Cactus Game Design Message Boards

 SA Underdeck 2 heroes. Cannot be negated by a N.T card.

1. If a N.T hero was in battle and the enhancement targeted that last hero in battle , can that hero play an O.T enhancement that can negate it?

I actually disagree with the Creeping Deceiver ruling and this is one example of why. I get that characters "use" enhancements insomuch as you play them on the characters, but unless you want to treat every enhancement as a gained ability on the character then the enhancements themselves are what has the ability and are what change the current status quo. "Cannot be negated by a character" should mean just that, by a character's ability.

I don't find it logical for an OT card to suddenly be treated as NT just because it's used by a NT character. Take Zechariah, he negates NT enhancements. He's OT, however, so all enhancements used by him are treated as OT since he's playing them (according to your ruling). Shouldn't I be able to play Burning Incense (a NT enhancement) on Zechariah for full effect since it's being treated as OT? I feel like this is needlessly complicated and frankly doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe I'm just missing something, it's been known to happen.

As Koala said, that's not really the same thing.  We are talking about targeting here with Creeping and Disagreement.  Zechariah specifically targets abilities on NT enhancements with his negate, while these cards say that NT cards cannot negate them.  Those are two very different things.

The source of an enhancement's ability must be the character.  How else would immunity and protection work?  If the enhancement is the source and you are protected from my character, then the enhancement should work by the logic you put forward, but it doesn't because the character playing the enhancement is the source.

Enhancements do nothing on their own, they are always 'enhancing' a character more or less, allowing the character to do something.  This ruling is consistent with that concept and cannot change without fundamentally altering how all kinds of abilities work.

If the character is NT, they cannot negate Disagreement no matter what testament the enhancement is from because the NT character is negating, not the enhancement.

Is there a distinction between Creeper and DoM though because Creeper says "CBN by a character" and DoM says "CBN by a NT card"?

Going with the Creeper ruling, we must rule that 'card' includes 'character' and thus that Disagreement cannot be negated by any enhancement used by an NT character.  The difference is that cards like Creeper can be negated by Covenant with Death and similar cards, while effects from non-characters (cards not <played by a character or abilities on a character>) with an NT reference would still not be able to negate Disagreement.

Following the same Creeper ruling, an NT enhancement played by an OT character could still negate (as far as I can tell from precedent) because it is still an OT source.

While I do agree that an OT enhancement played on a NT character couldn't negate Disagreement over Mark, I would also suggest that a NT card played on an OT character also couldn't negate Disagreement over Mark. Because even though the character is the "source" and is OT, the enchantment is still part of the negation, and is therefore unable to negate Disagreement over Mark.

Now I don't personally like the ruling where protection from characters or CBN by characters includes the enhancements they play, (especially when negate characters doesn't negate their enhancements) it is the way it is.

Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 02:34:24 PM

Following the same Creeper ruling, an NT enhancement played by an OT character could still negate (as far as I can tell from precedent) because it is still an OT source.

What suggests this based on the Creeper (catch me if you can)?

What suggests this is that the enhancement is not negating in the Creeper example, or in any of the other precedents/rules we have.  It is the character playing the enhancement.  Abilities in the game references the character as the source in these cases (protection, immunity, 'played by,' rulings regarding dual/multi characters, etc.).

You cannot have it both ways.  Either characters are the source, or they are not.  You cannot have them 'both' be the source.  The character is using the ability, thus it depends on the status of the character.

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on December 31, 2014, 02:52:34 PM

While I do agree that an OT enhancement played on a NT character couldn't negate Disagreement over Mark, I would also suggest that a NT card played on an OT character also couldn't negate Disagreement over Mark. Because even though the character is the "source" and is OT, the enchantment is still part of the negation, and is therefore unable to negate Disagreement over Mark.

Now I don't personally like the ruling where protection from characters or CBN by characters includes the enhancements they play, (especially when negate characters doesn't negate their enhancements) it is the way it is.

Quote from: Redoubter on December 31, 2014, 02:34:24 PM

Following the same Creeper ruling, an NT enhancement played by an OT character could still negate (as far as I can tell from precedent) because it is still an OT source.

What suggests this based on the Creeper (catch me if you can)?

What suggests this is that the enhancement is not negating in the Creeper example, or in any of the other precedents/rules we have.  It is the character playing the enhancement.  Abilities in the game references the character as the source in these cases (protection, immunity, 'played by,' rulings regarding dual/multi characters, etc.).

You cannot have it both ways.  Either characters are the source, or they are not.  You cannot have them 'both' be the source.  The character is using the ability, thus it depends on the status of the character.

Why can't you take both into account? Just because you have to take the character's testament into account doesn't mean you can't take the enhancements? Or am I missing something? I also never said the enhancement was the source, just that it was involved, and it being a NT card should come into play when determining whether or not something can or cannot be negated by a NT card. I can understand why we have to take the character into account, but I find it much more difficult to understand why we wouldn't take the enhancement itself into account.

Also, if characters are really the "source" of abilities then why do any enhancements work if characters are being negated (barring CBN/CBP enhancements)? Why are enhancements separated from characters in that way but not for the purposes of CD or DoM? We already have a status quo of both the source and not the source so I'm not really getting where Redoubter thinks we don't have that....

A character is still the source even though the ability is 'on' the enhancement.  If something negates abilities 'on characters' that only includes abilities printed on characters per the rules.  If I negate an enhancement I negate abilities 'on' the enhancement but the source is still the character.  That part of what I am talking about is still sound and is per the rules.  I never said that the abilities were 'on the character' but that when determining the source of the ability it is always the character and not the enhancement, and that is absolutely true.

I would still disagree with Guardian's post for reasons stated before, but I will be looking at other cards with similar conditions on abilities to see if there is any issue there.  I can see the ruling ending up that way and would understand it, I just don't feel it meshes with precedent and current rulings personally.

Gates of Samaria is not an enhancement, so that does not apply to this conversation at all.  You are correct in what you say about SI and Gates, but Gates is the source and the ability both in that case and the character has nothing to do with it, so it is not the same as an enhancement played by a character no matter what discussion is being had.

Please reread my post, because I differentiated between 'source' (as in, who is targeting) and 'on' (as in what card is the ability on).  You negate a card, you negate abilities that are 'on' that card.  However, the 'source' for the targeting is still the character with an enhancement.

However, I understand your confusion since I used the actual word 'source' but that was due to a lack of words to represent what I was communicating.  For SI, the 'source' it refers to is actually the card it is 'on' (the ability itself), not who is targeting.  Replace what I said with targeter if you'd like, that conveys my point without using the same term.  They do not mean the same things, but I can see where you got hung up on my terminology.  What I said had nothing to do with SI.