Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: TheHobbit13 on July 28, 2017, 04:13:24 PM
-
She says, "Protect this hero from demons. You may search deck or reserve for A Child is Born or good dominant. If it is Son of God, this cannot be interrupted."
My question:
If I search for Son of God is she protected from demons cbi?
-
From how it's worded, i would say yes, because "this" isn't clarified to only be the search.
-
I would rule yes. I think "this" refers to the whole ability and not just the search.
-
From how it's worded, i would say yes, because "this" isn't clarified to only be the search.
But "this," combined with the good dominant SoG reference, appears to imply that the search ability is CBI. Normally, if the entire ability is CBI it would read at the end as its own sentence. But since it's tied to the SoG being the good dominant that's sought I believe it's only the search that's CBI. But I could be wrong.
-
Are there any cases already where only part of an ability is CBx? I'm pretty sure there's precedent that an entire ability is always CBx or it's not. No partial CBx's. Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.
-
Are there any cases already where only part of an ability is CBx? I'm pretty sure there's precedent that an entire ability is always CBx or it's not. No partial CBx's. Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.
Well part of Namaan's ability is CBN but not all of it. Not exactly the same situation but the same principle.
-
Are there any cases already where only part of an ability is CBx? I'm pretty sure there's precedent that an entire ability is always CBx or it's not. No partial CBx's. Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.
The only card that I can think of that could have only part of it's ability CNx (other than with abilities like "Discard abilities cannot be negated" or abilities that give CBx) is Golden Calf from the 10th Anniversary Starter Deck, who's ability says: Prevent all special abilities on O.T. Heroes. Cannot be Negated. Discard this artifact if Moses, Hosea or Amos wins a battle.
Along with the REG quote (CBI and CBP have similar entries):
When a sentence in a special ability includes the cannot be negated modifier and does not specify what abilities the cannot be negated modifier modifies, it modifies all abilities on the card that appear before the sentence containing “cannot be negated”.
So I would argue that the Discard portion of Golden Calf would be negatable even though the prevent is CBN.
However in the case of The Woman with Child, the CBI is after the entire ability and therefore applies to the entire ability. Although the word "this" could be interpreted differently than I am interpreting it.
-
Are there any cases already where only part of an ability is CBx? I'm pretty sure there's precedent that an entire ability is always CBx or it's not. No partial CBx's. Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.
Thomas from Di
-
The protection and the search are separate abilities so it is definitely possible for only one of them to be CBI. Because the CBI granting part says "if it is Son of God", I would rule it is referring to the search ability specifically and only that ability would be CBI. I could see it being ruled either way though.
-
I believe our conclusion during playtesting was that the entire ability was CBI. I do not recall offhand how we made that determination, but I think we had a precedent.
-
I believe our conclusion during playtesting was that the entire ability was CBI. I do not recall offhand how we made that determination, but I think we had a precedent.
Could this be verified with the elder team to make sure? I've always played it as if it was just the search ability that was CBI if SoG was sought.
Thanks
-
If I search out AotL and play it then TWwC gets negated does AotL go back in my deck? According to cascade negate I would say yes. But I am not sure.
-
No because of dominant that has already been played cannot be put back even if the card that got it out is negated.
-
No because of dominant that has already been played cannot put back even if the card that got it out is negated.
That's not the reason why the dominant doesn't go back. Playing a card gotten with a draw or search doesn't mean it can't be cascaded back (Play abilities are a different story since they are CBI). If you got A Child is Born with WWC, played it, then WWC was negated, A Child is Born would go back wherever it came from. The reason a played dominant stays in discard is the thing that put is in discard is the game rule that discards dominants after you play them and you can't negate a game rule. If the dominant was something like 3 Woes that doesn't discard after use, it would still not be shuffled because the placement ability of 3 Woes cannot be negated.
-
Are you saying that the only things that can be Cascade negated are things in play? So if you went and got guardians of your souls that could not be put back either. So only cards that are no longer in play are not affected by negating the character?
-
Are you saying that the only things that can be Cascade negated are things in play? So if you went and got guardians of your souls that could not be put back either. So only cards that are no longer in play are not affected by negating the character?
That's not what I said. It being in play or not doesn't matter. The reason it isn't cascaded back into deck is because you can't negate the game rule that discards it. You are right about Guardian but only because Guardian places itself in LoR CBN.
If used War to search out an evil weapon that discards itself to discard a Hero and War was negated, the weapon would get cascaded even though it's out of play because it was put out of play by a negatable thing (Its own ability), not discarded by game rule like a dominant.
-
So going back to my original statement dominant cards that have already been played cannot be negated so they stay.
-
So going back to my original statement dominant cards that have already been played cannot be negated so they stay.
In the case of Guardian and Woes, yes. For dominants that are discarded after use, they stay in discard because the game rule that discards it after it completes can't be negated.
-
I understand what you're saying but I think you're creating more than there needs to be. You had to edit your comment about the three woes. I didn't think the Cascade negates affected cannot be negated cards. So you're right about the angel of the Lord but it wouldn't be the same reason for the three woes. Some people don't care why it works and they don't really need to know all of the intricate details. If you just think of it like I said once a dominant has been played it cannot be unplayed it makes everything easier.
-
I understand what you're saying but I think you're creating more than there needs to be. You had to edit your comment about the three woes. I didn't think the Cascade negates affected cannot be negated cards. So you're right about the angel of the Lord but it wouldn't be the same reason for the three woes.
I'm just making sure it's understood that the card being CBN has nothing to do with whether cascading the search shuffles it back into deck or not. A Child is Born is CBN but if WWC searched for that and played it before getting negated ACiB would still get shuffled.
-
So let's go back to my original statement one more time. Dominant cards that have already been played cannot be unplayed. I don't care why if it's game rules or if it's can not be negated and I don't think anyone else cares as long as the statement is correct. So do you agree that the statement above is correct?
-
So let's go back to my original statement one more time. Dominant cards that have already been played cannot be unplayed. I don't care why if it's game rules or if it's can not be negated and I don't think anyone else cares as long as the statement is correct. So do you agree that the statement above is correct?
That statement isn't actually right but it does happen to have the same outcome as the correct answers.
"Simplifying" the answer to a question by giving a wrong answer that happens to have the same result is an incredibly unhealthy practice.
-
ok...I am just speechless... :o
-
ok...I am just speechless... :o
Me too!
-
ok...I am just speechless... :o
That's what this board is for 8)
-
Are there any cases already where only part of an ability is CBx? I'm pretty sure there's precedent that an entire ability is always CBx or it's not. No partial CBx's. Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.
Thomas from Di
Not really. Technically the only part of his ability is that he bands to Matthew, which can be negated. The rest of what happens to be before his ability is a modifier that can't be negated because negates don't target modifiers.
But yeah, Golden Calf makes sense. I guess it would be a good target for your Three Woes if they have Moses, Amos, or Hosea. :P
-
Are there any cases already where only part of an ability is CBx? I'm pretty sure there's precedent that an entire ability is always CBx or it's not. No partial CBx's. Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure that's the way it is.
Thomas from Di
Not really. Technically the only part of his ability is that he bands to Matthew, which can be negated. The rest of what happens to be before his ability is a modifier that can't be negated because negates don't target modifiers.
Only CBx itself is a modifier, the granting of CBx to other abilities is still an ability. It's CBN because that type of ability is innately CBN, not because it is, itself, a modifier.
-
Example: Cards granting CBN are inherently CBN.
Reason: Seems illogical to have a special ability that inherently gains CBN when it states it no where on the cards that they are. Although this is easy to "understand" once you know it, it still makes no sense and is not really clear to a player of the game.
An important distinction--phrases such as "Cannot be interrupted," "Cannot be prevented," and "Cannot be negated" are not actually special abilities. They are classified as "modifiers." That is something spelled out in the REG that most likely will be added to the updated rulebook.
However, because they appear right alongside special abilities it is certainly logical to think that they are special abilities. I'm not sure if there's a way to make that readily apparent on the cards themselves, but it's worth looking into.
This was from the "What Rules Are Confusing To You" thread. Did I interpret this incorrectly?
-
Example: Cards granting CBN are inherently CBN.
Reason: Seems illogical to have a special ability that inherently gains CBN when it states it no where on the cards that they are. Although this is easy to "understand" once you know it, it still makes no sense and is not really clear to a player of the game.
An important distinction--phrases such as "Cannot be interrupted," "Cannot be prevented," and "Cannot be negated" are not actually special abilities. They are classified as "modifiers." That is something spelled out in the REG that most likely will be added to the updated rulebook.
However, because they appear right alongside special abilities it is certainly logical to think that they are special abilities. I'm not sure if there's a way to make that readily apparent on the cards themselves, but it's worth looking into.
This was from the "What Rules Are Confusing To You" thread. Did I interpret this incorrectly?
"Cannot be negated" is a modifier. "Enhancements used by Thomas cannot be negated" is an ability that grants a modifier to other abilities.
-
If that's the case, then why is granting a modifier CBN?
-
Because the REG says so. 8)
-
Because the REG says so. 8)
Lol, wot. So the statement that it is a confusing rule stands all the more. Why is it that a special ability granting something is inherently given that as well? I thought the reason was that it was because it's not actually a special ability but a modifier. Now your telling me it is a special ability giving a modifier and the rule is a rule because the REG tells me so? I'm confused. I just want an actual logical reason to have this as a rule.
-
Cannot be Negated
Last Updated: 8/10/2015 (v3.0.0)
Released: 7/26/2011
General Description
The cannot be negated modifier is the union of cannot be prevented and cannot be interrupted, which makes
certain abilities unpreventable and uninterruptable.
How to Play
The cannot be negated modifier modifies another ability, making it so that the modified ability cannot be targeted
by any prevent, interrupt, or negate ability.
Default Conditions
● The granting of cannot be negated to any ability cannot be negated.
● An ability cannot gain cannot be negated retroactively; it has cannot be negated when played or not at all.
Clarifications
● When a sentence in a special ability includes the cannot be negated modifier and does not specify what abilities
the cannot be negated modifier modifies, it modifies all abilities on the card that appear before the sentence
containing “cannot be negated”.
-
Cannot be Negated
Last Updated: 8/10/2015 (v3.0.0)
Released: 7/26/2011
General Description
The cannot be negated modifier is the union of cannot be prevented and cannot be interrupted, which makes
certain abilities unpreventable and uninterruptable.
How to Play
The cannot be negated modifier modifies another ability, making it so that the modified ability cannot be targeted
by any prevent, interrupt, or negate ability.
Default Conditions
● The granting of cannot be negated to any ability cannot be negated.
● An ability cannot gain cannot be negated retroactively; it has cannot be negated when played or not at all.
Clarifications
● When a sentence in a special ability includes the cannot be negated modifier and does not specify what abilities
the cannot be negated modifier modifies, it modifies all abilities on the card that appear before the sentence
containing “cannot be negated”.
I'm glad it's in the rules, I'm not debating the fact that it is indeed a rule. I'm just saying it is a confusing rule because it makes no sense with how the cards are printed today. Every other special ability can be CBx'd but one granting a modifier. (or one that is modified, but the modifier is not a special ability.)
-
I just want an actual logical reason to have this as a rule.
Because people who have spent thousands of hours playing this game and seeing all the various card interactions decided that was the best way to handle it. If you disagree, that's your right, but discounting something because it doesn't appear to make perfect sense on the surface is not going to get you far.
-
Every other special ability can be CBx'd but one granting a modifier. (or one that is modified, but the modifier is not a special ability.)
There are a few other abilities that are innately CBx, such as play abilities which are all innately CBI.
-
I know that uprooting 15 years of precedence is so exciting, but back to the original question. >:(
I believe our conclusion during playtesting was that the entire ability was CBI. I do not recall offhand how we made that determination, but I think we had a precedent.
Any Elder(s) want to confirm this?
-
CBI applies to the whole ability.
-
CBI applies to the whole ability.
To clarify, wouldn't it be "CBI applies to both abilities"? Aren't the protect ability and the search abilities technically two separate abilities?
-
State it how you like, if the text on the card is CBI it's CBI. ;)