Author Topic: Unbound vs. Curse  (Read 5467 times)

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Unbound vs. Curse
« on: July 17, 2010, 05:48:27 PM »
+1
Unbound would negate Go Into Captivity (activated as an artifact) while trying to capture my hero, right? It says "evil capture abilities."

Unbound
Type: Hero Enh. • Brigade: White • Ability: 3 / 3 • Class: None • Special Ability: Negate evil capture abilities. Return all captured Heroes to owners’ territories. Add any number of them to the battle. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Daniel 3:25 • Availability: Faith of Fathers (Set 6)
My wife is a hottie.

Offline that one kid

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
  • happy meals are boss.
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2010, 07:09:27 PM »
0
I think that if they are using it as an artifact, that's exactly like trying to negate an unholy writ so I'd say no.
IT MOVES! --->    :O[move]

Offline jtay

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2010, 07:23:22 PM »
0
I would say yes.  I remember a ruling that the brigade on a curse (activated as an artifact) counted as an "evil brigade in play."  I forget which good card this pertained to, but that aside, if the curse maintains it's evil brigade while activated as an artifact, then I say it maintains its evil-ness for Unbound's purposes.
Epic pouting maneuver!

Offline that one kid

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
  • happy meals are boss.
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2010, 07:29:43 PM »
0
But it's not being used as an enhancement. It's being used as an artifact. It would take Destruction to kill it.
IT MOVES! --->    :O[move]

Offline SirNobody

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2010, 07:30:45 PM »
+1
Hey,

Go Into Captivity is an evil capture ability so the Negate on Unbound can target it.  But if Go Into Captivity is used before Unbound is played, then Go Into Captivity is not in play (because of the self discarding) and thus isn't targeted by Unbound.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2010, 07:42:48 PM »
0
But if Go Into Captivity is used before Unbound is played, then Go Into Captivity is not in play (because of the self discarding) and thus isn't targeted by Unbound.

This is the part that I still do not get. The SA of GiC is not complete until the capture is completed. If I negate the capture, which I am allowed to do by game rule, then I do not see why the "discard this card to" clause matters. The card's SA can not be active if it is in the Discard Pile. The card is on the way to the discard pile. I do not understand why negating my removal cannot target the card that is causing the removal.

FWIW, I know that this is the way it has always been ruled, but I need clarification as to the why, because it makes no sense to me.
My wife is a hottie.

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2010, 07:52:06 PM »
0
But if Go Into Captivity is used before Unbound is played, then Go Into Captivity is not in play (because of the self discarding) and thus isn't targeted by Unbound.

This is the part that I still do not get. The SA of GiC is not complete until the capture is completed. If I negate the capture, which I am allowed to do by game rule, then I do not see why the "discard this card to" clause matters. The card's SA can not be active if it is in the Discard Pile. The card is on the way to the discard pile. I do not understand why negating my removal cannot target the card that is causing the removal.

FWIW, I know that this is the way it has always been ruled, but I need clarification as to the why, because it makes no sense to me.

The thing is abilities on cards have to complete before you can play anything. You cannot interrupt a card ability while it is completing. Therefore the hero gets captured (pending a negate) and GiC goes to the discard pile. Then by game rule you can play a negate , but since unbound and other cards that could get rid of the curse only target cards in play you cannot negated it. Understand?

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2010, 08:13:59 PM »
0
Therefore the hero gets captured (pending a negate) and GiC goes to the discard pile.

This is what I am getting at - pending a negate. If I am losing by removal, then I have intiative to negate that removal. The capture is not complete until I am captured. My card is not physically removed from battle if I can negate the removal, otherwise there would be no hero to play the enhancement on.

That is where the dilemma occurs in my mind.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2010, 10:12:42 PM »
0
You get the opportunity to Negate whatever's killing you, but it's up to you to be legally able to target it.


Wait, I just changed my mind half way through posting this. If Korah's Rebellion can be Negated by something that doesn't target cards removed from the game, why couldn't Unbound Negate GiC?
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2010, 10:13:55 PM »
0
Because it is discarded in order to capture. Korah's Rebellion is not worded as a cost benefit.

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2010, 10:17:09 PM »
0
So...Samson's Sacrifice, Discards my PO, I ITB D2 and get Discarder. Can I Discard my PO with Discarder?
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2010, 10:21:13 PM »
0
Hmm. I would initially say yes, because the discarder activates while SS is interrupted.

But we already know that SS can't be interrupted ;)

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2010, 11:25:02 PM »
0
Yes, but SS is also a cost/benefit like GiC. Either Unbound can Negate GiC or in the situation I described, Discarder can't target PO.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2010, 11:45:40 PM »
+1
But if Go Into Captivity is used before Unbound is played, then Go Into Captivity is not in play (because of the self discarding) and thus isn't targeted by Unbound.

The rulebook only talks about negating the special ability. I don't see how the self-discarding makes a difference here. I have always heard people talk about negates having an "undo" feature. I am not clear on why I cannot undo the effect of GiC when I play a negate, which the rulebook specifically says I can do.

If GiC is not targetable, then I would think the capture is negated but GiC stays in the discard pile.

Redemption® Rulebook > Situation Descriptions > Losing the Battle > Losing by Removal because of a Special Ability
A Hero is losing by removal if the Hero is being captured, discarded, returned to territory, or otherwise removed from battle by an opposing special ability. You have initiative, but you may only play an enhancement that has an “interrupt” or “negate” special ability.


My wife is a hottie.

Offline BubbleBoy

  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8014
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #14 on: July 18, 2010, 12:00:47 AM »
0
Interesting. I have always been a little confused by the way negate is handled, but it works most of the time, so I don't complain. I'm glad a problem has been caused though, because I think a better explanation is needed.
Use the Mad Bomber to rescue his Province.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2010, 12:20:18 AM »
0
I get confused because of REG quotes like this:

Instant Abilities > Interrupt or Negate Last > Special Conditions
•      Placing a card in the discard pile removes it from play, but does not remove the ability to negate it by (1) interrupting the battle or (2) interrupting the last enhancement played in battle. However, a "negate last enhancement" negates the last enhancement regardless of its current state (in play, discard pile, converted to a character, etc.).

I don't understand why we make exceptions here and there, for some technicality that the average host like me doesn't pick up on. When reading this quote, I see no reason why GiC cannot be negated just because it was discarded first.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline JSB23

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3197
  • Fun while it lasted.
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2010, 04:07:59 PM »
0
You can't negate something that isn't in play, like you can't DoN Unsuccessful after it's used
An unanswered question is infinitely better than an unquestioned answer.

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2010, 06:34:57 PM »
0
You can't negate something that isn't in play, ...

The above quote from the REG says otherwise.

...like you can't DoN Unsuccessful after it's used.

This is different because DoN says to discard the artifact first, then negate it. You cannot target a card in the discard pile for a "discard (in play)" ability. That I understand. However, you most certainly can target a card in the discard pile for a "negate."
My wife is a hottie.

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2010, 06:57:30 PM »
0
I see no reason why GiC cannot be negated just because it was discarded first.
In the Reg quote it say it negates the last enhancement, GiC is not being used as an enhancement

Offline YourMathTeacher

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+80)
  • *****
  • Posts: 11089
    • -
    • Southeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2010, 07:22:41 PM »
0
In the Reg quote it say it negates the last enhancement, GiC is not being used as an enhancement

I understand that, but I was using the quote as evidence that you can indeed negate a card that is in the discard pile. Unbound specifically targets an evil capture ability, which GiC has. The fact that GiC is in the discard pile is not grounds for completely disregarding the negate, IMO.

I also understand that I may be wrong, but I'm still not convinced why I am wrong, since there is precedent for negating something in the discard pile.
My wife is a hottie.

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2010, 10:47:05 AM »
0
Quote
I understand that, but I was using the quote as evidence that you can indeed negate a card that is in the discard pile. Unbound specifically targets an evil capture ability, which GiC has. The fact that GiC is in the discard pile is not grounds for completely disregarding the negate, IMO.

I also understand that I may be wrong, but I'm still not convinced why I am wrong, since there is precedent for negating something in the discard pile.

I agree 100%.

I have always been told that the reason you cannot use DoN to negate Unholy writ is the card is not there to be discarded, and therefore cannot be negated by the second line.  I fail to see why Unbound would not stop GiC.  Unbound is not targeting the card, it is targeting the ability.  No where on unbound does say negate the last capture card, or the last enhancement.  It just says capture ability.


Quote
You can't negate something that isn't in play, like you can't DoN Unsuccessful after it's used

This untrue, you can negate Korah's rebellion, you can negate Joseph in Prison.  If the evil card not being there any more actually made it untargetable for negate then how could we ever negate anything?
In AMERICA!!

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2010, 12:26:16 PM »
0
by game rule you can negate enhancements that remove you from battle because the enhancement completes but does not go immediatly to its destination.  But in the GIC scenario you discard GIC to capture, (btw it has to be discarded for it to capture , otherwise there is no capture.). Therefore GIC is in the discard pile and cannot be negated by unbounds ability that only targets cards in play.

Offline Korunks

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2271
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2010, 12:56:39 PM »
0
But Unbound does not target the card, it targets the ability.
In AMERICA!!

TheHobbit13

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2010, 01:00:48 PM »
0
But Unbound does not target the card, it targets the ability.

The ability activates on a card, you cannot negate the ability without targeting the card.

Offline Minister Polarius

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15920
  • Grand Minister of Music and Video Games
    • -
    • East Central Region
    • Macclelland Music
Re: Unbound vs. Curse
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2010, 01:03:04 PM »
0
It depends on what the rules say. If they say that Enhancements removing you give you initiative to Interrupt, then GiC is safe. But if it says abilities removing you, then Unbound should be able to Negate it.
I am not talking about T2 unless I am explicitly talking about T2. Also Mayhem is fine now somehow!

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal