Check out our Event Calendar! View birthdays, holidays and upcoming tournaments!
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.
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).
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)
Your conditional immunity can change because, by definition, it has a condition within itself. NNfS has no such condition.
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?
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.
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.
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.
This is not correct. The REG clearly states that the ignoring character wins because an immune ability played afterwards has no net effect.
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.
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?
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?
- 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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not the one trying to make Golgotha say things it doesn't.
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?
Golgotha IS the only card that does so without using a pre-established method of getting around an effect (instead, regardless, etc.)
it does not instead or act regardless of the ignore status
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?
Cannot be Ignored gets around Ignore because that's what it was defined to do, no other reason.
Summary of the last 2 pages: YMT changed his opinion, nothing else has changed.
Quote from: Smokey on June 20, 2011, 04:54:10 PMSummary 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?
Wait, was that a good thing or a bad 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.
I think that's the most enthusiasm I've ever seen from you.
Quote from: Smokey on June 20, 2011, 05:01:11 PMI think that's the most enthusiasm I've ever seen from you.You obviously never took my Calculus class then. YAY CALCULUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
YAY CALCULUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm asking WHY it was defined and ruled that way since there's questionable precedent at best for that definition
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
