Cactus Game Design Message Boards

he's not talking about that any more, sniper.

FYI, the horse is dead. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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. 

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.

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. "

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.