Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I'm not sure where you heard this rule, but that is not the case. If a CBN ability is activated, it "sticks" and cannot be negated directly (by a negate card) or indirectly (cascade negated). Example: I attack with Tribal Elder and band to Abraham who searches deck for Isaac and bands to him (CBN). If you negate Tribal Elder, then Abraham leaves battle, but Isaac remains because he was banded in by a CBN ability.

The ruling about CBN cards sticking has confused me before because when you negate Tribal Elder you are not negating Abraham's ability.  Now negating tribal elder  undoes whatever happened by his ability....but I think this is where a limited vocabulary isn't helpful because the logic to my understanding of why cbn sticks is: negating the band undoes everything afterwards, and since undoing something is negating, the cbn card sticks by definition. Observing that negate undoes effects is accurate but that does not mean that whenever I undo an effect it was negated, yet in Redemption it does because there is not something else in place to describe undoing effects. Going further, after Tribal Elder is negated, Abraham may be banded into battle later on because he never entered battle. But if Abraham was never in battle how is his ability still active? Very opposite from intuitive.

Quote

Very opposite from intuitive.

As opposed to letting a CBN ability be undone by a negate? 

When you think about it, the very concept of "negate" will never truly be intuitive because for the most part we (as humans) have very linear thinking.

It's not negating Abrahams ability though, it would be as if it never occurred because he was never actually brought into battle due to a negate. I think that's what's confusing. The negate effects what brought Abraham into battle in the first place.

Quote from: Zerutul on July 27, 2017, 04:26:03 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on July 27, 2017, 04:19:55 PM

Quote

Very opposite from intuitive.

As opposed to letting a CBN ability be undone by a negate? 

When you think about it, the very concept of "negate" will never truly be intuitive because for the most part we (as humans) have very linear thinking.

It's not negating Abrahams ability though, it would be as if it never occurred because he was never actually brought into battle due to a negate. I think that's what's confusing. The negate effects what brought Abraham into battle in the first place.

That's exactly what negating is though, making something to have never occurred. "Cannot be negated" means it cannot be made to have never occurred once it happens, whether that's directly or indirectly.

Correct, but the card is not negating Abraham's ability. It's negating the ability that brings him in making him never able to do anything (Like search for Isaac or band to him). I'm just saying it's literally confusing for no reason it feels like. Why would Isaac be able to band if Abraham literally was never there in the first place. All I'm saying is I agree that it's confusing and saying it's not is just ignoring the point of this thread.

I just don't think negating the band means that you are literally negating everything that came into battle after it.

That's exactly what it means.

I feel like when you negate Tribal Elder you undo the band that's all you're negating, but it has implications because the band never happened. If the band never happened, it follows that Abraham never entered battle. If Abraham never entered battle then his ability never activated. So, because I negated the band, Abraham's ability did not activate. I don't see where the negation of Abraham's ability is happening. Nothing is being interrupted or prevented. So all I am in saying is it is confusing to me, and maybe to other people as well. A cbn card cannot be cascade negated, that's the rule and I am not disputing that; however, I don't think its consistent with the definition of negate, which makes it confusing to me ha

When I made a thread a while back basically ranting about cascade negate, John brought up the change they were planning on making to the negate entry to better include the concept of cascade negating. The exact quote is:

A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and any ability activated because of the negated ability. A negate ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing

The new definition specifically applies the language of negate to abilities of activated because of a negated ability (In this case, Abraham). There aren't any mysterious extra "implications" or "undoings" that are being applied to the banded cards, it's just a simple extension of the original negate. When a band is negated, all characters banded in are definitionally negated by that same negate.

A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and any ability activated because of the negated ability. A negate ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing

[/quote]

It's perfectly fine to redefine negate but doing so doesn't necessarily make it less confusing or more consistent, because "any ability activated because of the negated ability" does not follow from "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability".

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on May 17, 2017, 01:16:03 AM

A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability, and any ability activated because of the negated ability. A negate ability keeps the uncompleted activation of an ability from ever completing

It's perfectly fine to redefine negate but doing so doesn't necessarily make it less confusing or more consistent, because "any ability activated because of the negated ability" does not follow from "A negate ability takes a previously completed ability and undoes the effect of that ability".

The elders agree which is precisely why they are updating the entry, see the aforementioned quote from John.

Quote

One more unnatural rule is the rule that cascade negate may negate the things that were a cascade result of a CBN ability. It seems more natural to understand that everything behind CBN would stay untouched from the cascade negate. So that's one of the rules that I've found hard to understand.

I'm not sure where you heard this rule, but that is not the case. If a CBN ability is activated, it "sticks" and cannot be negated directly (by a negate card) or indirectly (cascade negated). Example: I attack with Tribal Elder and band to Abraham who searches deck for Isaac and bands to him (CBN). If you negate Tribal Elder, then Abraham leaves battle, but Isaac remains because he was banded in by a CBN ability.

I understood the cascade negate rule so that if your character A bands a CBN character B who bands a non-CBN character C who bands a non-CBN character D and then your character A gets negated:
- his band ability would be negated (I still don't know what happens to the character B)
- the CBN band ability of the character B can't be negated - therefore character C stays in battle

And here one would think the CBN ability would stop the cascade negate in negating the character C and D
But, as I understood it, the cascade negate goes behind the CBN ability and negates it's results...
Therefore:

- character C gets negated but stays in battle - therefore the banding of the character D doesn't occur
- character D gets negated and out of the battle

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This ability is a monster for me to understand...

What is the rule for "respond to your own actions" and what all does it involve?

Let's face it if your deck or hand are protected your opponent should not be able to manipulate them at all in any way(no return to, reveal, look, shuffle, take, underdeck, etc)

I know there is some justification for the hypocrisy, its just a bad rule.

"Deck is protected from shuffle abilities" they play grapes and shuffle your protected deck. That is just a bad rule Deck and shuffle are in the same sentence it is a real stretch of the imagination to say deck isn't involved here it is in fact a variable of the ability

Thematically if I have four living creatures or self control why in the world should I become hypocritical because of my opponents hypocrisy? Same goes for grapes I mean it makes sense if you want it to but if something is protected from your opponents cards this seems like a thin window of exploitation

Protection abilities protect from abilities that specifically target the targets of the protect ability. Hypocrisy/Grapes/Underdeck, do not target the deck/hand as it's target. The target of these cards are the cards being returned/shuffled/stuff. Don't see why this is so illogical.

Is target defined?

A shuffle ability targets the cards that are to be shuffled.

Yep.

My understanding is that protecting your deck has nothing to do with the cards in play, so a shuffled card still goes to your deck even if your deck is protected. That said, even if your deck is protected from shuffle, you have to shuffle the character back in - you can't just put it back in your deck "randomly" since it would be easy to put it in the top/bottom to rig your draw.

Put another way - even though the shuffle affects the deck, it only targets the shuffled card. You can't shuffle a card without shuffling the deck, but the shuffle isn't specifically targeting the deck, so it's not protected.

Its not bad to have abilities which do multiple things its just simply bad that a location isn't considered protected when it is

Ie being shuffled while protected from shuffle I'm just saying this will continue to cause confusion for people