Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I ran into this situation at NC regionals; Wild Bill and I in a type 2 game.  I don’t think we ever got an official ruling so thought I would put it out to the powers that be.

He makes a rescue attempt with Moses

Moses (G)
Type: Hero Char. • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 8 / 8 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate all special abilities on characters and enhancements (except this ability). • Identifiers: OT Male Human, Judge & Musician, Prophet, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: Exodus 3:14

I block with Philistine Garrison with Horses on them w/2 experience points on Garrison.

Philistine Garrison (TP)
Type: Evil Char. • Brigade: Black • Ability: 12 / 8 • Class: • Special Ability: Immune to lone Heroes. • Play As: Philistine Garrison is immune to lone Heroes. • Identifiers: Generic OT Male Human, Philistia, Fought Earthly Battle • Verse: I Samuel 14:12

Philistine Chariot and Horses (TP)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black • Ability: 2 / 2 • Class: Weapon • Special Ability: Interrupt the battle and draw two cards. If used by a Philistine, may play an Enhancement. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Samuel 13:5

Moses negates the immunity on Garrison and the draw two play next on horses.
His initiative and he plays Covenant w/Moses.

Covenant with Moses (Pa)
Type: Covenant • Brigade: Yellow • Ability: 7 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Use as an enhancement or an Artifact. Burial Shroud, Unholy Writ, Thirty Pieces of Silver, and Household Idols are negated for one round. May be used twice. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Exodus 19:5-6

Because of name on name WB is now 22/14 against my 16/12 fbn.
My initiative and I play Bringing fear.

Bringing Fear (FF)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: If used by a Philistine, negate all special abilities on characters and good Enhancements. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: I Samuel 17:11

Brining fear negates Moses negate abilities and now Garrisons’ immune ability is active.


The question in all this is once Moses’ negate ability is negated do the horses get to draw two and play next at this point.

In this case it didn’t really matter - WB played another  GE for the numbers to save Moses and even if I would have drawn two I wouldn’t  have had enough to discard Moses; but did make a successful block.
Thanks for the input.

I don't think the draw two and play kicks in at that point. By that point, it's already been negated and the battle has moved on. I don't know why it would activate after it's been played.

Well, the main difference between those two is that instead of interrupting the ability as in your example, Moses is initially preventing Chariots entirely. You do bring up a good point though, and I'm less sure about it.

Quote from: jc on May 31, 2011, 10:18:52 AM

Bringing Fear (FF)
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Black • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: If used by a Philistine, negate all special abilities on characters and good Enhancements. Cannot be negated. • Identifiers: OT, Depicts a Weapon • Verse: I Samuel 17:11

Brining fear negates Moses negate abilities and now Garrisons’ immune ability is active.

Actually Garrison's immune ability is NOT active because Bringing Fear negated it.

Quote from: jc on May 31, 2011, 10:18:52 AM

The question in all this is once Moses’ negate ability is negated do the horses get to draw two and play next at this point.

I think so.

Thanks, Garrison was definitely not immune at that point.

And Sauce says he thinks so.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 31, 2011, 01:17:08 PM

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on May 31, 2011, 01:05:08 PM

You do bring up a good point though, and I'm less sure about it.

I'm not totally sure myself (which is why I started my ruling with "I think so" instead of "Yes").  I'm hoping another Elder will chime in to confirm or correct my initial position.

John Earley said no, Tim Maly said yes.

At the tournament I said no, Tim said yes, Kevin agreed with my logic for 'no' and then we convinced Tim. The answer is 'no'

I would think that an instant SA that is prevented can not later be activated. The confusion comes because if an instant ability was activated, then interrupted, there is still a chance for it to re-activate. By being prevented, it never activated, so the opportunity for activation is lost.

I certainly would have ruled "no."  I am curious to hear the explanation that was given at the tournament. 

YMT's Logic is basically what Kevin and I thought as well - Though Prevent and Interrupt function similarly in that they stop abilities, the manner in which they do so creates situations that occur slightly differently for each one.

OK, so an instant SA that is prevented never kicks in if the prevent is later negated.  But an ongoing SA (ie. immunity) that is prevented would kick back in if the prevent was later negated.  Is that what everyone agrees on.  I can go with that.

I can't find it in the Reg or boards right now, but I know that is not what the rule used to be.  So was it changed?  When?

It was ruled that if the prevent is negated then the ability works.  The example I seem to recall is something like this:

If I block and play Korah's Rebellion to remove 1 hero,
the opponent negates it and then bands in another hero,
I then negate their negate so Korah's Rebellion reactivates,
it then removes their original hero and my evil character but not their 2nd hero because the enhancement does its targeting when initially played and does not change its targets later.  However,

If they rescue with Adino and prevent abilities,
I block and play Korah's Rebellion for numbers,
they band in another hero,
I then negate Adino's ability so Korah's Rebellion activates,
it then removes all characters in battle because it is now activating for the first time and targets all cards currently in battle.

OK, so an instant SA that is prevented never kicks in if the prevent is later negated.  But an ongoing SA (ie. immunity) that is prevented would kick back in if the prevent was later negated.

I think that is wrong.  The ongoing immunity can't "kick back in" because it was never activated in the first place.  Either both instant and ongoing abilities activate when the prevent is negated or neither do.  I obviously think that they both do. 

I know.  I wasn't talking about the specific scenario but about Mark's suggestion as to what the rule should be.  Hoping someone else will know about the past rule I'm talking about.