Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Watchman on May 16, 2018, 08:31:35 AM
-
Just what the title says. I wanted clarification on this issue, more specifically regardless of protection, instead, and limit (I know CBx are all CBN). I prefer an elder response to this so the question can be answered definitively.
Thanks
-
This is an interesting question...do you have an example of an interaction that made you ask this?
-
This is an interesting question...do you have an example of an interaction that made you ask this?
There was recent discussion about it on the forum (I couldn’t find the thread) so I just wanted a straightforward definitive answer for rulings during casual games and tourneys.
-
The answer is yes but you have to remember the reason..
Only abilities can be negated. Modifiers are not abilities. For example, Herods temple is not cbn, the instead portion is a modifier but is conditional upon a discard ability which can be negated.
-
The answer is yes but you have to remember the reason..
Only abilities can be negated. Modifiers are not abilities. For example, Herods temple is not cbn, the instead portion is a modifier but is conditional upon a discard ability which can be negated.
This is why I was curious for an example.
Watchman, are you asking if "Herod's Temple" were to be Negated, would the modifier continue?
-
I've always played that modifiers granting CBP/CBI/CBN to other abilities are the only ones that by definition are CBN. If the REG now states that all modifiers are CBN, that's something completely new to me.
-
The answer is yes but you have to remember the reason..
Only abilities can be negated. Modifiers are not abilities. For example, Herods temple is not cbn, the instead portion is a modifier but is conditional upon a discard ability which can be negated.
This is why I was curious for an example.
Watchman, are you asking if "Herod's Temple" were to be Negated, would the modifier continue?
To which the answer is no because the condition of the instead is not being fulfilled (based on a discard ability which can be negated)
-
I've always played that modifiers granting CBP/CBI/CBN to other abilities are the only ones that by definition are CBN. If the REG now states that all modifiers are CBN, that's something completely new to me.
Modifiers are not abilities and cannot be targeted by negate. However, this does not mean any ability tied to a modifier is cbn because those abilities may be targeted by negate.
-
So I'm a bit unclear here.
Example:
My opponent has the 'wicked' lost soul which grants the first evil enhancement he plays regardless of protect abilities.
I have Moses CoW in territory negating lost souls.
I attack with AUtO and exchange for Gideon.
Is the first evil enhancement my opponent plays regardless of protect abilities because it is a modifier?
-
So I'm a bit unclear here.
Example:
My opponent has the 'wicked' lost soul which grants the first evil enhancement he plays regardless of protect abilities.
I have Moses CoW in territory negating lost souls.
I attack with AUtO and exchange for Gideon.
Is the first evil enhancement my opponent plays regardless of protect abilities because it is a modifier?
My understanding is that the soul is negated because the ability granting the modifier is just that, an ability, and can be targeted by the negate.
-
if abilities that make other things CBN are themselves CBN because they are really modifiers, I don't see why an ability that makes things regardless of protection should be any different
-
if abilities that make other things CBN are themselves CBN because they are really modifiers, I don't see why an ability that makes things regardless of protection should be any different
See, that's where the confusion lies: Abilities that grant CBP/CBI/CBN to other abilities were made CBN because it simplified the game and prevented crazy loops. At one point, they were the only modifier inherently CBN.
If all other modifiers are now CBN, then I'd rule that Moses can't negate the Wicked LS, 3 Woes can't negate the first part of Gideon's Ephod, Herod's Temple is basically CBN, etc.
-
if abilities that make other things CBN are themselves CBN because they are really modifiers, I don't see why an ability that makes things regardless of protection should be any different
That's not the reason that CBx granting abilities are CBN. They are CBN because there is a line in the REG for each one saying that it is CBN. There is no such line for modifiers as a whole. If TPTB decide they want all modifier granting abilities to be CBN, they would need a rule change to do so.
-
For some reason I remember this coming up recently and I thought an Elder said that Wicked is CBN. I do agree that it is weird and possibly a new change? Because I remember Herod's Temple being negatable when it first came out.
-
This is why I wanted an elder to respond. :-\
-
Gabe said Wicked is cbn because modifiers aren't abilities
-
All modifiers are CBN.
This does not make Herod's Temple CBN, because the instead modifier modifies it's own ability, so it replaces the triggering event rather than waiting until all other abilities complete, but the modified ability is still negateable.
-
Why do we even call them modifiers at all? Cant they just all be abilities and then you have abilities that grant CBx be CBN? That seems a lot simpler...
-
All modifiers are CBN.
This does not make Herod's Temple CBN, because the instead modifier modifies it's own ability, so it replaces the triggering event rather than waiting until all other abilities complete, but the modified ability is still negateable.
So what does this mean for The god of This World then? His "Instead" ability is CBN, no matter what - so when my opponent draws via his/her special ability, it gets Insteaded, and therefore the only question is whether my opponent draws 1 (TgoTW doesn't get negated later) or 0 (TgoTW later gets negated)?
-
All modifiers are CBN.
Are all abilities that grant any modifier CBN? If so the REG is currently inconsistent with the rules.
-
Are all abilities that grant any modifier CBN? If so the REG is currently inconsistent with the rules.
Saying something is "inconsistent" isn't helpful you, us or the rest of the community. Showing how you feel it's inconsistent, especially with reference to specific "inconsistent" parts is constructive criticism we'd be glad to hear and possibly address.
-
All modifiers are CBN.
This does not make Herod's Temple CBN, because the instead modifier modifies it's own ability, so it replaces the triggering event rather than waiting until all other abilities complete, but the modified ability is still negateable.
So what does this mean for The god of This World then? His "Instead" ability is CBN, no matter what - so when my opponent draws via his/her special ability, it gets Insteaded, and therefore the only question is whether my opponent draws 1 (TgoTW doesn't get negated later) or 0 (TgoTW later gets negated)?
It's X-1 or 0, but yes. That's stated in the definition of instead (Special Conditions -> 5th bullet).
All modifiers are CBN.
Are all abilities that grant any modifier CBN? If so the REG is currently inconsistent with the rules.
The REG also says weapons are normal Enhancements in battle - we haven't gotten a new version released yet.
I think this discussion largely matters for cards that modify other cards - if you negate the card that modified itself, it mostly didn't matter if the modifier was CBN. Prior to FoM, that meant Seek and Destroy for Regardless.
-
Are all abilities that grant any modifier CBN? If so the REG is currently inconsistent with the rules.
Saying something is "inconsistent" isn't helpful you, us or the rest of the community. Showing how you feel it's inconsistent, especially with reference to specific "inconsistent" parts is constructive criticism we'd be glad to hear and possibly address.
The intent was to get an answer to the question before explaining the resulting inconsistency to avoid confusing the discussion if the answer was negative but that's a good point.
The only place in the REG it mentions abilities that grant modifiers being CBN is the individual sections for each CBx entry. IMO instead would need a line saying that the act of insteading cannot be negated and RoP would need a line saying that the granting of RoP cannot be negated to be consistent with the similar lines in the CBx entries.
The REG also says weapons are normal Enhancements in battle - we haven't gotten a new version released yet.
I didn't mean to insist that all updates happen immediately, I mainly bring this up because I think it's still a subject of debate for some people whether the REG actually needs to be changed in this area.
All modifiers are CBN.
This does not make Herod's Temple CBN, because the instead modifier modifies it's own ability, so it replaces the triggering event rather than waiting until all other abilities complete, but the modified ability is still negateable.
So what does this mean for The god of This World then? His "Instead" ability is CBN, no matter what - so when my opponent draws via his/her special ability, it gets Insteaded, and therefore the only question is whether my opponent draws 1 (TgoTW doesn't get negated later) or 0 (TgoTW later gets negated)?
It's X-1 or 0, but yes. That's stated in the definition of instead (Special Conditions -> 5th bullet).
I feel like I'm completely misunderstanding but does this mean that KoT+Moses=opponent always draws 0?
-
All modifiers are CBN.
This does not make Herod's Temple CBN, because the instead modifier modifies it's own ability, so it replaces the triggering event rather than waiting until all other abilities complete, but the modified ability is still negateable.
So what does this mean for The god of This World then? His "Instead" ability is CBN, no matter what - so when my opponent draws via his/her special ability, it gets Insteaded, and therefore the only question is whether my opponent draws 1 (TgoTW doesn't get negated later) or 0 (TgoTW later gets negated)?
It's X-1 or 0, but yes. That's stated in the definition of instead (Special Conditions -> 5th bullet).
I feel like I'm completely misunderstanding but does this mean that KoT+Moses=opponent always draws 0?
If the new effect is prevented, it can't activate and the old ability remains. If you can consistently get KoT/Moses into battle after a draw is insteaded, yes, they draw 0.
The REG also says weapons are normal Enhancements in battle - we haven't gotten a new version released yet.
I didn't mean to insist that all updates happen immediately, I mainly bring this up because I think it's still a subject of debate for some people whether the REG actually needs to be changed in this area.
Limit was intended to be CBN, so you can't use King Amaziah and negate the limit to use it multiple times per game (pre-block choose is CBI). Or make a draw CBN and negate a limit.
I don't think there's a similar combo with instead, since most of them are costs intended to replace the triggering event. If you could negate the instead but not the ability, you could still use them as normal triggers, I just don't know why you would.
For RoP, it has more to do with JD's description is more accurate in that modifiers can't be targeted by IPN due to their nature than modifiers are CBN. As such, the change would probably appear in the definition of a modifier.
-
Why do we even call them modifiers at all? Cant they just all be abilities and then you have abilities that grant CBx be CBN? That seems a lot simpler...
Dear all,
I think it would be great if everything was marked "CBN" if it was CBN (even if it was just a modifier). The reason is because it is sometimes very difficult to tell the difference between a special ability and a modifier (see previous discussion on Peter (EC) -i.e. you have to parse out his ability into part 1 & 2, where the first part is negatable, but the second part is not. This is very confusing.)
Here are some other examples:
Michael (Ki) is a clear MODIFIER: "Enhancements played with Michael cannot be negated" - so this would be inherently CBN, right?
However, Captain of the Host (Ki) is a SPECIAL ABILITY: "Negate all non weapon class special abilities except banding". So, am I right to assume Captain of the Host would be negatable?
Now, here is an interesting example -- King of Tyrus. One version (Priests) appears to be negatable, whereas the other version (Warriors) appears to be CBN. What is the difference? Only a slightly different wording. The Priest version states: "Negate all special abilities on characters and enhancements (except this special ability)." This one is written in active voice, so it is a special ability, hence it would be negatable, because it does not say "CBN" on it. The other version, Warriors, is written in passive voice: "All special abilities on character cards and enhancement cards except this one are interrupted and prevented. Battle is determined by the numbers." So, this one appears to be a MODIFIER, not an ability, so it would be CBN.
Is this correct?
Thank you
-
Why do we even call them modifiers at all? Cant they just all be abilities and then you have abilities that grant CBx be CBN? That seems a lot simpler...
Dear all,
I think it would be great if everything was marked "CBN" if it was CBN (even if it was just a modifier). The reason is because it is sometimes very difficult to tell the difference between a special ability and a modifier (see previous discussion on Peter (EC) -i.e. you have to parse out his ability into part 1 & 2, where the first part is negatable, but the second part is not. This is very confusing.)
Here are some other examples:
Michael (Ki) is a clear MODIFIER: "Enhancements played with Michael cannot be negated" - so this would be inherently CBN, right?
However, Captain of the Host (Ki) is a SPECIAL ABILITY: "Negate all non weapon class special abilities except banding". So, am I right to assume Captain of the Host would be negatable?
Now, here is an interesting example -- King of Tyrus. One version (Priests) appears to be negatable, whereas the other version (Warriors) appears to be CBN. What is the difference? Only a slightly different wording. The Priest version states: "Negate all special abilities on characters and enhancements (except this special ability)." This one is written in active voice, so it is a special ability, hence it would be negatable, because it does not say "CBN" on it. The other version, Warriors, is written in passive voice: "All special abilities on character cards and enhancement cards except this one are interrupted and prevented. Battle is determined by the numbers." So, this one appears to be a MODIFIER, not an ability, so it would be CBN.
Is this correct?
Thank you
Both versions of KoT are abilities and are fully negateable. Voice doesn't change whether a line of text is a modifier or ability.
-
Looks like you’re having trouble with abilities vs modifiers. All a modifier is is wording that modifies abilities. CBN, CBI, and CBP are modifiers. They are not abilities. Modifiers are telling you that the previous ABILITY cannot be X. In your KoT examples his ability is just an ability in both versions. He has no modifiers at all since there are no CBx printed on his cards. Same thing with Captain. His and KoT ability can be prevented or interrupted. Kings and AW Michael, on the other hand, has a modifier since it has CBN wording.
-
Looks like you’re having trouble with abilities vs modifiers. All a modifier is is wording that modifies abilities. CBN, CBI, and CBP are modifiers. They are not abilities. Modifiers are telling you that the previous ABILITY cannot be X. In your KoT examples his ability is just an ability in both versions. He has no modifiers at all since there are no CBx printed on his cards. Same thing with Captain. His and KoT ability can be prevented or interrupted. Kings and AW Michael, on the other hand, has a modifier since it has CBN wording.
OK, that makes sense.
Thank you.
-
Kings and AW Michael, on the other hand, has a modifier since it has CBN wording.
Watchman, I just wanted to clarify something. In your last statement you wrote: Kings and AW Michael has a modifier since it has CBN wording.
Yes, that is true, but just because there is a modifier (somewhere) within a character's special ability (total text), that does not guarantee that his WHOLE special ability is CBN. There are cards in which part of the special ability must be parsed out from the modifier portion in order to determine which part is CBN and which is not (case in point = Peter, EC).
That's all I am saying.
Thanks
-
Demetrius the Siversmith is another good example.
DtS' special ability contains 3 sentences. The first 2 sentences are special abilities, so they are NEGATABLE, but the last sentence is a modifier, so it is CBN.
It would be wrong to claim that ALL of DtS' special ability was CBN, just because of the modifier present in the third sentence.
Thanks
-
Demetrius the Siversmith is another good example.
DtS' special ability contains 3 sentences. The first 2 sentences are special abilities, so they are NEGATABLE, but the last sentence is a modifier, so it is CBN.
It would be wrong to claim that ALL of DtS' special ability was CBN, just because of the modifier present in the third sentence.
Thanks
Actually that’s a bad example because his modifier says “Acts 19 cards cannot be negated.” Since he is an Acts 19 card his entire card ability cannot be negated.
-
Kings and AW Michael, on the other hand, has a modifier since it has CBN wording.
Watchman, I just wanted to clarify something. In your last statement you wrote: Kings and AW Michael has a modifier since it has CBN wording.
Yes, that is true, but just because there is a modifier (somewhere) within a character's special ability (total text), that does not guarantee that his WHOLE special ability is CBN. There are cards in which part of the special ability must be parsed out from the modifier portion in order to determine which part is CBN and which is not (case in point = Peter, EC).
That's all I am saying.
Thanks
I understand. But keep in mind that when EC Peter was designed not all of his abilities were intended to be CBN, just the Acts enhs played on him. So while I understand it can be a little confusing at first about modifiers being CBN themselves (a couple of years ago I asked the same question on the forum), once you know that modifiers are CBN then you’ll know that abilities like Peter’s can be partially negatable and partially not. Stephen is another example. His hand reveal and shuffling of evil doms is negatable, but the second part “Acts enhancements CBN” is not. So if something like Covenant with Death is active Stephen’s hand and shuffle ability is prevented but not any Acts enhs; or if KoT blocks Stephen then the shuffling is negated. But if Stephen plays an Acts enh like Speak with Power then KoT neither prevents it nor is able to interrupt it with an evil enh because Acts enhs CBN (a modifier that’s CBN).
-
REG:
"A modifier is part of a special ability that modifies abilities or effects. Modifiers are not
themselves abilities, but alter the behavior of abilities or effects. "
This is why a "Modifier" cannot be negated (which the REG says only interacts with "Abilities").
REG Modifier Listing:
-Cannot Be Interrupted
-Cannot Be Prevented
-Cannot Be Negated
-Instead
-Limit
-Regardless
What helped me in the discussion was: each of the above on the list of modifiers (which I suppose is exhaustive) interacts with an ability, and they cannot be "undone" (read "negated") for practical purposes (it can cause odd loops, or allow you to "break" intended game play, etc). Because modifiers are interacting with an ability, they cannot be stopped and really have no need to be stopped, but the ability could be (unless the modifier protects the ability) stopped.
Think of a modifier as more of a "describer" than an "action." Such as "Cannot be Negated:" the Game is telling the players that the qualified object cannot be "Negated" in a similar way when the game is telling a player that when they draw a Lost Soul, they put it in their Land of Bondage. The game constantly tells players things to do or not to do (Draw phase: draw three cards, Upkeep: remove or add set-aside counters, etc.). Modifiers are another tool the game uses to communicate to the players "Do something" or "Don't do something" specifically relating to abilities.
Well, as I understand the verbiage in the REG and the practical experience given by playing with others.
-
Demetrius the Siversmith is another good example.
DtS' special ability contains 3 sentences. The first 2 sentences are special abilities, so they are NEGATABLE, but the last sentence is a modifier, so it is CBN.
It would be wrong to claim that ALL of DtS' special ability was CBN, just because of the modifier present in the third sentence.
Thanks
Actually that’s a bad example because his modifier says “Acts 19 cards cannot be negated.” Since he is an Acts 19 card his entire card ability cannot be negated.
Wow, nice catch. Thank you.
I still think it would be clearer if the card said "Acts 19 cards (including this one) cannot be negated."
Don't you think?
Thanks
*NOTE: I would just like to see more clarity (on the cards themselves) about what can be negated and what cannot. I don't like being surprised in tournaments when people say things like: "Oh, you can't negate that because of x, y, z..." And, I have heard people argue that Peter (EC) cannot be negated, which is simply not true.
-
Revisiting this, unless I missed it, I don’t believe my original question was answered. I would like a definitive answer from the elders as we all need to know the answer for tournament judging and playing.
Thanks
-
All modifiers are CBN.
This does not make Herod's Temple CBN, because the instead modifier modifies it's own ability, so it replaces the triggering event rather than waiting until all other abilities complete, but the modified ability is still negateable.
Here's your answer!
-
What about this example? If Moses was in battle what all would he be negating:
Idols of Canaan
“If a black Canaanite is in a territory, you may convert a Hero in that territory to black. Limit once. Protect evil Canaanite humans from multi-brigade Heroes.”
I know the protect ability is negatable, but what about the first two sentences? Is only the “limit once” CBN, or what the limit is modifying as well as the limit modifier?
And by the way, what does the “limit once” mean exactly? Limit once per game? Per turn? Per round?
-
Moses doesn't negate Artifacts, but for the non-CBX modifiers, the modified ability is negateable. So you can negate everything but the limit.
"Limit once" means limit once until reset to face value. It does get discarded when the limit is reached. Older cards like Burial Shroud use "limit twice" in the Play As.
-
Moses doesn't negate Artifacts, but for the non-CBX modifiers, the modified ability is negateable. So you can negate everything but the limit.
"Limit once" means limit once until reset to face value. It does get discarded when the limit is reached. Older cards like Burial Shroud use "limit twice" in the Play As.
Sorry, I got Idol Worship (the evil enh) mixed up with this one. Thanks for the answer.
Concerning the “limit once” question, I knew that lol. I drew a blank when asking that. It’s the same with Shimei’s taunt.
Thanks
-
Demetrius the Siversmith is another good example.
DtS' special ability contains 3 sentences. The first 2 sentences are special abilities, so they are NEGATABLE, but the last sentence is a modifier, so it is CBN.
It would be wrong to claim that ALL of DtS' special ability was CBN, just because of the modifier present in the third sentence.
Thanks
Actually that’s a bad example because his modifier says “Acts 19 cards cannot be negated.” Since he is an Acts 19 card his entire card ability cannot be negated.
Wow, nice catch. Thank you.
I still think it would be clearer if the card said "Acts 19 cards (including this one) cannot be negated."
Don't you think?
Thanks
*NOTE: I would just like to see more clarity (on the cards themselves) about what can be negated and what cannot. I don't like being surprised in tournaments when people say things like: "Oh, you can't negate that because of x, y, z..." And, I have heard people argue that Peter (EC) cannot be negated, which is simply not true.
To that point, your suggestion is making unnecessarily complex. Because that would imply that ability modifiers without that text don’t grant themselves that modifier. The only thing to remember is that in general effects that grant modifiers are one of the only effects that are inherently CBN. That means Michael (Wa/Ki/AW) is CBN naturally, No Staw’s granting of CBN or RoP is CBN, Herod’s Temple/Chamber of Angels’ instead is CBN & the limitation on Unholy Writ is CBN by the nature of each of the cards.