Author Topic: Was this post ever resolved? (Read 8459 times)

The Schaef · « **Reply #50 on:** June 20, 2011, 03:28:02 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 20, 2011, 03:03:17 PM

That's exactly what I'm saying, though. Canceling the effect, or granting a counter-status (not reversing a status, a counter-status) such as becoming immune to an immune or an ignoring character, is the only way to change the current battle outcome of all other states in the game.

Actually, that's not exactly what you're saying because you just said like three times in a row that an interrupt or negate IS REQUIRED. My examples show this is not the case.

Quote

Ignore creates a similar situation except I don't need to constantly pass initiative for you to continue playing cards, you just get infinite initiative (for whatever reason).

The reason is because ignoring is a winning state. Therefore, the ignored character is losing the battle and has initiative.

Quote

If you play something to be immune to my hero ignoring you, yes that changes the battle to a stalemate (because it was ruled that way)

This is not correct. The REG clearly states that the ignoring character wins because an immune ability played afterwards has no net effect.

Quote

Your conditional immunity can change because, by definition, it has a condition within itself. NNfS has no such condition.

NNfS doesn't need the condition. "Cannot be ignored" establishes a condition to which ignore does not apply. Just like banding in a Hero establishes a condition to which Nero does not apply. You keep talking about how it's on a different card but you're not making an argument for why the genesis of the condition matters. These cards experienced a change in condition that removes them from the blanket of the ignore effect. That's all.

Quote

Yet cannot be negated is not able to flip the lightswitch of something already negated, so why can cannot be ignored flip the lightswitch of something already ignored?

For the fourth time, because the ignore is an ongoing ability that has not been resolved. Just like an active prevent that you can play a "cannot-be-prevented" card over. Just like an active immunity that you can play a "regardless of immunity" over. These abilities are ONGOING AND ACTIVE. Your example is an ability that was RESOLVED.

Quote

Do Golgotha or Wolves in Sheep's Clothing say "regardless"? No? Then your example doesn't apply to this situation unless you can cite specific Elder confirmation that Golgotha and Wolves are treated as regardless abilities.

Your argument makes no sense. I told you that there are examples of other cards that get around abilities without interrupting them and you mash them together into a question that I just can't figure out. What does this have anything to do with what I said? At all?

Quote

as I've been trying to point out but you seem to be glossing over, this ability, and this ability alone, can unflip a lightswitch of an already-played status-granting card that hasn't been negated, interrupted, regardlessed, or insteaded.

I'm not "glossing over" anything. You keep changing your argument. "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE". No, because these abilities say "instead". "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE OR INSTEAD". No, because these abilities say "regardless". "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE OR INSTEAD OR REGARDLESS". ... what?

To sum up:
- Your post immediately before this one said that you REQUIRED A NEGATE in order to make a card not immune. This statement is completely incorrect, and now you're trying to change it into something different.
- Your complaint about cannot-be-ignored is that it is THE ONLY EFFECT that does what it does. This statement is completely incorrect, and you're trying to avoid that fact by lumping in cards that DO NOT cancel the effect with other cards that DO cancel the effect.
- Negate cancels an effect. Interrupt stops an effect long enough to do something else that may remove it, effectively being the same as cancelling.
- Cannot be negated does not cancel an effect. It goes around the effect without cancelling. If a prevent is active and ongoing, you can still play this kind of card. The prior cancelling of a card is resolved and no longer active.
- Instead does not cancel the effect. It changes the effect into something else when certain conditions for the intended target are met.
- Regardless of immunity does not cancel the effect. It goes around the effect without cancelling. If an immune is active and ongoing, this card can affect cards that have already been set as immune.
- Cannot be ignored does not cancel the effect. It goes around the effect without cancelling. If an ignore is active and ongoing, this card turns off the ignored status when certain conditions for the intended target are met.

browarod · « **Reply #51 on:** June 20, 2011, 03:58:57 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on June 20, 2011, 03:28:02 PM

Actually, that's not exactly what you're saying because you just said like three times in a row that an interrupt or negate IS REQUIRED. My examples show this is not the case.

Your examples show exceptions to that rule, of which Golgotha is not since it is not an instead nor a regardless. My statements are not in disagreement.

Quote

This is not correct. The REG clearly states that the ignoring character wins because an immune ability played afterwards has no net effect.

My apologies, I had that backwards. It doesn't invalidate my argument, though, it just makes one less exception to the rule I'm using.

Quote

NNfS doesn't need the condition. "Cannot be ignored" establishes a condition to which ignore does not apply. Just like banding in a Hero establishes a condition to which Nero does not apply. You keep talking about how it's on a different card but you're not making an argument for why the genesis of the condition matters. These cards experienced a change in condition that removes them from the blanket of the ignore effect. That's all.

The origin of the condition is all important. You're saying that a condition within a card itself being changed because the condition being checked changes is the same as my card's unchanging ability being changed by an outside card (that is not an instead). Clearly they are not. And if they are not the same, then you cannot use precedent of the former to try and justify the latter.

Quote

Your argument makes no sense. I told you that there are examples of other cards that get around abilities without interrupting them and you mash them together into a question that I just can't figure out. What does this have anything to do with what I said? At all?

It makes sense when you take the time to think about it instead of immediately passing it off as ludicrous. Golgotha does not say "regardless" therefore a ruling about cards that say "regardless", much like my point above, cannot be used as precedent to prove your point about Golgotha.

Quote

I'm not "glossing over" anything. You keep changing your argument. "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE". No, because these abilities say "instead". "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE OR INSTEAD". No, because these abilities say "regardless". "YOU HAVE TO NEGATE OR INSTEAD OR REGARDLESS". ... what?

I'm not the one trying to make Golgotha say things it doesn't. It doesn't say instead, it doesn't say regardless, therefore arguments based on cards that DO say those things does not relate and cannot be used to justify your take on Golgotha. I'm not changing the fundamentals of my arguments, I'm merely updating them to rule out your unrelated arguments as you come up with them.

Quote

- Your post immediately before this one said that you REQUIRED A NEGATE in order to make a card not immune. This statement is completely incorrect, and now you're trying to change it into something different.

Unless the card says regardless, which Golgotha does not, the only way to change an immune is with a negate/interrupt. What about that is incorrect?

Quote

- Your complaint about cannot-be-ignored is that it is THE ONLY EFFECT that does what it does. This statement is completely incorrect, and you're trying to avoid that fact by lumping in cards that DO NOT cancel the effect with other cards that DO cancel the effect.

Golgotha IS the only card that does so without using a pre-established method of getting around an effect (instead, regardless, etc.)

Quote

- Cannot be ignored does not cancel the effect. It goes around the effect without cancelling. If an ignore is active and ongoing, this card turns off the ignored status when certain conditions for the intended target are met.

But why? Cannot be ignored, in the case of Golgotha and Wolves, does not interrupt or negate the ignore status, it does not instead or act regardless of the ignore status, so what gives it the ability to override the ignore status? Yes, negate gets rid of an ability/status, interrupt temporarily pauses an ability/status, regardless gets around the status without getting rid of the status, instead doesn't change that the ability happened it merely changes what the ability does. Why does cannot be ignored get to not only go around the status but change what the ability does while also not needing an interrupt/negate to do it? Why is it so special?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #52 on:** June 20, 2011, 04:03:52 PM »

Can not be ignored is a regardless if you have to think of it that way. Regardless of ignore abilities, this evil character may enter/affect battle.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #53 on:** June 20, 2011, 04:04:41 PM »

Cannot be Ignored gets around Ignore because that's what it was defined to do, no other reason.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #54 on:** June 20, 2011, 04:14:35 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 20, 2011, 12:41:27 AM

You honestly don't think one card with a condition and one card without a condition are different? If there was a way to convert an EC's brigade, that would not make NNfS dynamic because it would still be sitting there ignoring the brigade I chose. Nothing about NNfS can change, therefore I don't see how it could possibly fit the definition of dynamic. It doesn't take an English degree to see that, so I truthfully don't know how you can say this is just me seeing incorrectly.

FTR, I did not say that you saw it incorrectly, I said that you see a difference that I do not. As to the color change, even though NNfS is still there ignoring the first chosen brigade, it is no longer ignoring the character it was played against. To me, that is dynamic, although I admit that I do not have an English degree.

Quote from: browarod on June 20, 2011, 12:41:27 AM

What I am choosing to do is attempt to show you that your examples, while correct in and of themselves, do not apply to the issue at hand since they, not in my opinion but in fact, are actually different. If you're so sure that NNfS is dynamic, show me the X in the special ability with a corresponding "X=_____" in the identifier line, show me "as long as", "while", "if used by", or any other words that could mean something about the ability could change at anytime after activation. If you can't, then maybe I'm not the one choosing not to listen.

My comment was in reference to your statement about ongoing abilities and interrupts, which is why I quoted you first. It was not in regard to whether or not NNfS is dynamic. Your quoted statement was already addressed in my post, which is what made your repetition of your stance on that point redundant. So I am awaiting clarification on your opinion about the lack of need for an interrupt in my examples. Feel free to concede the point.

The Schaef · « **Reply #55 on:** June 20, 2011, 04:30:25 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 20, 2011, 03:58:57 PM

Your examples show exceptions to that rule, of which Golgotha is not since it is not an instead nor a regardless. My statements are not in disagreement.

Why do you consider "regardless of immunity" an exception but not "cannot be ignored"?

Quote

You're saying that a condition within a card itself being changed because the condition being checked changes is the same as my card's unchanging ability being changed by an outside card (that is not an instead). Clearly they are not. And if they are not the same, then you cannot use precedent of the former to try and justify the latter.

Your card's ability is not being changed. So that comparison doesn't even make sense. And the relationship between the former and the latter is that a negate is not required, which was your argument from the outset.

Quote

Golgotha does not say "regardless" therefore a ruling about cards that say "regardless", much like my point above, cannot be used as precedent to prove your point about Golgotha.

Cards that say "regardless" prove my point that you can get around an ability without negating it, which directly disproves your argument that NO OTHER EFFECT does this. They don't have to be worded the same and I am not establishing "precedent". I am merely comparing like with like.

Quote

I'm not the one trying to make Golgotha say things it doesn't.

Neither am I. I'm just disproving your point that NO OTHER EFFECT does what Golgotha does.

Quote

Unless the card says regardless, which Golgotha does not, the only way to change an immune is with a negate/interrupt. What about that is incorrect?

Well, for starters, you are not "changing an immune". You are only stating that certain effects go around it. So there's no "unless" here. You either cancel the effect or you go around the effect. Regardless of immunity goes around the effect. Cannot be ignored goes around the effect.

Quote

Golgotha IS the only card that does so without using a pre-established method of getting around an effect (instead, regardless, etc.)

Not true. We have cards going back almost a decade that use "cannot be ignored" language. The only thing that is not "pre-established" is a specific definition to this phrase that clearly explains what it does. "Pre-established" is completely meaningless in explaining how this works; it only pretends like this kind of effect has never existed before, when clearly it has.

Quote

it does not instead or act regardless of the ignore status

Yes it does. It behaves exactly the same way as those other two phrases behave. That's why your argument that this card is WAY MORE POWERFUL makes no sense. Your argument here is not that one kind of effect is not more powerful than the other; you are only arguing that it uses a different keyword than those two effects (but leaving out, I notice, the other effect "cannot be negated" which uses the SAME phrasing).

Quote

Why does cannot be ignored get to not only go around the status but change what the ability does while also not needing an interrupt/negate to do it? Why is it so special?

Explain what "cannot be ignored" does that "regardless of immunity" does not do, that is not a). "going around the status" and b). "not needing an interrupt", that makes the former WAY OVERPOWERED and the latter just some phrase or another not worth mentioning. You ask why it's so special, but you need to establish exactly WHAT you think is so special about it, other than the specific words used.

browarod · « **Reply #56 on:** June 20, 2011, 04:51:07 PM »

Quote from: ChristianSoldier on June 20, 2011, 04:04:41 PM

Cannot be Ignored gets around Ignore because that's what it was defined to do, no other reason.

That's not a reason, though. I know perfectly well (since Schaef has done practically nothing but repeat it over and over) what the definition of "cannot be ignored" is and how it's currently ruled to work. I'm asking WHY it was defined and ruled that way since there's questionable precedent at best for that definition, it makes Golgotha even worse than TGT ever was (if for nothing else than the "any time during battle" part), and it effectively removes ignore (specifically in-battle ignore) as an ability by virtue of not requiring any of the standard partnered abilities ("interrupt and", "negate and", "regardless of", "instead", etc.) in order to reverse the card's ability.

In-battle ignore was nowhere near overpowered (there's maybe half a dozen cards that even do it), so I'm just wondering WHY the Elders (if this is even their final decision) decided to word/define/rule it this way rather than just in a way that stops pre-block ignore (which was most definitely overpowered).

Hopefully this clears things up.

Smokey · « **Reply #57 on:** June 20, 2011, 04:54:10 PM »

Summary of the last 2 pages: YMT changed his opinion, nothing else has changed.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #58 on:** June 20, 2011, 04:56:02 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on June 20, 2011, 04:54:10 PM

Summary of the last 2 pages: YMT changed his opinion, nothing else has changed.

YAY MEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOO!!!!!!! WOO........

Wait, was that a good thing or a bad thing?

Smokey · « **Reply #59 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:01:11 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 20, 2011, 04:56:02 PM

Quote from: Smokey on June 20, 2011, 04:54:10 PM
Summary of the last 2 pages: YMT changed his opinion, nothing else has changed.

YAY MEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOO!!!!!!! WOO........

Wait, was that a good thing or a bad thing?

I think that's the most enthusiasm I've ever seen from you.

It's a neutral thing, I was trying to spur a change in the way this is being discussed since this thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

browarod · « **Reply #60 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:05:36 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 20, 2011, 04:56:02 PM

Wait, was that a good thing or a bad thing?

Neither side is "evil" so it's certainly not a bad thing.

Quote from: Smokey on June 20, 2011, 05:01:11 PM

I was trying to spur a change in the way this is being discussed since this thread doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

I'm hoping my latest post does that, as it's more to the point what I'm specifically looking for and less running in circles between me and Schaef, lol.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #61 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:09:51 PM »

Quote from: Smokey on June 20, 2011, 05:01:11 PM

I think that's the most enthusiasm I've ever seen from you.

You obviously never took my Calculus class then.

YAY CALCULUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

browarod · « **Reply #62 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:12:12 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 20, 2011, 05:09:51 PM

Quote from: Smokey on June 20, 2011, 05:01:11 PM
I think that's the most enthusiasm I've ever seen from you.

You obviously never took my Calculus class then.

YAY CALCULUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

If that's the case, I think I would have much preferred your Calculus class to the one I had in high school.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #63 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:13:15 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 20, 2011, 05:09:51 PM

YAY CALCULUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with this statement, Calculus is pure awesome.

The Schaef · « **Reply #64 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:15:29 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 20, 2011, 04:51:07 PM

I'm asking WHY it was defined and ruled that way since there's questionable precedent at best for that definition

After having so many different examples dropped on you that it's actually a shorter list to show ongoing abilities that you CAN'T get around (and practically none if you leave off the ones that only alter numbers), there hasn't really been anything you're presented as being non-precedent that didn't have something that specifically proved otherwise, all the way down to when the only distinction you made was in the specific wording (which doesn't make sense: it's not like "regardless of ignoring" would make it less powerful).

Quote

and it effectively removes ignore (specifically in-battle ignore) as an ability by virtue of not requiring any of the standard partnered abilities ("interrupt and", "negate and", "regardless of", "instead", etc.) in order to reverse the card's ability.

Regardless does not reverse a card's ability. It does the same thing as this; alter the effect applied to your card without negating. The only way your logic makes sense is if regardless effectively removes immune as an ability.

Instead does not reverse a card's ability. It does the same thing as this; alter the effect applied to your card without negating. If we applied your logic to this phrase, the argument would be that EVERY effect is now useless because any applied effect can be instead-ed.

You have not presented evidence that the first effect is more powerful - or even significantly different - than either of these two. You just say they don't count because we had those words before (we had "cannot be ignored" before also. And instead was not clearly defined until about two years ago).

Your claim also completely disregards the fact that a "cannot be ignored" ability can still be negated - the most common way to cancel an effect in the game - or that, while it would take some kind of a combo to pull it off, it's theoretically possible for a character to be protected from or immune to the cannot-be-ignored effect. It's not like a cannot-be-ignored card, or a card that gives that effect, is somehow untouchable.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #65 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:17:57 PM »

Wow Schaef! How did you type that much so fast? It would've taken me hours to get that much out.

I wish you had been my college roommate. I'll dictate my papers.... you type!

The Schaef · « **Reply #66 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:26:01 PM »

And it would have taken me hours to do calculus.

browarod · « **Reply #67 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:29:41 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on June 20, 2011, 05:15:29 PM

Regardless does not reverse a card's ability. It does the same thing as this; alter the effect applied to your card without negating. The only way your logic makes sense is if regardless effectively removes immune as an ability.

And there are only currently 2 "regardless" cards (that I know of) in the game that, I believe, both require a specific offense-type/theme to use and, while possibly recurrable, are not able to repeatedly be used to the extent that Golgotha can. If you read what I said, you'll notice I did specifically point out that what I think is overpowered is the fact that Golgotha can be used for relatively no cost any time during any battle.

Quote

You have not presented evidence that the first effect is more powerful - or even significantly different - than either of these two. You just say they don't count because we had those words before (we had "cannot be ignored" before also. And instead was not clearly defined until about two years ago).

Again, had you read what I said, you'd have seen that what I called overpowered was the unlimited usage of Golgotha. This wouldn't even be an issue if Golgotha didn't have "any time during battle".

Quote

Your claim also completely disregards the fact that a "cannot be ignored" ability can still be negated - the most common way to cancel an effect in the game - or that, while it would take some kind of a combo to pull it off, it's theoretically possible for a character to be protected from or immune to the cannot-be-ignored effect. It's not like a cannot-be-ignored card, or a card that gives that effect, is somehow untouchable.

Right, because there are so many cards with "negate site abilities" in the game right now that are accessible by the same theme that would be using NNfS effectively; I count 1. Also, Golgotha IS untouchable if CP is also out.

The Schaef · « **Reply #68 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:47:18 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 20, 2011, 05:29:41 PM

If you read what I said, you'll notice I did specifically point out that what I think is overpowered is the fact that Golgotha can be used for relatively no cost any time during any battle.

You repeatedly stated that what you thought was overpowered was:
- the ability was the only effect in the entire game that could get around something without negating it (which you then revised to include all the other cards that can get around something without negating it)
- the ability was the only effect in the entire game that could apply its effect retroactively (and apparently all the other effects that can be applied retroactively don't count).

So don't spend two pages arguing with me about these specific things to the point of exhaustion and then say, "well, the real problem here is that you're just too ignorant to read that one thing I mentioned way back then and disregard everything I've been telling you for the last 20 posts".

Quote

Again, had you read what I said, you'd have seen that what I called overpowered was the unlimited usage of Golgotha... Right, because there are so many cards with "negate site abilities" in the game right now

Those two issues have nothing to do with the effect itself or any of the claims you were arguing against me. And if a cannot-be-ignore-ing Site that doesn't even work on 2/3 of the ECs in the game is truly an overpowered ability, then I will happily play your unstoppable Golgotha defense against my musician's offense and we'll see how many times you use Golgotha against me.

browarod · « **Reply #69 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:50:52 PM »

I was arguing those points because, despite what the likes of you and Polarius would say, there is reasonable doubt to suggest that there is a logical way of ruling "cannot be ignored" other than the current, active ruling, and that gives me cause to ask for the reasoning behind the ruling. It wasn't 2 pages of waste, I just finally decided to say why I was arguing that way so as to get some kind of resolution for this rather than the constant circles you and I were going in.

Balance of a card DOES relate to counters, so the number of site negators accessible by NT females actually DOES matter in determining overpoweredness of Golgotha in relation to NNfS.

Other cards can apply statuses (or reversal of statuses) retroactively (without an interrupt/negate)? I don't know of any.

The Schaef · « **Reply #70 on:** June 20, 2011, 05:58:22 PM »

Quote from: browarod on June 20, 2011, 05:50:52 PM

Balance of a card DOES relate to counters, so the number of site negators accessible by NT females actually DOES matter in determining overpoweredness of Golgotha in relation to NNfS.

So determining the balance of a card means determining whether it is overpowered in relation to one card out of over 3000, when used in one specific theme? Cause you just got finished saying the EFFECT AS DEFINED (not just one card and not based on the type and recursive function of that one card) took the ignore ability out of the game completely.

Quote

Other cards can apply statuses (or reversal of statuses) retroactively (without an interrupt/negate)? I don't know of any.

We just spent a day talking about them and you changed your argument to add them to negate. So yes you do know of any.

browarod · « **Reply #71 on:** June 20, 2011, 06:09:47 PM »

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I got the answer I was looking for from an Elder so I see no reason to continue this.

The Schaef · « **Reply #72 on:** June 20, 2011, 06:12:10 PM »

I tried my best. It's not my fault that you continually shifted your argument and disregarded every attempt I made to clarify the issue.

browarod · « **Reply #73 on:** June 20, 2011, 07:00:20 PM »

Considering the answer I got was entirely different than any of the arguments you made for your point of view, and the Elder actually said my point of view was entirely valid (something you either weren't willing or weren't able to do), your "best" doesn't seem to be very good.

The Schaef · « **Reply #74 on:** June 20, 2011, 07:08:16 PM »

It's hard to validate a point of view when it changes every time I respond.

And for all your criticisms about my attempts to make sense of what you were saying, the answer you got doesn't seem to be something you wanted to share with any of the other people in this thread whose understanding might be made better if they knew what you knew.

So if my best isn't very good but everyone here knows exactly how I am explaining this function, but nobody else knows the explanation you accepted, what are we supposed to take away from that?

News:

Author Topic: Was this post ever resolved? (Read 8459 times)

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

browarod

browarod

The Schaef

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef

browarod

The Schaef