Cannot be Negated
Last Updated: 1/3/2018 (v5.0.0)
Released: 7/26/2011
How to Play
● The cannot be negated modifier modifies an ability, making it so that the modified ability cannot be targeted by
any interrupt, prevent or negate effect
I agree with The Guardian. It would be the ability that can’t be targeted, not the card.
Negate effects target the abilities that they negate.
Here's a follow up question: if you can only negate part of a card's ability, can you still take/capture/etc with BSA? Or does he have to negate the WHOLE card to do that?
Example: I target Uriah the Hittite with BSA. It negates his protect ability, but he still makes discard abilities cbn, including his ability that discards himself an an evil character in play when David is in play. Is he a legal target for BSA?
+1Here's a follow up question: if you can only negate part of a card's ability, can you still take/capture/etc with BSA? Or does he have to negate the WHOLE card to do that?
Example: I target Uriah the Hittite with BSA. It negates his protect ability, but he still makes discard abilities cbn, including his ability that discards himself an an evil character in play when David is in play. Is he a legal target for BSA?
It should only need to negate part of it to count as targeting the card for the rest of BSA's ability.
So if a card says ‘negate and capture a hero’ can it target a CBN hero? Because that is how siege army reads to me.
How about if a card says 'capture and negate a hero'. Hero is protected from capture. Can you play it to negate the hero? (hero is not captured either way)
How about if a card says 'capture and negate a hero'. Hero is protected from capture. Can you play it to negate the hero? (hero is not captured either way)
If it said exactly that, you wouldn't be able to. For a similar reason, old DoN ("Discard one active Artifact in play. Artifact's ability is negated.") couldn't target Lampstand of the Sanctuary ("Protect all cards not in battle from evil Dominants (grim-reaper icon cards)."). Since DoN didn't negate before discarding, Lampy was still protected when the discard triggered.
Actually that is exactly my point. How can DoN negate Lampstand if it isn’t targeted by the discard?
And how is that situation different than Siege Army?
Actually that is exactly my point. How can DoN negate Lampstand if it isn’t targeted by the discard?
And how is that situation different than Siege Army?
Because in the case of "Discard and negate a card", the negate doesn't rely on the discard to target.
In the case of "Discard a card. Negate that card" the negate needs the discard to have targeted something otherwise "that card" refers to nothing.
Actually that is exactly my point. How can DoN negate Lampstand if it isn’t targeted by the discard?
And how is that situation different than Siege Army?
Because in the case of "Discard and negate a card", the negate doesn't rely on the discard to target.
In the case of "Discard a card. Negate that card" the negate needs the discard to have targeted something otherwise "that card" refers to nothing.
But he second is what DoN says
And Siege Army has that same bad wording, so should have the same play as.
So to summarize:
1. Negate and X abilities can do the X to CBN cards
2. Play As are not errata but fixing of bad wording, and should be consistent of all cards with that wording.
3. Joseph before Pharoah and DoN have the same bad original wording as Babylonian Siege Army
4. JBP has the Play As: Negate and X
5. Siege Army should also have this Play As
6. Siege Army should be able to do the X to CBN cards
So to summarize:
1. Negate and X abilities can do the X to CBN cards
2. Play As are not errata but fixing of bad wording, and should be consistent of all cards with that wording.
3. Joseph before Pharoah and DoN have the same bad original wording as Babylonian Siege Army
4. JBP has the Play As: Negate and X
5. Siege Army should also have this Play As
6. Siege Army should be able to do the X to CBN cards
Siege Army was made after wording was standardized so the default assumption is that the current wording is intentional. It doesn't require play-as just because cards with similar wording in the past were changed.
So to summarize:
1. Negate and X abilities can do the X to CBN cards
2. Play As are not errata but fixing of bad wording, and should be consistent of all cards with that wording.
3. Joseph before Pharoah and DoN have the same bad original wording as Babylonian Siege Army
4. JBP has the Play As: Negate and X
5. Siege Army should also have this Play As
6. Siege Army should be able to do the X to CBN cards
Siege Army was made after wording was standardized so the default assumption is that the current wording is intentional. It doesn't require play-as just because cards with similar wording in the past were changed.
Just because a card is newer does not mean the same mistakes can’t be made. (Or in the case of BSA I just assume there wasn’t room). Nothing is ‘required’ but I certainly find consistent wording interpretations better for the game as it is a lot less confusing.
Could you target a CBN card in territory that isn't territory class/active with BSA?