Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Korunks on June 14, 2010, 03:08:01 PM
-
Ok I know this has been hashed out a couple of times in other threads but this has been really bothering me for a few days now. Why was CBP designed to be able to be prevented? Is it just a poor name choice? Is there any consideration for making it work the way it is named? It just feels so wrong that CBN cannot ever be negated, CBI cannot ever be interrupted(I am assume by broadening commandment #3), but CBP can be prevented, quite easily. Am I the only person who this bothers? I hesitated posting this for a few days now, but I need to open up this can of worms.
-
You'll have to explain you're reasoning a bit more. How can CBP abilities be prevented exactly?
-
This issue for me came about here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=21580.0), and here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15588.0)
Basically, you can play any plain old vanilla negate after a CBP card is played, and it is negated. I bet you could even band in a FBTN character after a CBP is played and you can negate it. Which leads me to ask, what is the point?
-
This issue for me came about here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=21580.0), and here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=15588.0)
Basically, you can play any plain old vanilla negate after a CBP card is played, and it is negated. I bet you could even band in a FBTN character after a CBP is played and you can negate it. Which leads me to ask, what is the point?
It just means you can't stop it before hand. Which can come in handy sometimes...
-
I can see both sides of this argument. CBP seems like it should follow suit with CBN and CBI, but has been ruled otherwise. The difference in the abilities lies with the interrupt ability. Both CBN and CBI stop the ability to interrupt, whereas CBP does not. Once an ability is interrupted, the ability is postponed until the interrupt ability completes. Therefore, when the CBP ability is interrupted the CBP ability is not activated until the interrupt completes. Basically it just can not be assumed that since one ability works one way that similar abilities also work that way. I do agree that the CBP title is a bit misleading.
-
I can see both sides of this argument.
there's not arguement, it only CBP b4 its played
-
I understand that is sometimes handy, but it makes no logical sense. I cannot negate a CBN card, I cannot interrupt a CBI card, but I can prevent a CBP card? I do not want just chalk this up to yet another thing I do not like about redemption. Like I asked before is there any discussion on making this ability do what it actually says? If not can we at least rename because it so misleading and frankly frustrating for me to explain to new players.
Me: You cannot negate this card because it CBN and CBN means CBN, same with CBI, but CBP doesn't mean CBP.
New Player: Huh?
The quote above is actually a quote from trying teach someone new about the rules. The first thing they said after that is it makes no sense. I agree, this really doesn't make any sense to me either.
I can see both sides of this argument. CBP seems like it should follow suit with CBN and CBI, but has been ruled otherwise. The difference in the abilities lies with the interrupt ability. Both CBN and CBI stop the ability to interrupt, whereas CBP does not. Once an ability is interrupted, the ability is postponed until the interrupt ability completes. Therefore, when the CBP ability is interrupted the CBP ability is not activated until the interrupt completes. Basically it just can not be assumed that since one ability works one way that similar abilities also work that way. I do agree that the CBP title is a bit misleading.
I know how it has been ruled, I am trying to see if we can fix it.
-
I understand that is sometimes handy, but it makes no logical sense. I cannot negate a CBN card, I cannot interrupt a CBI card, but I can prevent a CBP card?
it makes TONS of since... ur saying we should be able to prevent things that have already happened?
-
it makes TONS of since... ur saying we should be able to prevent things that have already happened?
No :scratch:. I am saying that once a CBP card is played, you shouldn't be able to ever prevent it.
-
Don't forget to add in that you can prevent a "pending" ability that has ALREADY begun to activate. Thats the biggest one I disagree with by far.
A Cannot be Interrupted copy of Great Image is apparently still stopped by FBTN, because it prevents the pending ability from activating at the end of the fight. I am completely opposed to this rule.
-
CBP really doesn't mean Cannot mean Prevented. it means cannot be stopped by something played before the CBP card was played. I don't like it either, but it makes sense.
-
it makes TONS of since... ur saying we should be able to prevent things that have already happened?
No :scratch:. I am saying that once a CBP card is played, you shouldn't be able to ever prevent it.
Conflict of terms..
-
Conflict of terms..
I guess I don't know what you are misunderstanding. How can I say it more clearly? I do not believe that a Cannot be Prevented card should be able to be prevented. How is that a conflict?
CBP really doesn't mean Cannot mean Prevented. it means cannot be stopped by something played before the CBP card was played. I don't like it either, but it makes sense.
I disagree, it doesn't make sense. If it is called CBP than it should be CBP or it should be renamed. But in my opinion it is far from logical, and makes little sense.
-
Me: You cannot negate this card because it CBN and CBN means CBN, same with CBI, but CBP doesn't mean CBP.
New Player: Huh?
The quote above is actually a quote from trying teach someone new about the rules. The first thing they said after that is it makes no sense. I agree, this really doesn't make any sense to me either.
It might help if you found a different way to explain the way the card works. Teaching based on what you admit is your own incomplete understanding of the card is going to give the students the same confusion the teacher has.
CBP means you cannot prevent the ability of the card before it is played.
CBI means you cannot interrupt the ability of the card after it is played.
CBN means you cannot do either of these things before OR after.
That's it. And those definitions work; they mean what they say and they say what they do.
You are not preventing the ability of the card if you are stopping its effect after it has been played.
-
CBP means you cannot prevent the ability of the card before it is played.
CBI means you cannot interrupt the ability of the card after it is played.
CBN means you cannot do either of these things before OR after.
Like what he said and to make it a little more clear CBN is both CBP and CBI.
-
Doesn't all of this confusion come from the outdated definition of "negate" (which I still use when I teach new players) - "interrupt and prevent"? It seems to me that the "prevent" part of the definition of negate is what caused all of this. I know what they MEANT when they gave that definition of negate, but I still believe they should have used a different word other than "prevent". By defining "negate", once upon a time, as "interrupt and prevent", we made a card going back in time somehow and preventing something BEFORE it happened, which is exactly what "Cannot be prevented" says cannot happen to itself. It seems to be it would have been better defined as "Undo" or "Nullify" or even something as simple as "Stop" - basically anything but "prevent".
-
"Cannot be prevented" can be interrupted. It is as simple as that.
-
Teaching based on what you admit is your own incomplete understanding of the card is going to give the students the same confusion the teacher has.
I actually understand how the card is played, just disagree with it. Perhaps I should clarify, I agreed with the new player that it makes no sense why we play it the way that we do. I fully understand the rule, just disagree with it. Out of the traditional way we play Negate, Interrupt, and Prevent CBI and CBN make perfect sense to me. The only anomaly seems to be CBP.
You are not preventing the ability of the card if you are stopping its effect after it has been played.
I disagree, if you interrupt a card, and then prevent it. you are inserting the prevent before the cannot be prevented, thereby preventing it before it is played. Unless we change the definition of interrupt to not say: insert x effect before y effect (I paraphrase), then I will still believe that CBP makes no sense.
CBP means you cannot prevent the ability of the card before it is played.
CBI means you cannot interrupt the ability of the card after it is played.
CBN means you cannot do either of these things before OR after.
I will repeat, I know how the cards are to be played, I am attempting to discuss the way I would like for them to be played, perhaps I posted this in the wrong section.
-
"Cannot be prevented" CANNOT be prevented. It CAN be interrupted.
There are 4 types of abilities: Those that cannot be stopped prior to being played (CBP), those that cannot be stopped after they are played (CBI), both of the prior 2 (CBN), and standard abilities that don't apply to the other 3.
CBP simply is the phrase that we use to describe an ability that cannot be stopped prior to being played, but may be stopped with an interrupt or a negate card.
This really isn't that complicated.
Kevin Shride
-
Here, let me try: Cannot be prevented, emphasis on the PRE. Pre = before. There are cards that say: "Prevent the special ability of the next x played." A card can only be prevented beforehand, not after.
Interrupt does NOT equal prevent. When you interrupt, you delay something. Basically, you change the initiative by going back in time and delaying the effect of the CBP card. In other words, you haven't prevented it, only delayed it. So it's effect WILL happen as long as the interrupt does not remove initiative.
Negate = make it as though it never happened. It does not prevent the ability, it gets rid of it.
So to clarify: CBP cannot be prevented by another card beforehand. CBN and CBI are NOT preventing the the card because they happen After CBP has been played. You cannot prevent something from happening in the past because THAT would make no sense. It would be like me saying: "I prevent my birth." (Not until time machines are built will I believe that).
-
I will repeat, I know how the cards are to be played, I am attempting to discuss the way I would like for them to be played, perhaps I posted this in the wrong section.
When you say "The first thing they said after that is it makes no sense. I agree, this really doesn't make any sense to me either." I'm going to assume it doesn't make sense to you. If you are explaining to the player that CBP cards can be prevented, then I am doubly certain that you do not have the proper understanding of the cards.
I disagree, if you interrupt a card, and then prevent it.
You're welcome to disagree if you want, but this is fact, not opinion. The card was played first, and then interrupted. If you're interrupting a card, you can only have done that after the card was played. Doing this does not violate what I said in any way.
The two abilities of "interrupt" followed by "prevent" are ruled to play exactly the same way as a negate card: an effect that cancels out the ability after it was played.
-
Cannot be prevented, emphasis on the PRE. Pre = before. There are cards that say: "Prevent the special ability of the next x played." A card can only be prevented beforehand, not after.
Heres where I am having issues with prevent. As stated, it has been ruled that you can prevent an ability AFTER a card has been played, without interrupting it.
THAT is gonna be a fun one to explain to new players.
-
So the wrong phrase was chosen. No problem. Use another one that actually makes logical sense. Simple as that.
To prevent is to stop the ability of a card before it is played.
Cannot be prevented means you cannot stop the ability of a card before it is played.
There is nothing incorrect or illogical about this construct, making your repeated assertions absent any supporting facts or logic unproductive.
-
"Cannot be prevented" can be interrupted. It is as simple as that.
"Cannot be interrupted" can be prevented.
"Cannot be interrupted" cannot be interrupted.
"Cannot be prevented" can be prevented?!?!?!?!?!?!
It's not as simple as that. It's illogical. Period.
Yes, it is that simple.
You can interrupt "cannot be prevented." Once it is interrupted, it no longer is giving its "cannot be prevented" effect.
What you call illogical is actually quite logical.
-
Regarding the title of this thread, we can just change the following card to "cannot be prevented."
(https://www.cactusforums.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg442.imageshack.us%2Fimg442%2F8590%2Fiamcompassinxp3.jpg&hash=48ebe04b6e5e3c4aa6b954d342b1d3fe50d31037)
-
Cannot be prevented, emphasis on the PRE. Pre = before. There are cards that say: "Prevent the special ability of the next x played." A card can only be prevented beforehand, not after.
Heres where I am having issues with prevent. As stated, it has been ruled that you can prevent an ability AFTER a card has been played, without interrupting it.
THAT is gonna be a fun one to explain to new players.
No, you can interrupt and negate a CBP card. You can't prevent a CBP. Although, interrupt and prevent together = negate. That is how it has been ruled because you interrupt the CBP ability and prevent the actual ability. Makes perfect sense to me. The modern, new term is just "negate."
-
he's not talking about that any more, sniper.
-
This is another one of those things where you have to look past the appearance of the English language and focus on the meaning of the abilities themselves. Someone had a similar problem not too long ago with the word "ignore" on Household Idols. Basically there are three different things that can happen.
<Interrupt> - Temporarily suspend the ability of a card that has already been played.
<Prevent> - Does not allow the abilities of certain cards played afterward to activate.
<Negate>, aka <Interrupt and Prevent> - Undoes the ability of a card that has already activated. Also, if the ability is ongoing, it shares <Prevent>'s definition.
I've enclosed each of these in angle brackets to make a point and included definitions for completeness. The point I am making is that despite the fact that <Interrupt and Prevent> looks like <Interrupt> and <Prevent>, that is not the case. <Interrupt and Prevent> (or <Negate>) has it's own definition of what it is supposed to do that is separate from the individual definitions of <Interrupt> and <Prevent>.
Therefore, the Cannot be <Prevented> portion of a card's ability only pertains to cards that have already been played that would be trying to <Prevent> it's ability. An <Interrupt and Prevent> (or <Negate>) ability can still affect this card.
I hope this helps people understand this issue rather than just confusing them more.
-
FYI, the horse is dead. ;)
-
I'm the fly buzzing around the horse. ;)
Don't follow the light.... :o
-
If that's the case then NO ONE COULD EVER INTERRUPT AND PREVENT ANY SPECIAL ABILITY!
That is how the function of a specific special ability is defined. It is not a broad-based explanation of a term that applies to every single effect in the game in the same way.
I'm asking you to please stop stirring the pot.
-
FYI, the horse is dead. ;)
which is why I wouldn't bet on it.
-
So I still want to know how you explain the ability to prevent a card AFTER the original card was played, without even interrupting it.
I play Great Image, you play Consuming Fire and prevent all crimson cards, Great image is then prevented from killing all your heroes.
I know this has also been explained as "triggered abilities haven't activated", but I strongly disagree with it. Prevent should only work if it is played before the card it is preventing.
-
Hey, look on the bright side. At least it means the triggered ability cannot be interrupted by default.
-
When you say "The first thing they said after that is it makes no sense. I agree, this really doesn't make any sense to me either." I'm going to assume it doesn't make sense to you. If you are explaining to the player that CBP cards can be prevented, then I am doubly certain that you do not have the proper understanding of the cards.
Then you would be incorrect, I do have an understanding of how to play the cards. I am not ignorant, I can read and understand the rules. I am trying to figure out WHY CBP was designed to be played this way? Perhaps I should have stated that when we were discussing if it made "sense" we were discussing why the rule was written the way it is. For the third time now, I know how the ability is supposed to be played, I am disagreeing with it and trying to understand why a rule that seems contradict its title was written the way it was.
f you are explaining to the player that CBP cards can be prevented, then I am doubly certain that you do not have the proper understanding of the cards.
No that is not what I was explaining to them. let me go over my "lesson" and then the main points of my issue with CBP. perhaps then you will be able to discern the difference. I explained to my new player that CBP cannot be prevented by an existing prevent(ie a battle begins with a FBTN character), but a CBP can be interrupted, and can also be negated after it has been played. Is this not correct?
but then after club we were discussing Negate in general and how it is defined as interrupt and prevent that really caused me to have issue with the behavior of CBP. According to the REG:
Negate
Negate stops and prevents a targeted special ability or card. The negate ability is played in the Field of Battle. It can undo another card already played unless the card explicitly states it cannot be negated. Negate is the same as ‘interrupt and prevent’ combined. A negate ability interrupts a special ability, and then prevents that special ability for the rest of the battle. (See Cannot be negated).
So to lay it in even simpler terms:
Premise 1: CBP cannot be prevented by a prevent that occurs before it is played.
Premise 2: Negate by definition is, "interrupt and prevent".
Premise 3: By playing a negate I am interrupting the CBP and inserting a prevent before.
Premise 4: According to the rules, the CBP is prevented.
Therefore: CBP abilities can be prevented. Causing me and a few others much consternation and strife.
-
Therefore: CBP abilities can be prevented. Causing me and a few others much consternation and strife.
Unnecessarily, I might add.
"Don't worry. Be happy." - some Jamaican singer (At least I think he was Jamaican. Maybe he was faking the accent.)
-
Unnecessarily, I might add.
Perhaps to you, but since I have actually had people give up trying to learn this game and go back to their other ccg's because they have a strong dislike for apparent inconsistencies such as this, it bothers me. No offense meant but certain issues mean different things to different people.
-
I would argue that they would have quit and gone back to their other games for any number of other reasons, not just this. The rules for CBP, CBI, and CBN have been clearly laid out in writing. Any difficulties that occur at this point are internally caused. If you look for a problem, you will find it. On the other hand, you could just play the game and have fun.
-
I would argue that they would have quit and gone back to their other games for any number of other reasons, not just this. The rules for CBP, CBI, and CBN have been clearly laid out in writing. Any difficulties that occur at this point are internally caused. If you look for a problem, you will find it. On the other hand, you could just play the game and have fun.
Perhaps he would have, but perhaps not. As for clearly laid out yes, you can find the answer. But I do not believe it to be coherent and consistent. I do play the game and have fun. I am not the only one feeling this way, and this issue is not internally caused. If all of this were clear cut and unquestioned then why are other senior players such as STAMP and Lambo agreeing with my point of view?
-
I'm not disagreeing with your (or others') point of view. I'm disagreeing with the need to take it this far. So what if there is a discrepancy between the outdated definition that "negate = interrupt + prevent" and what happens with a "cannot be prevented" card. How many CBP cards are there? Is this really a battle worth fighting? Is this really worth quitting the game over?
If you answer "yes" to either of these questions, then I say your problem is internally caused. Just let it go.
-
For the third time now, I know how the ability is supposed to be played, I am disagreeing with it and trying to understand why a rule that seems contradict its title was written the way it was.
You keep saying you understand and then you say you don't understand. You seem to think these are two different things but if you don't understand the logic behind the ruling, and consequently explain the rules incorrectly to your players, I submit that if you don't understand one, you don't understand the other.
No that is not what I was explaining to them....
...Premise 4: According to the rules, the CBP is prevented.
Apparently, this is EXACTLY what you are explaining to them.
If all of this were clear cut and unquestioned then why are other senior players such as STAMP and Lambo agreeing with my point of view?
Stamp is nitpicking my choice of words in order to create a controversy that does not exist. Lambo's problem is with a particular recent ruling about how the prevent mechanic is implemented.
but then after club we were discussing Negate in general and how it is defined as interrupt and prevent that really caused me to have issue with the behavior of CBP.
It sounds to me like your problem is more with some ambiguous sections of the definition of negate, and not with the CBP power itself. Read on.
Negate is the same as ‘interrupt and prevent’ combined.
This is the heart of the matter, as I suspected it would be, and the poor explanation in the REG does not help.
1). The original rule is that "interrupt and prevent" taken together is considered to be the same effect as "negate".
2). What the REG tries to explain - and it does it in two other places, and all three are different in some ways - is that negate stops an ability in two directions: it cancels out an ability already played, and it cancels out an ability not yet played.
3). The specific sentence stating that negate interrupts an ability already played and then prevents that ability is entirely incorrect. The new REG contains absolutely no reference to this kind of mechanic anywhere. Negates do not happen this way.
4). Therefore, by teaching the players out of a broken section of the REG, instead of your knowledge of how the card works and by arguing against the attempts of myself and others to provide the proper explanation, these people are being needlessly driven away from the game by inconsistencies that don't really exist.
I have nothing but sympathy for the state of both the old and new REGs during a time when you are trying to bring in new players. But a lot of this exhaustive language and contorted logic (on the part of all involved parties) is obfuscating what at its core are some very simple principles. The game is very easy to understand and play when it is distilled to its simplest elements. Focus on those and foster an exploration of the game's mechanics as they actually are, rather than getting everyone bogged down in details that we all know are not even entirely accurate in a few cases.
-
obfuscating
Haha...! You said obfuscating!!! Haha!
-
My question would be whether or not people would argue this vigorously to allow the Deck Discard LS to be placed in the Warriors version of Goshen?
If you say, "No," then why not? The reason comes down to the insert card that Cactus spent the effort and money to print. This insert clearly states that the Warriors Goshen and Kingdoms of this World are not sites, and that the site icon should be ignored. Could this still cause problems for new players when they see the site icon? Sure. Does it need to become a huge issue that is hashed out on this website? No.
The same holds true for CBP. Could there be confusion because of the "Negate = Interrupt + Prevent" part of the REG? Sure. That's why Cactus spent the effort and money to print an insert card to redefine the rules and make it clear. The insert does not talk about the special ability interactions. It specifies that the ruling is based solely on when the card was played. No other stipulations are considered for the purpose of CBP, CBI, or CBN. There is a card that wants to activate, and another card trying to stop it. Which one was played before the other is the only determining factor. Period.
Now, if you say that the Deck Discard LS could be placed in the Warriors Goshen, then your problems are internally caused. ;)
-
I play Great Image, you play Consuming Fire and prevent all crimson cards, Great image is then prevented from killing all your heroes.
I'm not sure that this is correct. I don't think that you could stop Great Image after it has already been played unless you interrupt or negate. I also didn't think that Great Image was classified as a weapon, in which case Consuming Fire wouldn't affect it anyway, right?
-
This is the heart of the matter, as I suspected it would be, and the poor explanation in the REG does not help.
1). The original rule is that "interrupt and prevent" taken together is considered to be the same effect as "negate".
2). What the REG tries to explain - and it does it in two other places, and all three are different in some ways - is that negate stops an ability in two directions: it cancels out an ability already played, and it cancels out an ability not yet played.
3). The specific sentence stating that negate interrupts an ability already played and then prevents that ability is entirely incorrect. The new REG contains absolutely no reference to this kind of mechanic anywhere. Negates do not happen this way.
4). Therefore, by teaching the players out of a broken section of the REG, instead of your knowledge of how the card works and by arguing against the attempts of myself and others to provide the proper explanation, these people are being needlessly driven away from the game by inconsistencies that don't really exist.
1. So in effect "interrupt and prevent" == negate, negate =/= "interrupt and prevent"
2. So "negate" is a unique ability that is more than a simple interrupt and prevent.
3. I look forward to the new REG.
4. I am not deliberately teaching out of obsolete sections of the REG. It's just until these recent discussions, it was all I had to go on. Clarifying "negate" is actually tremendously helpful to me as the old REG is in error.
I have nothing but sympathy for the state of both the old and new REGs during a time when you are trying to bring in new players. But a lot of this exhaustive language and contorted logic (on the part of all involved parties) is obfuscating what at its core are some very simple principles. The game is very easy to understand and play when it is distilled to its simplest elements. Focus on those and foster an exploration of the game's mechanics as they actually are, rather than getting everyone bogged down in details that we all know are not even entirely accurate in a few cases.
Now that I have wrapped my head around the idea that negate is not simply interrupt and prevent, I understand better. I am not trying to contort the language to be difficult. However I believe that this exhaustive language and contorted logic is an unfortunate necessity since I became a tournament host. Having to deal with constant rule lawyering and rule stretching and the contorted logic behind that, coupled with an outdated REG that gives players license to twist words according to outdated definition makes me want to pull my hair out. That is why I have been trying to reconcile the REG with the current game and it is an enormous struggle since there is no one go to place to find the information I need to answer questions.
My question would be whether or not people would argue this vigorously to allow the Deck Discard LS to be placed in the Warriors version of Goshen?
If there was an incorrect section of the REG that still claimed that those cards were considered sites, you bet I would vigorously argue the point.
I'm not disagreeing with your (or others') point of view. I'm disagreeing with the need to take it this far. So what if there is a discrepancy between the outdated definition that "negate = interrupt + prevent" and what happens with a "cannot be prevented" card. How many CBP cards are there? Is this really a battle worth fighting? Is this really worth quitting the game over?
If you answer "yes" to either of these questions, then I say your problem is internally caused. Just let it go.
1. If there is an apparent inconsistency in the game rules I feel obligated to get it sorted. Bringing consistency to the game in my opinion is always a battle worth fighting.
2. I never ever stated that I would leave the game over this, or even hinted at it. I am not that juvenile.
-
I play Great Image, you play Consuming Fire and prevent all crimson cards, Great image is then prevented from killing all your heroes.
I'm not sure that this is correct. I don't think that you could stop Great Image after it has already been played unless you interrupt or negate. I also didn't think that Great Image was classified as a weapon, in which case Consuming Fire wouldn't affect it anyway, right?
I agree on both points. If there was a card that said "prevent all discard abilities" it is my opinion that it could be played after Great Image before the battle ends to prevent its pending discard from taking effect. I don't know if that has been officially ruled on though. However, a card that said "prevent Great Image" or "prevent a crimson enhancement" would not stop Great Image, because the pending ability is just an ability, the crimson enhancement can't be prevented after it is played.
-
1. So in effect "interrupt and prevent" == negate, negate =/= "interrupt and prevent"
Sort of, but not really. The combination of "interrupt and prevent" into "negate" is a rule that brings old FBN language into compliance with current FBN language. And negate does not equal "interrupt and prevent" but it does equal "interrupt" and "prevent" individually, in that it can cancel abilities in both directions.
2. So "negate" is a unique ability that is more than a simple interrupt and prevent.
Well... yes. That's why it has its own keyword and its own defined ability.
4. I am not deliberately teaching out of obsolete sections of the REG. It's just until these recent discussions, it was all I had to go on. Clarifying "negate" is actually tremendously helpful to me as the old REG is in error.
I am not saying that you are doing this deliberately. My position from the beginning has been that your understanding of how the cards worked was incomplete. You insisted that it wasn't but you were continuing to point to incorrect conclusions. Assuming you had a hole in your understanding was assuming that you would not deliberately mislead players.
I am not trying to contort the language to be difficult. However I believe that this exhaustive language and contorted logic is an unfortunate necessity since I became a tournament host. Having to deal with constant rule lawyering and rule stretching and the contorted logic behind that, coupled with an outdated REG that gives players license to twist words according to outdated definition makes me want to pull my hair out.
My point to lingual contortions was not directed specifically at you; I was only saying that when rules lawyers try to stretch something to their advantage, that's not helpful, but also, that ruling authorities need to facilitate clarity and ease of learning as much as possible, and provide a good framework for learning. A wise man once told me: "No such thing bad student, only bad teacher. Teacher say, student do. "
-
For the last time, I will explain the logic with the realization that the PTB will not pay attention, but at least my minions can carry on the good fight.
"Cannot be prevented" means "cannot be prevented".
Once you activate any special ability that cannot be prevented, it is just like "cannot be interrupted" and "cannot be negated". The CBP "sticks" to the table just like CBI and CBN. YES, a special ability with CBP status can be interrupted. HOWEVER, the CBP status is still sticking to the table! An interrupt is interrupting the SPECIAL ABILITY, NOT the CBP status. Once a special ability with CBP status is interrupted, it can be redirected <OR> the card containing the special ability can be discarded or removed from play in order to avoid having the special ability re-activate. BUT IT CANNOT BE PREVENTED! Why? Because when the special ability was activated, IT SAID SO!
It's easy to understand.
It's LOGICAL.
It's CONSISTENT.
PLEASE, if a light bulb has gone on for anyone, consider this when formulating the rules regarding pending abilities, prevent, etc.
This is how my thought process has always worked. It makes sense to me that the only way to "prevent" a CBP ability is to indirectly "prevent" it - i.e., interrupt + discard, end battle, etc. But the word "prevent" should never prevent a CBP ability.
I think the issue is that the playtesters and card creators wanted to create two new special abilities, in which one would be unable to be stopped by cards played afterwards and one that cannot be stopped by cards played beforehand. CBI and CBP happened to be the "wordings" chosen to represent these two classifications. The issue I have with this is that now the focus is on when a card was played and not what the card says. Hence, how interrupt + prevent can stop a CBP ability, since it was played after the CBP card.
I'm really not trying to "stir the pot" any more. This is my opinion, and it happens to agree with STAMP's. If ruled this way, CBP would become more powerful. But then again, it should be powerful. I mean, if an ability truly "cannot be prevented", then it should be powerful.
-
I'm not doing any nitpicking of the sort.
When you tell me that my definition of the prevent special ability means that no special ability could ever be negated... I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment. Strongly.
"Cannot be prevented" means "cannot be prevented".
I told you this. You told me that "cannot be prevented" means CAN be prevented. That suggests to me that I am not the one with the comprehension problem.
Once you activate any special ability that cannot be prevented, it is just like "cannot be interrupted" and "cannot be negated". The CBP "sticks" to the table just like CBI and CBN. YES, a special ability with CBP status can be interrupted. HOWEVER, the CBP status is still sticking to the table! An interrupt is interrupting the SPECIAL ABILITY, NOT the CBP status.
All of this is agreed to, and I have never disputed this at any point in the conversation. Not once. But since I have not been talking about preventing this card with a card played after it, nothing I have said to date has contradicted your logic. At all.
And yet you post repeatedly that the ability is "illogical" and the "wrong phrase was chosen" and really done nothing but say that the explanations given here are not explanations at all. Meanwhile, you say that you are explaining "for the last time" but this is the first time you've offered anything to this thread other than a couple sentences saying "oh noes illogical". You say I'm not paying attention but I have taken the time and effort to explain this to you and others multiple times, and this is the first time you've given the courtesy of anything more than a curt denial of my (our?) assertions. I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that.
-
More sarcasm that ignores the fact that none of the other elders commenting on the topic have stated that cannot be prevented cards can be prevented.
I can't be "on board" with something that I have said from the beginning with the thread and which you have been disputing the entire time.
-
Here's you calling an apple an orange:
"Cannot be prevented" can be prevented?!?!?!?!?!?!
Here's Kevin calling an apple an apple:
"Cannot be prevented" CANNOT be prevented.
I invite you to show me where you heard me say that a CBP ability CAN be prevented. Any one time. Please.
-
Wow. Is it time to lock this one up? (Hint, Hint)
-
But seriously, it's quite evident by the responses from other experienced players and teachers of the game that it's foolish to have one set of terms (negate/interrupt/prevent) be based on the timing of when an ability fires versus having the counter to those terms (CBN, CBI, CBP) be based on the timing of the playing of a card. It's illogical to use different timelines. To be consistent they should both use the same timeline.
Are you talking now about the "interrupt-plus-prevent" issue that Korunks and I have been talking about, or are you talking about the "pending abilities" ruling that Lambo has been talking about?
Because this statement appears to be completely unrelated to anything other than Lambo's sidebar complaint.
-
It cannot be both, because your statement does not apply to the general way negating works, as has been explained at great length so far in this thread.
-
1. I play a card with a special ability
2. You play a card that that interrupts and prevents the previous enhancement card I played.
Question: is the card I played prevented?
The two abilities of "interrupt" followed by "prevent" are ruled to play exactly the same way as a negate card: an effect that cancels out the ability after it was played.
The original rule is that "interrupt and prevent" taken together is considered to be the same effect as "negate".... The specific sentence stating that negate interrupts an ability already played and then prevents that ability is entirely incorrect. The new REG contains absolutely no reference to this kind of mechanic anywhere. Negates do not happen this way.
The combination of "interrupt and prevent" into "negate" is a rule that brings old FBN language into compliance with current FBN language. And negate does not equal "interrupt and prevent" but it does equal "interrupt" and "prevent" individually, in that it can cancel abilities in both directions.
Do all of your steps involve asking questions that I have already answered three times previously? If so, this could take a while.
-
For being retired you sure are opinionated about things that have little or no bearing on your life, Mr. Stamp. :)
Everyone understands your point. We also understand how CBP works within the rules, even if we don't all like it. It's not going to change. Let's move on.
-
1. I play a card with a special ability
2. You play a card that that interrupts and prevents the previous enhancement card I played.
Question: is the card I played prevented?
No. "Interrupt and prevent" in this case is just old language for "negate" which means cancel. Your card is NOT prevented. It is negated.
Everyone understands your point. We also understand how CBP works within the rules, even if we don't all like it. It's not going to change. Let's move on.
+1
-
I love and appreciate you all.
Say "goodnight", Gracie.
"Goodnight Gracie."
-
1. I play a card with a special ability
2. You play a card that that interrupts and prevents the previous enhancement card I played.
Question: is the card I played prevented?
No. "Interrupt and prevent" in this case is just old language for "negate" which means cancel. Your card is NOT prevented. It is negated.
[stirringthepot] But by that definition, CBI and CBP should not stop a negate, if it doesn't actually interrupt or prevent. ;) [/stirringthepot]
-
Don't. Just don't.
-
But by that definition, CBI and CBP should not stop a negate
Which happens to be correct. CBI doesn't stop a negate that is played before it. CBP doesn't stop a negate that is played after it. So neither of them stop a negate as long as the negate is played at the right time :)
-
I agree on both points. If there was a card that said "prevent all discard abilities" it is my opinion that it could be played after Great Image before the battle ends to prevent its pending discard from taking effect. I don't know if that has been officially ruled on though. However, a card that said "prevent Great Image" or "prevent a crimson enhancement" would not stop Great Image, because the pending ability is just an ability, the crimson enhancement can't be prevented after it is played.
So what is the answer to this? It makes things more confusing if triggered abilities can still be prevented after they are played. I believe the prevent should only work if played before the card with the ability.
Kirk
-
Hey,
So what is the answer to this? It makes things more confusing if triggered abilities can still be prevented after they are played. I believe the prevent should only work if played before the card with the ability.
With as much PTB involvement as there has been in this thread I wouldn't be worried about not getting an answer, but this thread is only two days old, the PTB simply don't work that fast.
Everyone understands your point. We also understand how CBP works within the rules, even if we don't all like it. It's not going to change.
While I often feel similarly that some things are not going to change, I think (or at least still hope) that this isn't one of them.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
It makes things more confusing if triggered abilities can still be prevented after they are played. I believe the prevent should only work if played before the card with the ability.
This is my stance as well, as I've stated with my sidebar comments in this thread.
-
I agree as well. I thought the whole idea of the insert card was to make things easier to understand (and rule). You cannot prevent a card that has already been played.