Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: STAMP on June 15, 2010, 07:15:13 PM

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]

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

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

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.