancements.  That is a huge component to determine, especially in the no-CBN starters.

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2014, 04:53:39 PM »
-1
True, but the original question only dealt with Kinsmen, Ruth, and Achan's Sin, not with the ability for the rescuer to play anything else. ;)

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2014, 05:00:45 PM »
0
True, but the original question only dealt with Kinsmen, Ruth, and Achan's Sin, not with the ability for the rescuer to play anything else. ;)

There are still two very different results.

My answer addresses the fact that you do have two different end points based on where you fall on this point.  The original question dealt with all of these cards put together, and the end result (that is, whether enhancements are negated) is important and pertinent to the conversation.  Considering this question also dealt with the gameplay of the starter deck cards together, it is even more important to give a detailed answer and not 'just answer what is SPECIFICALLY asked' in this case.

There is no reason to gloss over that point, and I'm not sure why you want to argue it's not important  ???  We need defined answers to this question from the Elders if there is still debate, but my ruling would be that Kinsmen's ability is not active at the end of the scenario described.

Offline Praeceps

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • *****
  • Posts: 888
    • LFG
    • East Central Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2014, 05:25:18 PM »
0
I don't think he's saying that the issue isn't important, but rather it's not important to this specific discussion/topic. If I understand browarod correctly, he's just trying to keep on topic rather than starting a secondary discussion on something that can't be resolved until the elders speak up, anyway.
Just one more thing...

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2014, 05:26:34 PM »
0
And as I said, if you ask about how these cards all combine, then it is relevant, especially if you want to know the result of all of this in a starter deck game.  I'm really not sure why people are posting to argue it is not important, since you are actually taking this off topic.

The end result is relevant, but telling me it isn't is not relevant :P

Offline Josh

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2014, 06:02:43 PM »
0
It's relevant if the owner of Naomi/Ruth wants to play Family Bond to negate Achan's Sin.  Otherwise, as browarod pointed out, it is true; both outcomes are the same (Achan's Sin happens).
If creation sings Your praises so will I
If You gave Your life to love them so will I

Offline DDiceRC

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Redemption New Jersey
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2014, 06:24:44 PM »
0
Actually, while I want to know how the specific case works out, I'd really like to know the undergirding principle that makes it happen. If that means waiting for an elder, so be it.

(BTW, I resolved the problem by not rescuing with SK, but using Lahmi instead.  :o )
Redemption Curmudgeon
"If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God..." (2 Cor. 5:13a)

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2014, 08:39:38 PM »
-1
Actually, while I want to know how the specific case works out, I'd really like to know the undergirding principle that makes it happen.
In the specific situation you mentioned, Achan's Sin remains un-negated because cards cannot indirectly negate themselves. The Kinsmen issue only matters if the rescuer has a negate they want to play, and as has been mentioned the issue isn't clear either way but the precedent is that characters do not activate if they were prevented when entering battle so Kinsmen would remain fizzled and the rescuer could play a negate to full effect.

Offline DDiceRC

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • *****
  • Posts: 678
  • Redemption New Jersey
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2014, 08:03:06 AM »
+1
So I take these two principles from this discussion:

1) A card cannot negate itself, even indirectly. (Slightly broader statement than the discussion, but I try to keep them as generally applicable as possible.)

2) A card that enters battle prevented cannot activate later in that same battle. (But this one is still debated?)
Redemption Curmudgeon
"If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God..." (2 Cor. 5:13a)

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2014, 08:33:49 AM »
+1
Admittedly I have always had a hard time ruling these situations, but my understanding has always been this:

In order for an ability to re-activate, it had to have activated in the first place. Therefore if an ability activated, then was negated/interrupted, it can be re-activated by proper means later in the battle. However, if the ability was prevented, then it never activated, and therefore cannot be re-activated at any point in the battle.

If an Elder could confirm whether this is true, or if someone could point to specific examples of where this has been ruled differently, I'm sure we would all appreciate it.  ;D
My wife is a hottie.

LukeChips

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2014, 11:18:44 AM »
0
That makes sense to me (I'm in no way an elder).

Offline Redoubter

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4910
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Starter Deck game question
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2014, 11:23:52 AM »
0
YMT, I would agree with you, but I know that cards that are ongoing and not characters have been ruled differently in the past.  It is a very fuzzy situation indeed, and is one of the unresolved rulings I am tracking.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal